Date: 20260610

Docket: IMM-16653-24

Citation: 2026 FC 770

Ottawa, Ontario, June 10, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

I. Overview

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the “Officer”) dated September 9, 2024, that refused the Applicant’s, Sangeen Khan, application for a temporary work permit because the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay, as required by paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”) (“the Decision”).

[2] The Applicant argues that the Decision is not reasonable because it was based on irrelevant and extraneous criteria. In particular, the Applicant argues that the Officer’s conclusions that the proposed temporary work was not a “logical career progression” was not reasonable. Further, that the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant would not depart Canada at the end of his stay was not reasonable.

[3] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable and that it was open to the Officer to conclude that the Applicant may not leave Canada at the end of his stay. The Respondent argues that this Court ought to defer to the Officer’s expertise in this matter, as the Applicant is seeking for this Court to re-weigh the evidence, which is not proper on an application for judicial review.

[4] For the reasons that follow, this application is granted.

II. Background

[5] The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. The Applicant is married and has two children.

[6] The Applicant is well educated, having earned a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the National University of Sciences and Technology; a Master of Science in Marketing from Emlyon Business School; and a Master of Business Administration from the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

[7] On January 30, 2024, the Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) of the Maple Leaf Daycare, Preschool and Education Centre Inc (“Maple Leaf Daycare”) was approved. The Applicant was the temporary foreign worker named in the LMIA for the position of Administrative Assistant. The LMIA specifies that the qualifications for the position are that the temporary foreign worker must have completed secondary/high school and possess intermediate oral and written proficiency in English.

[8] The Applicant has accumulated work experience from a range of positions he has held in Pakistan. He worked as an Administration Officer with Agror Pharma (Private) Limited from October 2011 to July 2012. He subsequently joined Nestlé Pakistan, where he held several positions between July 2014 and June 2022, including Area Sales Manager (Peshawar and Islamabad), Trade Marketing Manager (Lahore), and Regional Sales Manager (Islamabad). From August 2022 to June 2024, he was employed by Shan Foods (Private) Limited, where he served in a number of roles, including National Rural Development Manager, Zonal Manager, and Head of Modern Trade.

[9] On June 19, 2024, the Applicant applied for a temporary work permit.

[10] On September 9, 2024, the Applicant’s application was denied. The letter setting out the Decision states:

… I am refusing your application because you have not established that you will leave Canada based on the following factors:

The purpose of your visit is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.

[11] The Global Case Management System (“GCMS”) notes, which form part of the reasons, the Officer states:

… I have considered the following factors in my decision. The purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. Applicant is stated to have MBA and recent/current employment titles including National Rural Development Manager, Zonal Manager and Area Sales Manager. Applicant is earning a high wage in Pakistan and is requesting a work permit to work as an Administrative Assistant at a daycare. The applicant hasn’t shown the value added of pursuing the position in Canada given that they already work at a higher level and earn a high wage in their current position. I am not satisfied that this is a logical career progression. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.

[12] The Applicant filed the current application for leave and judicial review on October 8, 2024.

III. Issues and Standard of Review

[13] The parties submit, and I agree, that the applicable standard of review applicable to the Decision in this case is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 25, 86).

[14] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at paras 12-15, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 85).

[15] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).

[16] The sole issue in this application is, was the Officer’s decision reasonable?

IV. Analysis

[17] The Applicant argues that the Decision is not reasonable because the Officer focused on irrelevant or extraneous criteria – namely that he is overqualified for the position and did not properly consider evidence of his ties to Pakistan.

[18] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable. The Respondent noted that foreign nationals seeking entry into Canada are presumed to be seeking to immigrate permanently, and applicants seeking temporary status have the onus to rebut this presumption.

[19] Further, the Respondent notes that it is not the role of this Court on an application for judicial review to reweigh the evidence. I agree.

[20] Paragraph 200(1)(b) of the IRPR sets out that an applicant applying for a temporary work permit must demonstrate that they “will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.” Paragraph 200(3)(a) of the IRPR states that an officer shall not issue a work permit if “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought”.

[21] The Officer found that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay. The Officer noted that the Applicant had not demonstrated the “value added” for pursing a lower-level position in Canada and concluded that the Applicant’s proposed temporary work application was not “a logical career progression.” As noted in the Respondent’s memorandum of argument, “it did not make sense for him [the Applicant] to leave his well-paying managerial level job in Pakistan to work as an administrative assistant in Canada”.

[22] The Applicant did not dispute that the Administrative Assistant position with Maple Leaf Daycare is a lower-level position from his current position with Shan Food. However, the Applicant notes that he has the necessary skills required for the position as set out in the LMIA. The Applicant also noted he has previously held a similar position in Pakistan.

[23] In addition, the Applicant submitted supporting documentation with his application. The evidence demonstrated that his employment with Maple Leaf Daycare would result in an increase in earnings of approximately $1,000 per month, while involving fewer responsibilities than his previous position. Accordingly, there was an incentive for him to accept the employment opportunity.

[24] I agree with the Respondent; that officers’ decisions are entitled to deference given their expertise and training. However, an officer’s reasons must demonstrate that the officer grappled with the applicable factual and legal matrix.

[25] In the present case, the reasons for the Decision indicate that the Officer did not consider the temporary work position a “logical career progression”. However, I note that this Court has cautioned Officers to stay within their area of expertise and not to “foray into career counselling”; Naserikarimvand v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 757 at para 23. In this case, while it is not disputed that the Applicant is seeking to take a temporary position in Canada at a lower level, the evidence in support of his application suggested that there were still some valid financial incentives to seek this position. The Decision does not address this evidence.

[26] I am persuaded by the Applicant’s submission that there is nothing in the IRPR which prohibits the issuance of a work permit where the applicant is allegedly over-qualified. Further, I agree with the Applicant that the focus of the Officer’s analysis should have been on the Applicant’s ability to fulfil the educational requirements of the position as set out in the LMIA. The reasons for the Decision do not suggest that the Applicant does not have the necessary qualifications to perform the job.

[27] The Applicant goes on to argue that the Officer’s finding that the Applicant’s over-qualification for the position places him at greater risk for an over-stay is unintelligible.

[28] A review of the record for this application indicates that in support of his application, the Applicant submitted the following evidence to demonstrate a level of establishment in Pakistan:

• -Savings and funds for settlement in Canada in the amount of $31,000. 00 Canadian;

• -Familial ties in Pakistan – his wife, children, and parents;

• -Police Clearance certificate – showing no criminal record; and

• -A resume of his work history in Pakistan.

[29] Further, as noted above, while the position of Administrative Assistant is a lower-level position than he currently holds in Pakistan, there is evidence that his salary will increase by approximately $1000.00 Canadian per month. Accordingly, there is a valid economic motive for him to pursue this opportunity despite the level of the position.

[30] As was noted by Justice Martineau in Cao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 941 at para 7:

As is the case with virtually all applicants for temporary work permits, there is a financial incentive to work in Canada. This fact cannot be held against an applicant, as to do so would result in the rejection of the vast majority of such applications (Rengasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2009 FC 1229, 86 Imm. L.R. (3d) 106 at paragraph 14). There must be objective reasons to reasonably question the motivation of an applicant. Just to cite a few examples, past immigration attempts, overstaying in other countries, a criminal past, may provide sufficient basis to doubt that an applicant will leave Canada by the end of the authorized period.

[31] The Officer has not set out any objective reasons that would demonstrate that the Applicant is at risk for over-stay. Nor has the Officer engaged with the evidence that sets out the Applicant’s ties to Pakistan, or how that illustrates a risk of over-stay.

V. Conclusion

[32] The Decision is unreasonable because the Officer fails to explain how the Applicant’s alleged over-qualification for the position supports the conclusion that he would be at risk of over-staying a temporary work permit. The Decision does not intelligibly set out the Officer’s chain of logic, nor does it explain the connection between a finding of overqualification and a heightened risk of non-compliance with the terms of the permit.

[33] The parties did not pose a question for certification, and I agree that none arise in this application.

JUDGMENT in IMM-16653-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is granted.

2. No question is certified.

"Julie Blackhawk"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: