Docket: IMM-14570-24
Citation: 2026 FC 823
Vancouver, British Columbia, June 17, 2026
PRESENT: Mr. Justice McHaffie
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
Ajay CHANDER
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] The only issue on this application for judicial review is whether the visa officer who refused Ajay Chander’s application for an employer-specific work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program did so reasonably. For the following reasons, I conclude the visa officer’s decision was reasonable. The application for judicial review must therefore be dismissed.
The applicable standard of review
[2] As the parties agree, the visa officer’s decision is subject to review on the reasonableness standard: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 16–17, 23–25; Soni v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 813 at paras 23–24. When applying this standard, the Court does not substitute its own impressions, assessments, or conclusions for those of the decision maker. Rather, it must review the decision maker’s reasons for decision in light of the record and in their administrative context, to assess whether the decision is reasonable, that is, whether it is internally coherent, transparent, intelligible, and justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints: Vavilov at paras 15, 84–86, 99–107, 125–128.
[3] For decisions on visa applications, this Court has underscored that visa officers are not required to provide extensive reasons given the administrative context. However, the reasons must be sufficient, when read in light of the record, to explain the result the visa officer reached: Ekpenyong v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2019 FC 1245 at para 13; Yuzer v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 781 at paras 9, 20.
Mr. Chander’s visa application
[4] Mr. Chander wishes to work at a restaurant in Port Alberni, British Columbia, which offered him a job as a kitchen helper following a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment. Mr. Chander’s work permit application included information about his education at home in India and abroad in Singapore, his current employment at a restaurant in the United Arab Emirates [UAE], his financial position, and his family. His application also included a submission letter from an immigration consultant, who briefly summarized the labour shortage in British Columbia’s restaurant industry, Mr. Chander’s qualifications for the position, and his eligibility for a work permit.
The visa officer’s decision
[5] As set out in the formal letter refusing Mr. Chander’s work permit application, the visa officer was not satisfied Mr. Chander 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 visa officer raised concerns about Mr. Chander’s family ties outside Canada; his current employment situation and financial establishment in his country of residence; and his immigration status outside his country of nationality. The visa officer’s notes in the Global Case Management System [GCMS] maintained by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, which form part of their reasons for decision, explain their rationale in the following terms:
I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada. While I note the applicant’s employment letters, I have concerns and am not satisfied the applicant has adequately demonstrated based on income, savings and assets that they are well established or have strong ties to their home country/country of residence. On balance, I consider the benefit to the applicant remaining in Canada beyond the authorized period to outweigh their ties to home. R200 not met. The applicant’s current employment situation does not show that they are financially established in their country of residence. Based on the applicant’s immigration status outside their country of nationality or habitual residence, I am not satisfied that they will leave Canada at the end of their stay as a temporary resident. 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.
The decision was reasonable
[6] Mr. Chander takes issue with three aspects of the visa officer’s decision (1) the reference to him not having “significant family ties”
; (2) the officer’s conclusions regarding his financial establishment and current employment situation; and (3) the officer’s reference to his immigration status. For the following reasons, I am not satisfied that these arguments, considered individually or cumulatively, show the decision to be unreasonable.
(1) Family ties
[7] Mr. Chander first points to the visa officer’s statement that he “does not have significant family ties outside of Canada.”
He argues that this statement is unreasonable, noting that his mother and sister continue to live in India, while his father lives in Romania. He points to this Court’s decision in Kamikawa, in which an officer’s failure to address strong family ties—two parents and two sisters in the applicant’s home country—was considered as one omission, among others, rendering the work permit refusal unreasonable: Kamikawa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 873 at paras 24–28.
[8] A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that a visa officer’s conclusion that an applicant does not have “significant family ties outside of Canada”
is not invariably unreasonable simply because the applicant has family members in their country of origin. Whether such a conclusion is reasonable, when reviewed in light of the record, will depend on the particular evidence and submissions made in the visa application, and the visa officer’s overall reasons. This is to be expected, as a central element of reasonableness review is an assessment of whether a decision maker’s reasons for decision respond to the evidence and submissions actually made to them: Vavilov at paras 125–128.
[9] For example, this Court has recently found the same conclusion reasonable where a work permit applicant, who was single and had resided away from family for a number of years, had not provided any evidence of their relationship to establish that his family would act as a “pull”
factor supporting their return after the expiry of a work permit: Dorrazaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 3 at paras 7, 23–32. Similarly, a conclusion that an applicant did not have significant family ties outside Canada was held reasonable where an applicant for a temporary resident visa had simply stated that her parents “will remain in India at this time”
: Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 766 at paras 14–15.
[10] Conversely, the Court found such a conclusion insufficient to show a justified engagement with the evidence when an applicant’s application showed that she was still living at home with her parents: Wasal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 322 at paras 7–9. Similarly, where an application not only showed the presence of relatives in the country of origin, but also included evidence and submissions as to why the applicant would return to them for emotional and/or financial reasons, the simple statement that the applicant “does not have significant family ties outside Canada”
was considered inadequate to explain why the evidence was insufficient: Soltan Mohammadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 682 at paras 2, 31; Gill v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 320 at paras 4–8, 16–21.
[11] In the present case, Mr. Chander’s application form listed his mother and sister in India and his father in Romania. However, he provided neither evidence regarding his relationships with his family in terms of personal or financial interdependence, nor submissions regarding how his family ties would draw him to return to India. Moreover, his application showed that he had already been separated from his family for a few years, residing and working abroad. In this regard, the evidence Mr. Chander now provides to this Court on these issues cannot be considered in assessing the reasonableness of the visa officer’s conclusions: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 20.
[12] I conclude that in the present circumstances, the visa officer’s assessment of Mr. Chander’s family ties outside Canada is reasonable when read in light of the record. I cannot agree with the applicant that his situation is akin to that in Kamikawa, where the visa officer was entirely silent on strong family ties, or that in Pal, where the visa officer’s entire reasoning boiled down to a single sentence indicating that they were “not satisfied with the [principal applicant’s] level of establishment in home country, his ties to home country”
despite substantial evidence of financial and family connections: Kamikawa at para 26; Pal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1004 at paras 3, 5–6, 9, 14–17.
[13] Rather, the situation is factually analogous to that in Dorrazaei, both in terms of Mr. Chander’s underlying personal situation and in terms of the lack of evidence or submissions put before the visa officer regarding the nature of the family ties drawing him to return to India in circumstances where he had already been away from home for many years. As was the case in Dorrazaei, given the limited information on the record regarding the extent and nature of Mr. Chander’s family ties in India, it was open to the visa officer to conclude that he had shown no significant family ties outside Canada that would demonstrate that he would leave at the end of his authorized stay: Dorrazaei at paras 28–31, citing Sadiq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 at para 22; Perez Pena v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 796 at paras 13, 15.
(2) Financial establishment and current employment
[14] Mr. Chander next challenges the visa officer’s statements that he had not demonstrated, based on his income, savings, and assets, that he was well established in India or in the UAE, where he currently resides. He contends that while there is certainly financial incentive to work in Canada compared to India or the UAE, this is necessarily the case for those applying for temporary work permits, and cannot alone justify refusing an application: Rengasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1229 at para 14.
[15] I agree with Mr. Chander that the economic incentive to work in Canada cannot alone justify refusing a work permit: Ul Zaman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 268 at paras 53, 55. However, the visa officer did not refuse Mr. Chander’s work permit application based solely on such economic incentive. Rather, they considered this factor together with the other factors relevant to Mr. Chander’s personal situation as set out in his application, to assess whether they were satisfied that he would leave Canada after his authorized stay. This is what paragraph 200(1)(b) of the IRPR required the visa officer to do, and it is not unreasonable to consider the financial incentive to remain in Canada as one factor among others in the analysis: Xie v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1239 at paras 15–16, citing Huang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 145 at para 9.
[16] Mr. Chander further argues that due to his young age, it is not surprising that he does not have significant tangible assets or extensive savings in his own name so as to be fully financially established either in India or in the UAE. This may be so, but it does not mean that it is not a relevant factor for the visa officer to consider in their overall assessment of Mr. Chander’s application.
[17] Mr. Chander also contends that the financial incentives to remain in Canada do not outweigh his ties to India, where he was born, studied, and has family. However, this weighing—i.e., the assessment of whether Mr. Chander had demonstrated that the “pull”
factors back to India outweighed the “push”
factors that might lead him to remain in Canada after his authorized stay—was the task that the visa officer was mandated to perform. It is not for this Court on judicial review to simply undertake a reweighing of such factors: Vavilov at para 125.
(3) Immigration status
[18] Finally, Mr. Chander takes issue with the visa officer’s reference to his immigration status outside his country of nationality or habitual residence. He notes that since January 2022, he has maintained valid and legal status in the UAE and has no criminal record in either India or the UAE. He also points out that he provided all of the documents as required by the relevant checklist for a work permit application.
[19] These arguments do not undermine the reasonableness of the decision. As the Minister notes, the visa officer was clearly alive to Mr. Chander’s current temporary worker status in the UAE—which would end if he left the UAE for Canada—and reasonably took it into account in undertaking the assessment of his personal circumstances required by paragraph 200(1)(a) of the IRPR. Further, the existence of a visa office checklist does not change the requirement of the IRPR that an applicant satisfy a visa officer that they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay, a requirement Mr. Chander did not meet.
Conclusion
[20] Mr. Chander has not satisfied me that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the visa officer’s decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency: Vavilov at para 100. The application for judicial review must therefore be dismissed.
[21] Neither party proposed a question for certification pursuant to paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. I agree that no serious question of general importance is involved in the matter.
Email this Content