Docket: IMM-16472-23
Citation: 2025 FC 329
Toronto, Ontario, February 19, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed
BETWEEN: |
ATHALYN CLAUDIA CADOUGAN |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered orally from the bench on February 19, 2025, and subject to stylistic, editorial, and syntax edits, as well as reference to jurisprudence and legal citations)
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a visa officer’s refusal of her application for a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, pursuant to section 183 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. She arrived in Canada and submitted a refugee claim in 2009, seeking protection from the abusive ex-partner of her niece. Her claim was refused.
[3] Over the next 14 years, the Applicant submitted several applications for permanent residence and one application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. She was repeatedly defrauded by immigration consultants and her applications were refused.
[4] On April 6, 2023, this Court granted judicial review of the Applicant’s last application for permanent residence. Shortly afterward, the Applicant voluntarily complied with a removal order which had been issued against her during the court proceedings, departing Canada on April 11, 2023.
[5] In November 2023, the Applicant applied for a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
[6] In December 2023, the Applicant’s work permit application was refused. Based on the Applicant’s immigration history, the officer determined she would not leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
[7] The sole issue in this application for judicial review is whether the refusal decision is reasonable (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 99 (“
Vavilov”
)). I find it is not.
[8] The officer disregarded the Applicant’s submissions. In her work permit application, the Applicant included submissions for an Authorization to Return to Canada (“ARC”
). These materials addressed labour market shortages, the specialized services required by the Applicant’s employer, and the Applicant’s unique suitability for her position. Unlike in Arias Bravo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 411, “the ARC submissions were,”
in this case, “directly relevant to [the officer’s] task in assessing the work permit application”
(at para 16). Although the officer referenced the ARC in dismissing the Applicant’s application, they did not engage with the Applicant’s ARC submissions. I agree with the Applicant that the reasons do not contain an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”
leading from the ARC to the refusal (Vavilov at para 85).
[9] Moreover, the officer’s determination that the Applicant would overstay is not justified in light of the record (Vavilov at para 126). The officer’s conclusion was based on the fact that “the [A]pplicant, during the [14 years] she remained in [Canada]…exhausted many [immigration] pathways.”
However, like the applicant in Murai v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 186 (“
Murai”
), the Applicant in this case also “left as required by law once she had exhausted all her legal options,”
“did not go underground or try to stay in Canada by illegal means,”
“obeyed her removal notice, appeared at the airport voluntarily, and departed”
in April 2023 (at para 12). Although the Applicant once failed to appear for removal in October 2017, she acknowledged and addressed this issue in her submissions, stating she did so due to “immense fear.”
These factors are not addressed in the officer’s reasons. Given the clear evidence on the record that the Applicant had voluntarily complied with a removal order in the past, I find that the officer’s assessment on this issue is unintelligible and not justified (Vavilov at paras 85, 126).
[10] I also find the officer erred with respect to dual intent. Pursuant to subsection 22(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, it is a reviewable error to conflate an intention to seek permanent status with an intention to overstay (Murai at para 11; Mundangepfupfu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1220 at para 13). The officer in this proceeding fell into this precise error.
[11] For these reasons, I find the officer’s decision unreasonable. This application for judicial review is granted.
Email this Content