Dockets: IMM-13613-23
IMM-13612-23
IMM-13602-23
Citation: 2025 FC 457
Montréal, Quebec, March 11, 2025
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond
Docket: IMM-13613-23
|
BETWEEN:
|
VON IAN VARGAS DELA CRUZ
|
Applicant
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
Docket: IMM-13612-23
|
AND BETWEEN:
|
MICHELLE FE SANDEJAS DELA CRUZ
|
Applicant
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
Docket: IMM-13602-23
|
AND BETWEEN:
|
IZIAH MADISON SANDEJAS DELA CRUZ
|
Applicant
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The applicants, who are citizens of the Philippines, are seeking judicial review of the refusal of work or study permits. The principal applicant, Mr. Dela Cruz, was denied a work permit to work as a quality assurance specialist for Evolving Web, a website design company located in Montreal. His wife was denied an open spousal work permit and his daughter, a study permit.
[2] Mr. Dela Cruz’s application was denied because the visa officer was not satisfied he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. In his reasons, the officer noted that Mr. Dela Cruz did not have significant ties outside Canada and had limited employment opportunities in the Philippines. To support this second determination, the officer noted that Mr. Dela Cruz had failed to provide evidence of his assertion that he has been employed in the Philippines.
[3] Mr. Dela Cruz now argues that the visa officer should have considered two letters from his previous employers in the Philippines. He concedes that he did not file these letters with his application. Nevertheless, he submits that these letters were attached to his employer’s application for a labour market impact assessment [LMIA] and to his own application for a Certificat d’acceptation du Québec [CAQ]. He argues that the visa officer should have communicated with Employment and Social Development Canada [ESDC] or with Quebec’s Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration [MIFI] in order to clarify perceived gaps in his application. In doing this, the officer would have learned of the existence of the two letters. Mr. Dela Cruz relies on ministerial guidelines that encourage visa officers to communicate with ESDC and on this Court’s decision in Jandu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1787 [Jandu].
[4] I disagree with Mr. Dela Cruz. It is trite law that an applicant has the onus of providing the visa officer with sufficient evidence with respect to all the relevant criteria, including the applicant’s willingness to leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay. A visa officer is not required to give notice of shortcomings of the application in respect of the statutory criteria.
[5] It is true that in some cases involving an LMIA, the information relevant to certain criteria may be in the possession of the employer, not the employee. For instance, the issue in Jandu pertained to the genuineness of the employment offer, and the employer rather than the applicant could provide relevant documentation to establish that it extended a real offer. In such circumstances, a visa officer may in practice be required to communicate with ESDC.
[6] In this case, in contrast, the issue is the applicant’s willingness to return to the Philippines at the end of his authorized stay. This was not an issue that ESDC had to determine when issuing the LMIA. Nor was it an issue that MIFI had to determine when issuing the CAQ. There was no reason to communicate with ESDC or MIFI in this regard. Nor was any deference due to them in respect of issues that they did not have to decide.
[7] Nor is the decision substantively unreasonable. Mr. Dela Cruz’s mother resides in the United States and his father has passed away. With no evidence of employment in the Philippines, the visa officer could reasonably conclude that there were few incentives for Mr. Dela Cruz to return to the Philippines. Visa officers are not required to provide extensive or detailed reasons. The officer’s reasons in this case are sufficient to allow the Court to understand why the decision was made.
[8] For these reasons, the applications for judicial review will be dismissed.
Email this Content