From Denial to Decision: A Work Permit Triumph in the Federal Court

August 15, 2025

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 227

For anyone navigating the complexities of Canadian immigration, especially under the International Mobility Program, the recent Federal Court decision in Gurwinderpal Singh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2025 FC 130 offers crucial insights. This isn’t just another legal brief; it’s a compelling narrative of a work permit refusal overturned, illustrating the Federal Court’s commitment to procedural fairness and a holistic review of an applicant’s circumstances. Dive in to understand the implications for future applications.

The Applicant's Journey

Mr. Singh, an Indian citizen, applied for an open work permit to join his spouse in Canada. His application was refused on January 18, 2024, due to concerns regarding his past immigration non-compliance in the United States, where he had entered illegally, sought asylum, and was deported. The immigration officer determined this history indicated he might not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

In April 2023, Mr. Singh had previously been denied a temporary resident visa and work permit. Rather than pursuing judicial review at that time, he submitted a fresh application addressing earlier concerns. However, this second application was also refused on similar grounds, prompting the judicial review.

The Core Legal Questions

  1. Whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable considering the evidence provided.
  2. Whether past non-compliance with U.S. immigration laws was a valid basis for refusal.
  3. Whether procedural fairness was upheld in the Officer’s decision-making process.

Guiding Precedents and Cited Cases

  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 – Established reasonableness as the standard of review.
  • Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 270 – Confirmed that work permit refusals should be assessed under the reasonableness standard.
  • Bains v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 57 – Addressed how immigration history is considered in work permit refusals.
  • Murai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 186 – Evaluated an applicant’s likelihood to comply with Canadian immigration laws.
  • Palogan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 889 – Stated that officers must assess whether an applicant will return to their home country if their permit is not extended.

The Federal Court's Verdict

    1. Unreasonable Decision-Making: The Officer relied too heavily on Mr. Singh’s past deportation from the U.S. without considering his present circumstances, such as family ties, property, and employment prospects.
    2. Failure to Weigh Positive Factors: The Officer did not balance Mr. Singh’s past immigration infraction against his evidence supporting compliance with Canadian immigration laws.
    3. Procedural Fairness: While fairness obligations in work permit applications are minimal, the Officer failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned decision that considered all factors.

What This Ruling Means for Immigration Practice

  1. For Immigration Applicants: This decision reinforces that immigration officers must assess an applicant’s complete profile rather than focusing solely on a single negative factor.
  2. For Immigration Officers: Officers must ensure that their decisions provide adequate reasoning and reflect a balanced assessment of all relevant evidence.
  3. For Legal Practitioners: The case sets a precedent for challenging refusals based on an unbalanced assessment of immigration history.

Conclusion

The ruling highlights the importance of fair and balanced decision-making in immigration cases. It underscores that while past immigration non-compliance is a relevant factor, it should not be the sole basis for refusal. The case was remitted for reconsideration, ensuring Mr. Singh receives a proper evaluation of his eligibility for a work permit.