In Work Permit Refusal, Singh v. Canada, 2026 FC 1147, the Federal Court dismissed a judicial review application after finding that an immigration officer reasonably concluded the applicant had not shown he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. The decision was issued on September 11, 2026.
Officer refused the work permit on two grounds
Jaskirat Singh, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a February 25, 2025 decision refusing his work permit application. The officer found that he had not met mandatory job-description requirements and that there was insufficient evidence of his ties to and establishment in India.
The officer’s refusal rested on two distinct findings: that Singh had not shown he could adequately perform the proposed work, and that his financial circumstances, ties to India and establishment in India did not satisfy the officer that he would depart Canada at the end of the authorized period.
Departure assessment was sufficient to uphold refusal
Madam Justice Azmudeh held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness. Although the Court agreed that the officer’s reasons concerning Singh’s ability to perform the proposed work were unresponsive to the totality of the evidence and therefore unreasonable, it found that this was not determinative of the judicial review.
The Court concluded that the separate assessment of Singh’s ties to and establishment in India was reasonable and independently supported the refusal. Under subsection 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, work permit applicants have a positive obligation to establish that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
Singh had provided no evidence of assets or available funds in his own name. He relied instead on assets owned by his father and submitted that the officer should have assumed he would eventually inherit them. The Court found it was reasonable for the officer not to speculate about that eventuality.
The evidence also showed that Singh had two sisters in Canada, that his mother had died and that he lived with his elderly widowed father. Singh argued that, as his father’s only son, cultural expectations meant he was responsible for caring for him. The Court found the officer was not required to make that assumption without supporting evidence about their relationship.
Court found no procedural fairness breach
Singh also alleged procedural unfairness. However, the Court noted that his fairness arguments concerned the officer’s conclusion that he could perform the job, rather than the separate and determinative departure issue.
The Court found no argument or record evidence showing a procedural fairness breach in the officer’s assessment of Singh’s ties to and establishment in India. It held that the officer’s reasons on that issue showed a clear and logical chain of reasoning and were transparent and justifiable.
The Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The parties did not propose a certified question, and the Court found that none arose.
Practical significance
This decision illustrates that, on judicial review, an unreasonable finding on one aspect of a work permit refusal may not change the outcome where another independent and reasonable ground supports the decision. In this case, the officer’s conclusion that Singh had not established he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay was sufficient to sustain the refusal.
Source: Federal Court Decisions