The Federal Court has dismissed a judicial review application over the refusal of a C11 Work Permit for a proposed Vancouver coffee-roasting business. The Court found it was reasonable for the visa officer to conclude that the applicant had not clearly explained how management of the business would transition so that he could leave Canada at the end of his authorised stay.
Case and application background
In Shirouzhan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1280, Justice Julie Blackhawk considered a challenge to an IRCC visa officer’s February 28, 2025 refusal of an LMIA-exempt temporary work permit application in the C11 category. The Federal Court issued its decision in Ottawa on October 20, 2026.
The applicant had applied on May 28, 2024 under the International Mobility Program, relying on the significant benefit—entrepreneurs/self-employed category in subsection 205(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. He proposed to establish Proshot Coffee Corp., a coffee-roasting business in Vancouver, British Columbia.
The applicant submitted a business plan, a letter addressing the purpose of his visit, employment status, ties to Iran, travel history and finances, along with other supporting material. He argued that the officer had overlooked his business experience, the proposed business’s benefits and his ties outside Canada.
Temporary stay finding was determinative
The parties agreed that the refusal was reviewable on the reasonableness standard. Justice Blackhawk noted that paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Regulations requires a temporary work permit applicant to demonstrate that they will leave Canada by the end of their authorised stay.
The Court accepted that the officer could focus on whether the proposed business was consistent with a temporary stay. For a year-round business, the Court said the applicant needed clear evidence of how he would transition out of managing the business.
Although the applicant pointed to the business plan’s personnel plan during oral argument, the Court found that the plan did not clearly explain how management would move from the applicant to current or anticipated staff as the business developed. On the record, it was open to the officer to find a risk that the applicant might not leave Canada at the end of the authorised period.
The Court also addressed an error concerning the applicant’s experience establishing a business outside his country of origin. The respondent acknowledged that the applicant had established a scuba diving centre in Georgia. However, the Court accepted that this was a minor error and did not undermine the officer’s determinative finding on the temporary nature of the proposed stay.
No procedural unfairness found
The applicant also argued that the officer had relied on extrinsic evidence and failed to consider all submitted evidence. The Court rejected both arguments.
Justice Blackhawk found that the applicant had not clearly identified any extrinsic evidence used by the officer. The reasons in the Global Case Management System notes showed that the officer assessed the application against the applicable legislation and IRCC program delivery instructions.
The Court held that the officer was not required to alert the applicant to shortcomings in the application. Applicants bear the onus of providing supporting evidence and demonstrating that they meet the requirements for the C11 Work Permit.
Application dismissed
The Court concluded that the officer’s reasons were transparent, intelligible and justified. It found no reviewable error or breach of procedural fairness and dismissed the application for judicial review.
No question was certified for appeal. The decision concerns the evidence in this application and does not itself create a general change to C11 Work Permit requirements.
Source: Federal Court Decisions