LMIA Work Permit Refusal Upheld by Federal Court

The Federal Court has upheld an LMIA Work Permit Refusal for a Mauritian applicant seeking to work as a cook. The Court found that the visa officer reasonably relied on the secondary-school education requirement listed in the Labour Market Impact Assessment after the applicant did not provide proof that he had completed secondary school.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Loyeung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1360; Court file IMM-9733-25.
• Decision date & judge: November 5, 2026, by the Honourable Madam Justice Ekaterina Tsimberis.
• Issue: The applicant challenged the refusal of his work permit application, arguing that the officer improperly treated secondary school as a mandatory requirement despite his cooking experience.
• Outcome: The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no question of general importance was certified.

Officer relied on the LMIA education requirement

An IRCC visa officer refused the applicant's work permit application on February 25, 2025, finding that he had not demonstrated that he could adequately perform the proposed cook position because of insufficient educational requirements.

The officer's GCMS notes stated that completion of secondary school was required under the LMIA and National Occupational Classification requirements. The applicant had not provided evidence of education credentials for the position.

Justice Tsimberis noted that the applicable NOC described completion of secondary school as “usually required,” which did not itself create a mandatory condition. However, the LMIA's Annex A identified “Secondary School” as the education requirement. The Court found there was no dispute that the applicant had not submitted proof of completing secondary school, such as transcripts or a diploma.

Court distinguished prior work permit decisions

The applicant relied on an earlier Federal Court decision in which an officer unreasonably treated an NOC requirement described as “usually required” as mandatory. Justice Tsimberis found that case distinguishable because the officer in Loyeung relied not only on the NOC, but also on the express education requirement in the LMIA.

The Court also distinguished another decision involving a meat-cutter applicant with several years of experience. In that matter, experience was not required under the NOC or LMIA, which indicated that on-the-job training was usually provided. In Loyeung, the LMIA for the cook position included an education requirement.

The applicant argued that his more than 10 years of experience as a cook should have demonstrated his ability to perform the work. The Court found that this submission asked it to reassess and reweigh the evidence by prioritizing work experience over the stated educational qualification.

Reasonableness review and the result

The sole issue before the Court was whether the officer's decision was unreasonable. Justice Tsimberis held that the decision had the required justification, transparency and intelligibility.

The Court found that the officer was entitled to consider the LMIA's secondary-school requirement when assessing whether the applicant could perform the proposed work. It also rejected the argument that the officer had fettered discretion by doing so.

The judgment states that NOC requirements and LMIAs are guidelines that can assist visa officers in exercising discretion. On the facts of this application, the Court found it was not unreasonable to conclude that the applicant had not established that he met the LMIA education requirement.

The Court dismissed the judicial review application. It noted that the applicant remains free to submit a new work permit application with all required documentation.

Practical significance

This decision turns on the LMIA associated with this application and the absence of proof of the education listed in it. The Court did not find that an NOC statement saying education is “usually required” automatically creates a mandatory requirement.

For LMIA-supported work permit applications, the judgment illustrates the importance of submitting documentation addressing the qualifications identified in the relevant LMIA. The decision is a Federal Court ruling on this record and does not itself grant or refuse a work permit.

Source: Federal Court Decisions