Work Permit Refusal Upheld: Public Policy Requirements are Strict
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1173
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-5485-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Taduvayai v. Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship), 2025 FC 1173
The applicant, an Indian citizen, sought judicial review of an IRCC decision that denied her application for an open work permit and restoration of temporary resident status, after her Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) expired and a prior renewal attempt failed due to a missing biometrics fee receipt.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court emphasized the applicant's failure to follow instructions for applying under the specific Temporary Public Policy (TPP).
Key Quote from the Court
I find that, beyond the bald assertion of the Applicant, there is no evidence whatsoever that her application for a work permit was undertaken pursuant to the TPP policy or that she had otherwise requested consideration under that policy. She did not indicate in her application that she was seeking to have the work permit extended under the TPP, in contravention of the requirements and instructions in the TPP mandating that applicants must specify that they were applying under the policy. (at para 29)
Expert Takeaways
-
Strict Adherence to Policy Instructions Applicants must meticulously follow all instructions for temporary public policies (TPPs), including specific phrasing or checkboxes, as failure to do so can lead to an application being assessed under standard, more stringent regulations.
-
Burden of Proof on Applicant It is the applicant's responsibility to clearly demonstrate eligibility for a specific program or policy within their application. Simply submitting during the policy's operational period is insufficient without explicit indication.
-
No LMIA Exemption Without Proper Application Unless an application is correctly submitted under a policy offering an LMIA exemption (like certain PGWP TPPs), the standard requirement for a Labour Market Impact Assessment remains in effect for open work permits.
-
Procedural Fairness Requires Clear Grounds for Challenge Claims of procedural unfairness must be clearly articulated and substantiated. Generic or misplaced arguments regarding previous refusal letters are unlikely to succeed in challenging a subsequent, distinct decision.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Facing an immigration refusal?
Talk to a Federal Court lawyer about challenging the decision through judicial review.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Work Permit rulings
Federal Court Upholds Misrepresentation Finding from Single Verification Call
Federal Court Upholds Refusal: Weak Ties Doom Family Reunification Visas
Federal Court Overturns Work Permit Refusal, Citing Lack of Proper Analysis
Federal Court: IRCC Cannot Repeat Flawed Reasoning in Redetermination
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)