LMIA Language Rule Sinks Work Permit: Court Upholds Refusal
- Citation
- 2026 FC 1092
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-3558-25
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Sina Varasteh Nobari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1092
An Iranian national applied for a work permit as a construction labourer, supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The immigration officer refused the application, citing the applicant's failure to provide proof of English language proficiency, which was an express requirement of the LMIA.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when an LMIA explicitly requires language proficiency, an applicant's failure to provide any evidence to that effect is a sufficient and standalone reason for refusal.
Key Quote from the Court
The express requirements of the LMIA in connection with which the applicant submitted his work permit application included verbal and written proficiency in English. It was not unreasonable for the officer to conclude, in the absence of any evidence of the applicant's proficiency in English, that the applicant had not shown that he met this requirement and that he therefore did not meet the requirements for obtaining a work permit. (at para 7)
Expert Takeaways
-
LMIA Conditions are Mandatory The requirements listed on a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) are not suggestions; they are binding conditions. If an LMIA states that English proficiency is required, the applicant must provide concrete proof, regardless of the perceived language needs of the job itself.
-
A Single Flaw Can Be Fatal This case demonstrates that a single, well-founded reason for refusal can make the entire decision reasonable. Even if an applicant could successfully challenge other grounds for refusal, failing to meet a clear statutory or LMIA requirement is enough to sink the application.
-
The Burden of Proof is on the Applicant It is the applicant's responsibility to provide a complete application that addresses all stated requirements. An officer is not obligated to request missing information or overlook clear deficiencies. Assuming a requirement will be waived is a critical error.
-
Don't Argue with the LMIA's Terms The applicant's argument that the job of a labourer did not require language skills was irrelevant. The Court focused solely on the fact that the LMIA, the foundational document for the application, did require it. The terms of the LMIA must be met as written.
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.
Refused for misrepresentation or credibility?
These findings can be challenged at the Federal Court. Speak with an immigration litigator today.
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 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
Federal Court Upholds Work Permit Refusal for Insufficient Ties to Home Country
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)