Malix v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 537

Date: 20250324

Docket: IMM-100-24

Citation: 2025 FC 537

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

[1] Mr. Dilsher Malik (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of a decision of an officer (the “Officer”), rejecting his application for a work permit. The Officer denied the application on the grounds that the Applicant had not established that he would leave Canada at the end of his stay, as required by subsection 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227.

[2] The Applicant is a citizen of India. On August 21, 2023, he applied for a work permit from outside Canada, for employment as a General Farm Worker in British Columbia.

[3] The Officer found that the Applicant’s compensation and financial situation were insufficient to support his stated purpose of travel.

[4] The Applicant argues that the Officer’s assessment of his financial situation was unreasonable. He alleges that the Officer failed to consider some of the financial evidence he submitted.

[5] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) argues that the Officer reasonably reviewed the evidence submitted by the Applicant and reasonably denied his application.

[6] Following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision of the Officer is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.

[7] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.

[8] Upon reviewing the material and considering the submissions of the parties, I am not persuaded that the decision is unreasonable.

[9] An Officer is mandated to assess the personal assets, financial status, and compensation for working in Canada when determining whether an applicant has sufficient assets to settle in Canada; see the decision in Vergel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 873.

[10] In my opinion, the Officer reasonably concluded that the Applicant had not provided the required evidence to establish his financial means.

[11] There is no basis for judicial intervention and this application for judicial review will be dismissed.

[12] The Applicant was given the opportunity to submit proposed questions for certification.

[13] By letter dated December 5, 2024, the Applicant submitted the following question for certification:

When assessing whether a work permit applicant has sufficient personal assets and financial status to prove to a visa officer that he will return to his home country at the end of his stay, is the visa officer required to take into consideration the applicant’s job offer and the nature of the job he will be performing in Canada?

[14] The Respondent filed his response to this proposed question by letter dated December 10, 2024 and opposed certification, on the basis that the proposed question did not meet the test for certification as discussed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Liyanagamage, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1637 (F.C.A.), at paragraph 21, as follows:

… a question cannot be certified unless it is determinative of the appeal and transcends the interests of the immediate parties to the litigation such that it has general application…

[15] The Applicant, by way of a letter dated December 12, 2024, replied to the Respondent’s submissions.

[16] Subsection 74(d) of the Act provides as follows:

[17] I agree with the position of the Respondent, that the proposed question does not meet the test for certification.

[18] There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-100-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed.

There is no question for certification.

"E. Heneghan"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: