Background
Navdeep Verma, an Indian national residing in Canada, applied for an LMIA-exempt work permit to work as a food service supervisor (NOC 62020) with Domino Pizza. The NOC classification for that role mandates either completion of a community college program in food service administration, hotel and restaurant management, or a related discipline, or several years of experience in food preparation or service. When Verma filed his application, he was out of status and simultaneously sought restoration of his immigration status.
In support of his application, Verma submitted only his previous work permit and a prospective employment contract. His application referenced a post-graduate diploma from Conestoga College but did not specify the field of study, and he provided no diploma, transcripts, experience letters, pay stubs, or T4s. His work history showed one year of employment with the same employer as an assistant manager — not several years, and not in a food preparation or service capacity specifically documented to meet the NOC threshold.
On December 11, 2024, the immigration officer refused the work permit on the basis that Verma had not demonstrated he could perform the duties of the position, noting the absence of educational credentials in a relevant field or evidence of several years of qualifying experience. Because the restoration application was contingent on the work permit, it was refused as well. Verma applied to the Federal Court for judicial review.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Azmudeh dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer’s decision reasonable and procedurally fair. Applying the reasonableness standard from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the Court held that the officer’s analysis was internally coherent, intelligible, transparent, and justified in relation to the facts and the governing NOC requirements.
The Court rejected Verma’s argument that the officer improperly conflated general NOC employment requirements with the specific requirements of the LMIA. Relying on Guitang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 835, the Court distinguished between mandatory NOC requirements (listed as “required”) and non-mandatory ones (“usually required”). Because the relevant NOC 62020 requirement used unqualified mandatory language, the officer was entitled to treat it as a condition precedent to issuance. The Court further held that the officer did not ignore the one year of experience with Domino Pizza but reasonably concluded it fell short of the “several years” the NOC demands.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant for an LMIA-exempt work permit must provide positive evidence satisfying each mandatory NOC employment requirement; the absence of educational credentials or proof of sufficient years of experience is a lawful ground for refusal.
- Under Guitang, courts distinguish between “required” and “usually required” NOC language: where requirements are stated without qualification, officers may treat them as mandatory conditions precedent.
- One year of experience with a prospective employer does not satisfy a NOC requirement for “several years” of qualifying experience, even where the employer wishes to rehire the applicant in the same role.
- A restoration application that depends on a refused work permit will itself be refused; applicants who are out of status must satisfy the underlying permit conditions before restoration can be granted.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that work permit applicants bear a positive evidentiary burden to demonstrate they meet each mandatory NOC requirement at the time of application. Submitting only a prior work permit and an employment contract — without diplomas, transcripts, reference letters, pay stubs, or T4s — will not discharge that burden, even where the applicant previously held the same role with the same employer.
For immigration practitioners, the decision clarifies how to read Guitang: that case protects applicants from officers who misapply optional NOC criteria as mandatory, but it provides no shield where the NOC language itself is unambiguously mandatory. Counsel should ensure clients supply documentary proof aligned to each “required” element of the applicable NOC before filing.