Background
Agamdeep Singh, a citizen of India, entered Canada in December 2020 as an international student and was later granted a post-graduation work permit valid until February 27, 2024. He applied for a renewal (his first work permit application) in February 2024, but IRCC refused it on June 11, 2024, on the basis that he had not paid the required biometrics fee by the deadline. His temporary resident status accordingly expired on June 11, 2024, and IRCC advised him that he could apply for restoration within 90 days — i.e., by September 9, 2024.
Singh filed a second work permit application on June 13, 2024, within the restoration window. That application was refused on October 11, 2024, on substantive grounds unrelated to timeliness (his spouse did not hold a qualifying work permit). Before receiving that refusal, Singh filed a third work permit application on October 2, 2024, supported by a Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program letter. By that date, however, the 90-day restoration window had already closed on September 9, 2024. On January 21, 2025, an IRCC officer refused the third application solely because it was submitted after the restoration deadline. Singh sought judicial review of that refusal.
Singh argued that the officer acted unreasonably by treating his three applications as entirely separate proceedings. In his view, because the second application was filed within the restoration window and remained pending, the third application should have been treated as timely, or the officer should have considered the earlier filing when assessing the third. The Minister maintained that each application stands on its own merits and that the October 2, 2024 filing was plainly outside the 90-day window.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Tsimberis dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer’s decision reasonable. The Court confirmed that the only decision properly before it was the January 21, 2025 refusal of the third work permit application (W309067374), as Singh had not challenged either of the two earlier refusals by way of judicial review. Under Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules, a judicial review application is limited to a single order, and no consolidation order had been sought or granted.
On the merits, the Court held that section 182(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations is mandatory and affords no discretion to an officer once the 90-day restoration window has passed. The provision requires that an application be “made within 90 days after losing temporary resident status.” Singh’s third application was submitted on October 2, 2024 — 23 days after the September 9, 2024 deadline. Nothing in the legislative text permitted the officer to deem that filing timely by reference to the earlier, independently refused application. The Court rejected Singh’s argument that the three applications should be collapsed into one or that the timely second application could save the out-of-time third application.
The Court applied the reasonableness standard from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, and found the officer’s reasons to be justified, transparent, and intelligible. Singh bore the onus of demonstrating unreasonableness and failed to identify any legislative provision or jurisprudence supporting his interpretation of section 182. No question of general importance was certified.
Key Takeaways
- Section 182(1) of the IRPR is a strict, non-discretionary rule: a restoration application filed even one day after the 90-day window closes is legally ineffective, regardless of a prior timely application that was later refused.
- Each work permit application is a distinct proceeding. A timely but substantively refused earlier application cannot extend the restoration window for, or otherwise validate, a subsequent out-of-time application.
- Under Federal Court Rule 302, an applicant may challenge only one decision per judicial review application. Failure to challenge earlier refusals — including a refusal that caused status loss — forecloses arguments that depend on re-litigating those prior decisions.
- The burden on judicial review rests with the applicant to show unreasonableness; courts will defer to immigration officers on findings that are directly mandated by unambiguous statutory language.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Canada’s 90-day restoration window under section 182 of the IRPR is a hard deadline with no equitable exceptions. Practitioners advising temporary residents who have lost status must ensure that any restoration application — not merely any work permit application — is filed within 90 days of status expiry. Filing a timely first attempt that is later refused on substantive grounds does not preserve the right to seek restoration through a subsequent application filed after the window closes.
The case also illustrates the procedural trap of failing to challenge earlier unfavorable IRCC decisions by judicial review. Singh’s inability to contest the June 11, 2024 refusal (which caused his status loss) or the October 11, 2024 refusal of his second application left him unable to advance arguments that depended on those decisions being wrong, effectively confining the Court’s review to a narrow and straightforward question of timeliness.