Background
Damanpreet Singh Bal, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a decision denying his application for a work permit. He had applied to work as a “Truck and Transport Mechanic” after Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) approved a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) under National Occupation Classification (NOC) 72410 for automotive service technicians, truck and bus mechanics, and mechanical repairers. On April 2, 2025, the immigration officer refused the application, finding that Bal had not met the mandatory requirements of the job description because he lacked the level of English language proficiency necessary to perform the work sought.
In support of his application, Bal submitted a one-year National Trade Certificate as a Diesel Mechanic, a curriculum vitae indicating approximately seven months of experience as a heavy vehicle mechanic, his International English Language Testing System (IELTS) scores, and his secondary school grades. His IELTS results were 5.5 for listening, 4.5 for reading, 4.0 for writing, 6.0 for speaking, and an overall band score of 5.0. His secondary school English grade was 52 (positional grade D2). The officer consulted the IELTS website and determined that the reading and writing scores corresponded to Band 4, indicating limited English skills with basic competence restricted to familiar situations and frequent difficulties in understanding and expression. The officer concluded that as a mechanic, Bal would need to rely on various manuals, including safety instructions, requiring strong reading skills to prevent misunderstanding, and that poor writing skills could result in miscommunication and increased safety risks.
The Court’s Holding
Madam Justice Azmudeh dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer’s decision reasonable. The Court applied the reasonableness standard of review applicable to visa decisions, as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, requiring that decisions be based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and justified in relation to the facts and law constraining the decision maker.
As a preliminary matter, the Court ruled inadmissible new evidence included in the Applicant’s Record that had not been before the officer, including evidence from the Canadian employer. Citing Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, the Court noted that unless exceptional circumstances exist, documents not available to the decision-maker are not admissible on judicial review. The Applicant did not argue how the additional documents met any exceptions, so the Court excluded them.
On the merits, the Court rejected the Applicant’s argument that Band 4 was adequate for the mechanic position, characterizing this submission as an improper request to reweigh the evidence, which is not the Court’s role on judicial review. The Court also addressed the Applicant’s argument that the officer failed to consider mitigating circumstances, including the nature of the job, availability of bilingual supervision in English and his mother tongue, and his work experience in environments where English was used functionally. The Court found that while it was open to the officer to weigh the evidence differently, the officer had explained why English proficiency was relevant to the position and had concluded that mechanical skills did not mitigate safety concerns arising from limited English proficiency. The officer was not obligated to refer to evidence that was not relevant or material to the analysis.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence not before the administrative decision-maker is generally inadmissible on judicial review unless exceptional circumstances apply, and the burden is on the applicant to establish such exceptions.
- On reasonableness review, courts will not reweigh evidence or substitute their own assessment of language proficiency requirements for that of the immigration officer.
- Immigration officers may reasonably conclude that limited English proficiency in reading and writing creates safety risks for positions requiring comprehension of technical manuals and safety instructions, even where the applicant possesses relevant technical skills.
- Applicants bear the onus of putting forward their best case with complete, convincing, and unambiguous evidence to establish they meet program requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the deferential approach courts take toward immigration officers’ assessments of language proficiency in work permit applications, particularly where safety-sensitive positions are concerned. It clarifies that officers may reasonably prioritize objective language test results over mitigating factors such as bilingual supervision or functional work experience when safety concerns are implicated.
The ruling also serves as a reminder to practitioners that evidence not presented to the original decision-maker will generally be excluded on judicial review, and that arguments challenging the weight assigned to evidence will not succeed absent a demonstration that the decision was unreasonable in light of the record before the officer.