Background
Sina Varasteh Nobari, a 31-year-old Iranian citizen, applied under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for a work permit to serve as a labourer for an Ontario construction company. His application was supported by a positive labour market impact assessment (LMIA), which expressly required verbal and written proficiency in English.
An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer refused the application. The officer was not satisfied that Nobari would leave Canada when his authorized stay ended and also found that he had not shown he could perform the proposed work. Among other concerns, Nobari had supplied no proof of English proficiency and insufficient evidence supporting his claimed construction experience in Iran. He sought judicial review, arguing that the decision was unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. Justice Norris held that it was reasonable for the officer to require evidence of English proficiency because verbal and written English were express requirements of the LMIA supporting Nobari’s application. With no evidence demonstrating that proficiency, the officer could reasonably find that Nobari had not established his ability to perform the work.
That finding independently justified refusing the work permit under the applicable statutory and LMIA requirements. The Court therefore did not consider Nobari’s challenges to the officer’s other findings, because any errors in those findings would not undermine the decision’s overall reasonableness. Nobari abandoned his related procedural-fairness arguments at the hearing, and the Court certified no question of general importance.
Key Takeaways
- A work-permit applicant must provide evidence showing compliance with language requirements expressly stated in the supporting LMIA.
- The absence of language-proficiency evidence can independently support a finding that an applicant has not demonstrated an ability to perform the proposed work.
- A reviewing court need not address alleged errors in other refusal grounds when one reasonable ground is independently sufficient to sustain the decision.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a positive LMIA does not itself establish eligibility for a work permit. Applicants must submit evidence addressing the LMIA’s specific job requirements, including language proficiency when expressly required.
For judicial-review proceedings, the ruling also illustrates that attacking several reasons for refusal may not change the outcome if one unchallenged or reasonable ground independently supports the administrative decision.