In Pal v. Canada, the Federal Court set aside a decision made by a Visa Officer refusing Mr. Pal’s work permit application under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). The reasons for refusal listed by the Visa Officer stated that Mr.Pal failed to prove that he could perform the work sought because he did not provide bank statements demonstrating proof of salary deposits. This finding was made even though Mr. Pal had provided extensive evidence of his work experience, which included employer letters and pay stubs.

In assessing the evidence, the Court determined that the decision was unreasonable because the Officer did not provide sufficient justification for finding that the absence of bank statements undermined the authenticity of Mr.Pal’s demonstrated work experience. The Officer also failed to explain why the evidence Mr. Pal provided of his work experience was insufficient. The Court emphasized that Visa Officers are required to meaningfully engage with the evidence on record and cannot refuse applications on the basis of unexplained or implied expectations.

Our Strategy

In approaching this case, we assessed the evidence submitted by Mr. Pal in light of the Visa Officer’s decision to determine whether the decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

We first recognized that the Officer failed to explain why bank statements were necessary to verify the authenticity of his work experience, specifically since Mr.Pal provided reference letters and pay stubs confirming his employment. This unexplained evidentiary expectation left Mr. Pal confused. As a result, we determined that the Visa Officer’s decision lacked a rational chain of analysis in connecting the evidence that was submitted by Mr. Pal with their conclusion. We found that the Officer simply listed the evidence that was submitted by Mr. Pal without provide a thorough analysis of the evidence.

In forming our arguments, we relied on case law where similar flawed reasoning by a Visa Officer was rejected by the Court to demonstrate that the Officer failed to render a justified decision as required by law in this case as well. By taking this approach, we ensured that we could demonstrate that the decision must be set aside and remitted to another Visa Officer for a rigorous analysis in accordance with immigration laws.

Verdict

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The refusal of his application was then quashed and remitted to a different Visa Officer for redetermination.

Pal v. Canada (Citizenship & Immigration) 2025 FC 1008