Sign in Subscribe
Cabinet officials

Federal Court of Canada Upholds Decision Denying Work Permit

Strategic Insights

— 1 min read

The Federal Court of Canada has upheld a decision denying a work permit to an applicant who was convicted of battery in Illinois, U.S.A. in 2019. The visa officer reviewing the application found that the offense was equivalent to a violation of section 265 of the Criminal Code, which constitutes a hybrid offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years. The applicant argued that he had been rehabilitated and therefore should not be considered inadmissible under section 36(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, the court found that the applicant had not filed a criminal rehabilitation application and therefore the visa officer had no duty to consider rehabilitation.

Key Takeaways:

  • The court upheld the visa officer's decision to deny the work permit due to the applicant's conviction of battery in Illinois, U.S.A. in 2019.
  • The applicant's offense was considered equivalent to a violation of section 265 of the Criminal Code, a hybrid offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years.
  • The applicant argued that he had been rehabilitated, but the court found that he had not filed a criminal rehabilitation application and therefore the visa officer had no duty to consider it.
  • The court relied on jurisprudence from previous cases (Veizaj v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1070 and Pena v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1310) to support its decision.
  • The court held that a visa officer has no duty to consider an applicant's alleged rehabilitation when no application is filed or prior to when the applicant had the right to submit a criminal rehabilitation application.

Statistics:

  • The applicant was convicted of battery in Illinois, U.S.A. in 2019.
  • The visa officer's decision to deny the work permit was supported by section 36(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • The "prescribed period" for the purposes of s. 36(3)(c) of IRPA is 5 years after the completion of the imposed sentence.
  • January 13, 2026, is the earliest date by which the applicant would be considered rehabilitated.
  • The court did not certify a question for appeal.

Sources:

  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
  • Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1645
  • Shah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1741
  • Veizaj v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1070
  • Pena v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1310

Read more