The Federal Court’s dismissal of repetitive challenges to C-11 work permit refusals
Afshin Yazdani
Author
Table of Contents
January 26, 2025
The Federal Court’s dismissal of repetitive challenges to C-11 work permit refusals
By Afshin Yazdani
Law360 Canada (January 26, 2026, 12:17 PM EST) — Original source: Law360 Canada
Read the full article on the Law360 website
Notably, the court strongly criticized counsel for advancing previously rejected arguments across
multiple similar cases involving Iranian applicants, highlighting concerns about judicial resources and professional responsibility. This article examines the judgment’s reasoning, situates it within post- Vavilov jurisprudence and discusses its implications for immigration practitioners.
Introduction
Paragraph 205(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) exempts certain work from the Labour Market Impact Assessment requirement when it would create or maintain “significant social, cultural or economic benefits or opportunities” for Canadian citizens or permanent residents. The C-11 administrative code operationalizes this exemption for foreign entrepreneurs seeking to start or operate a business in Canada on a temporary basis. Kamyab is the latest in a series of Federal Court decisions addressing refusals of C-11 applications submitted by Iranian nationals represented by the same counsel. The case underscores recurring themes: allegations that the November 2022 PDI update materially altered eligibility criteria, claims of bulk or discriminatory processing, and challenges to the adequacy of officers’ reasons. Justice Catherine Kane’s reasons provide a comprehensive rebuttal to these arguments and offer pointed commentary on litigation tactics.
Factual and procedural background
Mehdi Kamyab, an Iranian citizen with a bachelor of science in chemical engineering and professional certifications in project and executive management, incorporated Elima Tech Consulting Services Inc. in Ontario in May 2022. He submitted a work permit application in August 2022, supported by an 86-page business plan for an administrative and general management consulting service focused on project and cost management in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), financial documentation, and evidence of Iranian real property holdings.
The visa officer refused the application on Nov. 21, 2022, citing two grounds: (1) failure to satisfy the officer that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay (IRPR para. 200(1)(b)), based on insufficient compensation, assets, and financial resources; and (2) insufficient documentary evidence establishing eligibility under C-11 significant benefit (IRPR para. 205(a)). Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes elaborated that the GTA consulting market is highly competitive, the business plan’s reasonableness was doubtful, and the applicant’s financial establishment was inadequate for the proposed venture.
Kamyab applied for judicial review, alleging breaches of procedural fairness and unreasonableness of the decision.
Issues and standard of review
The applicant raised several procedural fairness concerns in his judicial review, including the following:
Retroactive application of the November 2022 PDI update without notice or opportunity to respond
Bulk processing of approximately 83 similar C-11 and C-12 applications submitted by Iranian nationals (all prepared by the same counsel), allegedly lacking individualized assessment and demonstrating discrimination
Inadequacy of reasons
He also contended that the officer’s decision was unreasonable, as the business plan allegedly demonstrated significant benefit. The court applied the well-established low procedural fairness spectrum for visa and work permit decisions (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1768), and reasonableness review followed Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, emphasizing justification, transparency, and intelligibility in light of the record and constraints on the decision-maker. This was the court’s analysis:
Procedural fairness
The court rejected legitimate expectation arguments, noting that visa applicants have no right to be assessed under the rules in effect at the time of submission (Tabingo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 191). Reliance on Tafreshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1089 was distinguished, as that case involved material procedural changes in the self-employed permanent residence category.
Claims of “mass refusal” and discrimination were unsupported by evidence. The officer’s GCMS notes were individualized and addressed the applicant’s specific business plan and finances. The court observed that prior decisions in similar cases revealed varying refusal reasons, undermining bulk-processing allegations. Allegations of bias lacked affidavit support.
Reasonableness and adequacy of reasons
The officer’s decision was reasonable. The business plan was found vague and generic, lacking specifics on competitiveness in the saturated GTA consulting market. Financial evidence failed to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to support the venture or temporary stay. The reasons, while concise, were adequate when read holistically with the record (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62; Vavilov). The applicant’s post-hearing attempts to supplement the record—such as claims of seven jobs in Newmarket for Iranian entrepreneurs—were disregarded as new evidence not before the officer.
Judicial criticism of repetitive litigation
A striking feature of the judgment is Justice Kane’s (and prior judges’) criticism of counsel for repeatedly advancing the same procedural fairness and bias arguments despite consistent rejection (Naghashyar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 85; Naeini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 899; Tehranimotamed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 548). The court expressed concern that such tactics strain judicial and governmental resources and undermine effective representation of other clients.
Implications for immigration law and practice
Kamyab clarifies that PDI updates provide non-binding guidance and do not trigger heightened procedural rights absent material changes to statutory eligibility. It reinforces deference to officers’ expertise in assessing “significant benefit” and the competitive viability of proposed businesses. For practitioners, the decision signals the importance of tailoring applications with concrete, evidence-based details rather than generic plans. It also serves as a caution against advancing unsupported systemic claims or new arguments at hearings. The judgment contributes to a growing body of post-Vavilov case law emphasizing contextual reasonableness review in high-volume administrative decisions.
Conclusion
Kamyab exemplifies the Federal Court’s consistent rejection of repetitive challenges to C-11 refusals and its insistence on evidence-based, individualized arguments. By dismissing the application and admonishing counsel, the court reaffirms the low fairness threshold for temporary work permits while underscoring the need for efficient and responsible advocacy in immigration litigation. Future applicants and counsel would be well-advised to focus on strengthening the substantive merits of business plans rather than procedural collateral attacks that have repeatedly failed.
Afshin Yazdani is a barrister, solicitor, and founder of YLG Professional Corporation (Yazdani Law Group), headquartered in Toronto, with offices in Vancouver, Los Angeles, and the Middle East.
Original source: Law360 Canada
Read the full article on the Law360 website:
