Towsif v Canada 2026 FC 1137: Why a Positive LMIA Did Not Save a Cook’s Work Permit Refusal

By Dimple Verma, RCIC-IRB R708308 — September 17, 2026

On September 10, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed a judicial review of a refused work permit for an “Ethnic Food Cook” position, upholding the visa officer’s finding that the applicant had not shown he could perform the full range of duties in NOC 63200 — Cooks. In Towsif v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1137, Madam Justice Azmudeh confirmed that a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment does not bind the visa officer, and that a cover letter, a CV, and a general character reference are often not enough to establish the applicant meets the mandatory duties of the NOC.

This is a decision every LMIA-based work permit applicant — and every employer supporting one — should read. It is the counterpoint to the successful judicial reviews we usually cover: it shows what happens when the officer’s reasons actually engage with the record and the applicant has left gaps in the file.

The facts

Mr. Afridi Ahmed Towsif is a citizen of Bangladesh. His prospective Canadian employer obtained a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment from Employment and Social Development Canada for the position of “Ethnic Food Cook” under NOC 63200 — Cooks (TEER 3). Mr. Towsif then applied for a work permit at the visa post.

In support of his application, he provided:

• A curriculum vitae stating two years’ experience as a line cook at the Sheraton Hotel and additional experience as a chef at the Asia Hotel and Resort (the CV claimed three years as a chef, though it listed dated chef employment only from 2019 to February 2021);
• A list of relevant skills — cooking techniques, plating and presentation, recipe development, knowledge of ingredients, sanitation and safety;
• A list of physical capabilities — knife skills, endurance, ability to manage multiple orders, opening and closing large oven grill doors, and physical endurance;
• A letter of reference from Asia Hotel and Resort describing his diligence, sincerity, specialization in continental cuisine, and reference to “creativity kitchen management.”

On March 24, 2025, the officer refused the work permit under subsection 200(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. In the Global Case Management System notes, the officer identified the duties of NOC 63200 — including managing kitchen operations, maintaining inventory, training staff, and recruiting and hiring staff — and found that the record did not demonstrate that the applicant had the experience, training, or qualifications to perform them. The officer concluded, in the operative sentence, that they were “not satisfied that they will be able to adequately perform the duties and responsibilities of the job offered, pursuant to R200(3).”

Mr. Towsif sought leave and judicial review.

The rule — s. 200(3) IRPR

The refusal was made under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the IRPR, which provides that an officer shall not issue a work permit to a foreign national if there are reasonable grounds to believe the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought. The provision is mandatory: even where an LMIA is in hand, the officer must be satisfied that the individual applicant can actually perform the duties described in the labour market opinion.

The full text of s. 200 is available on the Government of Canada’s consolidated regulations site: Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 200 — Justice Laws Website.

Why the Court dismissed the judicial review

Justice Azmudeh reviewed the file for reasonableness under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The question was not whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion, but whether the officer’s chain of reasoning was internally coherent and justified in relation to the record.

The Court acknowledged one error in the officer’s notes: the statement that there was “no work experience in the field” was inaccurate, because the applicant’s CV did list line-cook and chef experience. Justice Azmudeh accepted the applicant’s criticism on that point (para 12). But she held that the error was not enough to render the overall assessment unreasonable, because the officer’s actual concern was different and well-explained — the record did not establish that the applicant had experience with the management duties listed in the NOC:

• maintaining inventory and records of food, supplies and equipment;
• hiring and training kitchen staff;
• scheduling and supervising kitchen helpers;
• overseeing kitchen operations.

The applicant’s CV listed cooking skills and physical capabilities. Neither the CV nor the reference letter spoke to inventory management, hiring, training, or supervisory experience. The passing reference to “creativity kitchen management” in the Asia Hotel letter was too thin to establish those duties on the balance of probabilities.

Justice Azmudeh applied the familiar rule from Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 657 at para 21, and Shahzad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 999: the onus is on the applicant to put forward their best case, and to ensure the application is complete, convincing, and unambiguous. That principle was reaffirmed most recently in Goyal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 905 at para 40 and Alvaro v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1627 at para 27.

Reading the reasons as a whole and in the context of the evidentiary record, the Court found the officer’s assessment reasonable. The applicant’s submissions, in Justice Azmudeh’s words, amounted to “an invitation to reweigh the evidence that was before the Officer and reach a different conclusion as to its sufficiency” (para 13). That is not the Court’s role on judicial review.

The application was dismissed. No question was certified.

The takeaway — an LMIA is not the finish line

The parties in Towsif agreed on a principle that is worth stating out loud: a positive LMIA does not bind the visa officer. ESDC assesses the labour market need for the position; IRCC decides whether the individual applicant can perform the work described in that position. Those are two different assessments, applying different tests, made by different departments.

Many refusals in this category come from a mismatch between the two. The employer’s LMIA describes the job in NOC-aligned language — it has to, or ESDC would not approve it. The applicant then files a work permit application that only speaks to cooking experience, when the NOC also lists inventory management, staff supervision, hiring, training, and kitchen operations. The officer looks at the record, does not see evidence of the full duty set, and refuses under s. 200(3)(a). That is exactly what happened in Towsif.

What this means for LMIA work permit applicants and employers

The practical lessons from this decision run in both directions — to the applicant and to the supporting employer:

• Pull up the NOC before drafting the file. The National Occupational Classification profile lists the duties the officer will measure the applicant against. For NOC 63200, that includes inventory, supervision, and staff duties, not just cooking. If the LMIA is for a Cook, the applicant must show they can do the whole Cook role — not only the parts they are strongest in.
• Address every duty in the NOC in an employment or duties-narrative letter. A reference letter that only speaks to character or to cooking technique will not satisfy s. 200(3)(a) when the NOC includes supervisory and administrative duties. The letter should describe, duty by duty, what the applicant actually did at each past employer, with dates, reporting structure, and concrete examples.
• Match the CV to the NOC. If the CV omits duties that appear in the NOC, add them where they are true. If some duties genuinely do not apply because the applicant worked in a smaller kitchen, say so, and explain how the applicant is prepared to take them on in the new position — a training plan from the employer helps.
• Do not rely on the LMIA to speak for the applicant. The LMIA justifies the position; it does not vouch for the person. IRCC will still apply s. 200(3)(a) to the individual applicant, and will not be softened by ESDC’s approval of the underlying position.
• Cover-letter the fit explicitly. A short, structured cover letter that walks through each NOC duty and points to the specific piece of evidence in the record that supports it makes it much harder for the officer to conclude that a duty is unaddressed.
• Employers can help by drafting duties-narrative letters, not just offers. A job offer letter that only states hours, wage, and location is not evidence that the applicant meets the duties. A duties-narrative from the current or past employer, on letterhead, describing the specific duties performed, closes the gap.
• Small mistakes in officer reasons will not save a thin file. Towsif is a reminder that even where an officer’s notes contain an inaccurate line, the JR will be dismissed if the overall reasoning still holds. The remedy is to prepare a stronger file, not to hope for a helpful error in the notes.

How Towsif reads alongside Kumar and Yilbas

The Federal Court released three related decisions on the same day — September 10, 2026. Two set aside IRCC decisions for failing to engage with contradictory evidence (Kumar v Canada, 2026 FC 1138, and Yilbas v Canada, 2026 FC 1139). Towsif is the mirror image. It shows what happens when the officer’s reasons do engage with the record and it is the applicant who has not put in the evidence needed to establish the duties.

Read together, the three decisions describe the same standard from both sides. Vavilov reasonableness asks whether the officer engaged with the record. When the officer’s reasons ignore contradictory evidence, the decision is set aside. When the officer’s reasons identify a genuine evidentiary gap that the applicant has not filled, the refusal stands.

Frequently asked questions

Does a positive LMIA guarantee my work permit will be issued?

No. The parties in Towsif agreed, and the Court confirmed, that a positive LMIA does not bind the visa officer. ESDC decides whether the position meets the labour market test; IRCC decides whether the individual applicant can perform the work under s. 200(3) of the IRPR. Applicants must still prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they can perform the duties in the relevant NOC.

What is section 200(3) of the IRPR?

Section 200(3) lists the mandatory grounds on which an officer must refuse to issue a work permit. Paragraph 200(3)(a) prohibits issuing a work permit where there are reasonable grounds to believe the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought. It is the rule that most commonly underlies work permit refusals where the officer is not satisfied about the applicant’s qualifications or experience.

What is NOC 63200 and who does it cover?

NOC 63200 is the National Occupational Classification for Cooks, at TEER 3. It covers workers who prepare and cook meals or individual dishes and foods, and includes supervisory and administrative duties such as scheduling kitchen helpers, overseeing kitchen operations, maintaining inventory, and hiring and training staff. The full duty list is published by Statistics Canada.

My work permit was refused under R200(3). What are my options?

The three main routes are reconsideration, reapplication with a stronger record, and judicial review in the Federal Court. Reconsideration is a request to the visa post to look at the file again. Reapplication starts fresh with new evidence. Judicial review challenges the reasonableness of the decision itself. The right choice depends on what actually caused the refusal — a review of the GCMS notes usually clarifies that. Deadlines are strict: 60 days from communication for decisions made outside Canada, 15 days from communication for decisions made in Canada.

How should the reference or duties letter be written?

The letter should be on employer letterhead, signed by someone with authority to speak to the applicant’s work, and list the specific duties performed by the applicant that align with the NOC for the job being sought. It should not read like a character reference. Where the NOC includes supervisory or administrative duties — as NOC 63200 does — those duties should be addressed explicitly, with concrete examples such as the number of staff supervised or the type of inventory managed.

Can I judicially review a work permit refusal even if the reasons are largely correct?

You can apply for leave, but as Towsif shows, a JR that isolates a single inaccurate line in the officer’s notes will not succeed if the officer’s overall chain of reasoning is still intelligible and supported by the record. Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits and it is not a reweighing exercise. A licensed RCIC or immigration lawyer can review the GCMS notes and assess whether the record actually supports a reasonableness challenge before you spend the fees and time on a JR application.

How can VG Immigration help with an LMIA-based work permit?

We work with employers and applicants together to align the LMIA, the job offer, the duties-narrative reference letters, the applicant’s CV, and the cover letter to the specific NOC. We review GCMS notes on refused files and advise on whether reconsideration, reapplication, or judicial review is the right route in your circumstances. Book a Consultation.

Sources

• Towsif v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1137, Federal Court of Canada, September 10, 2026 (Azmudeh J.), docket IMM-8418-25.
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 200 — Justice Laws Website.
• National Occupational Classification 63200 — Cooks (Statistics Canada).
• Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII).
• Employer-specific work permit — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
• Hire a Temporary Foreign Worker — Employment and Social Development Canada.

VG Immigration Services Inc. | Dimple Verma, RCIC-IRB R708308 | vgis.ca