A LMIA Does Not Mean a Work Permit Will be Issued
A positive labor market impact assessment, or LMIA, does not mean that an applicant is entitled to a work permit. An immigration officer is still required under the regulations, specifically section 200[A] to determine whether the foreign national applicant is able to perform the work sought. If the work permit is rejected, the only option is a judicial review at the federal court and the court will not likely interfere in such a [highly discretionary] bracket determination. Remember, the onus is always on the applicant to put forward a complete application. The applicant has to put his or her best foot forward with a thorough and comprehensive application. It is the applicant's responsibility to show that he or she meets the employment requirements.
The LMIA does not bind the officer-the officer is still required/entitled to conduct an independent assessment to determine whether the applicant has the ability to perform the work or not. The Federal Court has said that, "The mere fact of the positive LMIA [LMO] is not determinative ..." Singh 2015 FC 115.
At a minimum, ensure that the application demonstrates the applicant meets the NOC requirements and the LMIA.
Also -don't think that an immigration officer has an obligation to contact the applicant if something is missing. The visa officer does not have an obligation to contact the applicant if there are missing. There is also no obligation for the visa officer to convoke an interview unless there is an issue that goes, that truly goes to the credibility or authenticity of the documents or the application itself. There's a long line of Federal Court cases in this regard. In Obeta 2012 FC 1542, Justice Boivin, then at that court, emphasized that the burden is on the applicant to provide a relevant, complete and unambiguous application [Paragraph 25].
Silva 2007 FC 733 at paragraph 20 “the onus is on the applicant to provide all relevance supporting documentation and sufficient credible evidence and support of his application ... It is for the applicant to put his best case forward ... The onus does not shift to the answer and there is no entitlement to a personal tribune if the application is ambiguous or supporting materials not included. Here, there was no obligation on the officer to gather or seek additional evidence or make further inquiries.”
It is true that the jurisprudence supports the position that when a concern is raised that is truly about credibility there may be a duty to notify the applicant of those concerns so that the applicant has an opportunity to disabuse the officer of same.
Copy and Paste Is Not Your Friend
While there's conflicting jurisprudence in this regard, it is usually a mistake to copy an NOC duties with respect to employment letters, offers or reference letters. Copying those duties sometimes leads to a credibility concern. See Patel 2011 FC 571 but contrast with Madadi 2013 FC 716.
In Ansari 2013 FC 849 Madame Justice Kane reviewed the jurisprudence and found at paragraph 32 that copying of the NOC duties can lead to finding of diminished credibility and in that case at least the officer was justified in being doubtful and therefore was not able to assess whether the applicant met the requirement because of insufficiency. Ultimately, the two issues, [sufficiency and credibility] are "clearly related if the criteria are copied, the officer cannot be confident that the applicant actually has experienced since he cannot articulate his own experience for duties or responsibilities in his own words and in relation to the job he actually performed", [paragraph 32].
Do not jeopardize an application by providing the bare minimum. Do not assume that you will be provided a further opportunity to address concerns. Hassan : "The onus is always on the applicant to satisfy the visa officer, no applicant is entitled to further chances to improve this material as of right.