R200(1)(b) — the officer doubted you would leave after working

What the officer actually meant

The same leaving-Canada test applied to work permits. Even with a valid job offer or LMIA, the officer must still be satisfied you would go home at the end of the authorised period.

Officers look at whether the Canadian job is a genuine step in your career or a route to staying. A large jump in salary or seniority compared with your history invites questions, as does a role far below your qualifications.

Why this gets written

These are the situations that most often produce this finding. Your notes will usually name the specific one.

• The Canadian role does not match your work history or qualifications
• You resigned from a long-term position at home with nothing to return to
• Weak ties at home combined with close family already in Canada
• A job offer that appears arranged rather than genuinely recruited

What actually fixes it

Fix the thing the officer named. Changing everything else at once usually makes a file look staged.

• Show continuity — how this role fits a career you are building, not escaping
• Keep evidence of what you return to: leave of absence, business ownership, property
• Make the employer relationship verifiable — genuine recruitment trail, interviews, correspondence

Codes that usually appear with this one

• R200(3)(a)Not about honesty — about capability. The officer did not believe your background matched the job offered.
• R179(b)The most common visitor-visa refusal. The officer was not convinced you would go home at the end of your trip.
• A22(2)Good news hiding in the Act. Wanting to settle in Canada one day does not disqualify you from a temporary visa.