Lopez Assia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1572 : Express Entry Reconsideration Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Provided No Reasons and Ignored Applicant’s Reliance on IRCC Work Authorization

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal to reconsider the rejection of Ana Ines Lopez Assia’s Canadian Experience Class permanent residence application. The original application was refused because certain Canadian work experience was not counted, as the applicant did not have valid temporary resident status during that period. In requesting reconsideration, she argued that IRCC correspondence concerning a post-graduation work permit public policy had led her to believe she was authorized to continue working. The Court granted judicial review because the reconsideration refusal was entirely conclusory and did not explain why her circumstances were insufficient to reopen the decision.

Key Principle

Although immigration officers have discretion to decline reconsideration requests, they must provide an intelligible explanation where an applicant raises a central argument based on unusual circumstances or the interests of justice. A statement that all information was reviewed and that insufficient grounds exist is not enough where the applicant alleges that IRCC’s own correspondence induced a reasonable belief that continued work was authorized. The Minister cannot cure deficient reasons on judicial review by supplying the analysis the officer should have provided.

Background

The applicant was a Colombian citizen who came to Canada as an international student, graduated from Seneca College, and received a post-graduation work permit.

She later received correspondence from IRCC advising that she might qualify for a facilitation measure under a PGWP public policy and an interim authorization permitting her to continue working until May 31, 2023.

In January 2023, she was invited to apply for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class. She claimed Canadian work experience acquired between November 2018 and March 2023.

IRCC excluded the period from August 2022 to March 2023 because she lacked valid temporary resident status and concluded that her recalculated Comprehensive Ranking System score fell below the invitation threshold.

In her reconsideration request, she acknowledged the status issue but explained that IRCC correspondence had led her to believe she could lawfully continue working. She also referred to the impact removal would have on her Canadian-born daughter.

Court Findings

• Reconsideration Decision Contained No Meaningful Reasons
The Court held that the officer’s reconsideration decision was entirely conclusory. Simply stating that all of the applicant’s information had been reviewed and that insufficient grounds existed for reconsideration did not satisfy the duty to provide transparent, intelligible, and justified reasons.

• Officer Failed to Address the Applicant’s Central Argument
The applicant argued that IRCC’s own correspondence regarding the Post-Graduation Work Permit public policy led her to reasonably believe she was authorized to continue working in Canada. The Court found that the officer failed to engage with this key submission, even though it formed the primary basis of the reconsideration request.

• Applicant Was Entitled to an Explanation
Even when deciding whether to reopen a previous decision, an officer must explain why the circumstances do not warrant reconsideration in the interests of justice or as unusual circumstances. The absence of any analysis prevented the applicant from understanding why her request had been refused and rendered the decision unreasonable.

• Minister Could Not Cure the Deficient Reasons
During judicial review, the Minister argued that the PGWP public policy never restored the applicant’s temporary resident status and that maintaining status remained her responsibility. The Court held that this explanation could not replace the officer’s missing reasons because it was the officer—not the Minister—who was required to provide that analysis in the original decision.

• Remaining Issues Were Unnecessary to Decide
Because the officer’s failure to provide adequate reasons was sufficient to set aside the reconsideration decision, the Court found it unnecessary to determine the applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate submissions or her procedural fairness arguments. The matter was returned to a different decision-maker for reconsideration.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the reconsideration request to a different decision-maker. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Lopez Assia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1572 (CanLII)