Karsou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 928 : Express Entry CEC Refusal Set Aside Where Employment Letter Was Missing From the Record Through No Fault of the Applicant

The Federal Court granted judicial review of an Express Entry application under the Canadian Experience Class where the officer found that the Applicant had failed to establish the required qualifying Canadian work experience in her declared NOC. The Court found that the application had been decided on an incomplete record because an employment offer letter containing the Applicant’s relevant job duties had been submitted through the IRCC portal but was not before the officer.

Key Principle

An applicant may rebut the presumption that the administrative record is complete by providing credible evidence that a material document was submitted but was not placed before the decision-maker. Where an immigration application is decided without considering material evidence submitted through the IRCC portal, through no fault of the applicant, the omission can constitute a breach of procedural fairness and the right to be heard.

Background

The Applicant applied for permanent residence through Express Entry under the Canadian Experience Class, relying on Canadian work experience as a Finance/Accounting Officer under NOC 12200. The officer refused the application after finding that the Applicant had not demonstrated that she performed the lead statement and main duties of the declared NOC.

The GCMS notes stated that the Applicant had provided an employment summary letter confirming employment from June 19, 2022, but that the letter did not identify her specific duties. The officer therefore concluded that the evidence did not establish the required qualifying work experience.

The Applicant maintained that an earlier employment offer letter, dated December 9, 2021, had been submitted with the application and contained the relevant job duties. She supported this assertion with her brother’s affidavit, a screenshot of the application folder, and a copy of the employment letter.

Court Findings

• Applicant rebutted the presumption of a complete record: Although courts generally presume that the record before the officer is complete, the Applicant provided evidence beyond a bare assertion. Her brother swore that he had filed the application and attached documents, and the screenshot and employment letter supported that evidence.

• IRCC did not adequately address the portal issue: The Respondent did not cross-examine the brother or provide evidence explaining how the portal operated, whether documents could go missing, or what evidence an applicant could reasonably be expected to produce to prove submission. On the evidence before the Court, the Applicant established on a balance of probabilities that the employment letter had been input into the portal but was not before the officer.

• The missing letter was material: The employment letter went directly to the sole rationale for refusal—the absence of evidence identifying the duties performed under NOC 12200. The Court found that the combination of the employment letter identifying the position’s duties and the later employment summary confirming that the Applicant worked in that position provided relevant evidence of her work experience.

• The Court could not speculate about the outcome: It was impossible to know what conclusion the officer would have reached had the missing document been considered. The omission therefore affected the Applicant’s basic right to have her complete evidence considered.

Outcome

The application for judicial review was granted. The refusal was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different IRCC officer for redetermination. The December 9, 2021 employment offer letter was deemed part of the record and required to be considered in the redetermination. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Karsou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 928 (CanLII)