The
Federal Court considered whether IRCC reasonably refused a permanent residence
application under the Federal Skilled Worker class because the Applicant failed
to demonstrate one year of continuous qualifying work experience in the primary
National Occupational Classification (NOC) identified in her application. The
Court dismissed the judicial review and reaffirmed that applicants bear
responsibility for the accuracy of information submitted through the Express
Entry system.
Key
Legal Principle
The
Court reaffirmed that applicants bear the burden of ensuring the accuracy of
their Express Entry and permanent residence information. Immigration
officers are entitled to rely on the information electronically submitted by
applicants and are not obligated to speculate about possible mistakes or
substitute alternative occupational classifications.
Background
The
Applicant, a citizen of Ghana, applied for permanent residence through the
Express Entry system under the Federal Skilled Worker class. In her initial
Express Entry profile, she identified her primary occupation as NOC 4164
(Social policy researchers, consultants and program officers). However,
when she later submitted her permanent residence application, the Global Case
Management System (GCMS) reflected her primary occupation as NOC 4163
(Business development officers and marketing researchers and consultants).
IRCC
determined that, as of the “lock-in” date for the permanent residence
application, the Applicant did not possess the required one year of
continuous full-time work experience in NOC 4163. As a result, the Officer
refused the application under section 75 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations (IRPR).
Procedural
Fairness and Delay Allegations
Before
the Federal Court, the Applicant argued that the two-year delay in processing
her application breached procedural fairness and prejudiced her ability to
correct the alleged NOC issue by reapplying earlier.
The
Court rejected this argument. It found that the Applicant had not properly
raised the delay issue at the leave stage and failed to provide evidence
showing that the delay caused significant prejudice. The Court emphasized that
processing timelines under Express Entry are targets rather than guarantees and
that delay alone does not establish procedural unfairness.
Court
Findings: Applicants Are Responsible for Their Express Entry Information
The
Federal Court upheld the Officer’s decision as reasonable.
The
Court relied heavily on GCMS evidence showing that the Applicant herself
changed the primary NOC from 4164 to 4163 when submitting the permanent
residence application. The Court noted that IRCC systems automatically populate
NOC information based on the applicant’s electronic submissions and that any
manual changes by officers would leave an audit trail, which did not exist in
this case.
The
Court rejected the Applicant’s argument that the NOC discrepancy may have
resulted from a clerical or technical error, finding that this claim was
speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Importantly,
the Court emphasized that under section 75(2)(a) of the IRPR, officers are
required to assess whether applicants possess one year of continuous qualifying
work experience in the specific primary occupation identified by the
applicant. Officers are not required to determine which NOC an applicant
may have intended to select or to reassess the application under alternative
occupations.
The Court further noted that section 75(3) of the IRPR leaves officers with no discretion once the minimum requirements are not met: the application “shall be refused and no further assessment is required.”
