Akhter v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1800 : Express Entry Refusal Upheld Where Employment Offer Did Not Meet Arranged Employment Requirements

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review of an Express Entry refusal under IRPA s. 11.2. The Applicant had received 50 CRS points for arranged employment, but the employment letter submitted with his permanent residence application did not provide for employment for at least one year after the issuance of a permanent resident visa, as required by the Regulations and applicable Ministerial Instructions. The Court held that the Officer reasonably refused the application and was not required to give the Applicant an opportunity to submit a corrected employment letter.

Key Principle

Under IRPA s. 11.2, the qualifications on which an applicant was ranked and invited must remain valid both when the invitation is issued and when the PR application is received. A qualifying arranged-employment offer must satisfy the precise requirements of IRPR s. 82(1) and the applicable Ministerial Instructions. Where the submitted employment offer does not meet those requirements, an officer has no discretion to disregard the statutory requirements merely because the deficiency could potentially be corrected through a new document.

Background

The Applicant, a Pakistani citizen, applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class. His employer had obtained a positive LMIA, and the Applicant held a closed work permit valid from February 2, 2023 to February 2, 2025. His February 2, 2023 employment letter described the position as a permanent full-time position for 24 months from the date his work permit was issued.

The Applicant received an Invitation to Apply with a CRS score that included 50 points for arranged employment. After including his dependants, he calculated his CRS score at 444, above the 437-point threshold. However, the Officer later verified his score at 409 because the employment offer did not qualify for the 50 arranged-employment points.

The Officer found that the offer did not establish continuous full-time employment for at least one year from the date a permanent resident visa would be issued. The resulting loss of 50 points brought the Applicant below the minimum CRS threshold.

Court Findings

• Employment offer did not satisfy the regulatory requirement

IRPR s. 82(1) required arranged employment to provide continuous full-time employment for at least one year after the date of issuance of the permanent resident visa. The Applicant’s letter instead tied the 24-month employment period to the date of issuance of his work permit. The Court found that this did not satisfy the requirement.

• Applicant could not rely on alternative MI provisions

The Applicant argued that even if his offer did not satisfy paragraph 29(2)(b), he could qualify under paragraphs 29(2)(a)(ii) or (iii). The Court rejected this argument. Subparagraph 29(2)(a)(iii) did not apply to his particular work permit, while subparagraph 29(2)(a)(ii) incorporated the same arranged-employment definition in IRPR s. 82(1), including the requirement for at least one year of employment after issuance of the PR visa.

• No procedural fairness obligation to permit correction

The Applicant argued that the Officer should have allowed him to submit an updated employment letter. The Court held that the fairness duty in PR applications is at the low end and that there was no concern regarding credibility, accuracy, or authenticity requiring further information. The deficiency arose directly from the statutory and regulatory requirements. The Officer was therefore entitled to refuse the application without first giving the Applicant an opportunity to correct the employment letter.

• Reconsideration was discretionary

After refusal, the Applicant submitted a new employment letter confirming permanent, ongoing full-time employment for at least one year after issuance of PR. The Officer declined to reopen the application. The Court noted that reconsideration was discretionary and, importantly, the Applicant had challenged only the original refusal, not the reconsideration decision.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review without costs. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Akhter v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1800 (CanLII)