Nanda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 649 : Express Entry Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Declared the Wrong NOC for Foreign Work Experience

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an Express Entry Canadian Experience Class refusal where the Applicant’s foreign work experience was excluded because it did not correspond to the NOC declared in her Express Entry profile. The Applicant later argued that her representative had selected the wrong NOC and that her experience should instead have been assessed under NOC 13110. The Court held that the Applicant bore responsibility for correctly identifying the NOC and that the Officer was not required to independently search for an alternative NOC or reopen the application.

Key Principle

Under IRPA s 11.2 and the applicable Ministerial Instructions, Express Entry applicants must have the qualifications on which they were ranked at both the ITA and PR application stages. Where an applicant declares a particular NOC for foreign work experience, the experience must satisfy the lead statement and a substantial number of the applicable NOC duties. An officer is not required to identify a different NOC that might better correspond to the applicant’s experience.

Background

The Applicant, an Indian citizen, entered Canada in 2020 and later obtained a work permit and worked as an office administrator. She submitted an Express Entry profile in July 2024 and received an ITA under the CEC based partly on 50 CRS points attributed to her foreign work experience.

For her foreign employment with Future Shapers Consultants in India, she declared NOC 13100, Administrative Officers. Her employer’s letter described her duties, but the Officer found that they did not correspond to the duties under NOC 13100. The foreign experience was therefore excluded from the CRS calculation, causing the Applicant to fall below the CRS cut-off for her invitation.

After filing for judicial review, the Applicant requested reconsideration. Her representative acknowledged that the duties did not correspond to NOC 13100 but argued that the NOC had been selected in error and that the experience should instead be assessed under NOC 13110, Administrative Assistants. The Officer declined to reopen the application.

Court Findings

• Applicant was responsible for the declared NOC

The Court held that the Applicant had the burden of establishing her eligibility through the employment experience she declared. Since the duties in the employment letter did not correspond to NOC 13100, the Officer reasonably excluded the experience. It was not the Officer’s responsibility to search for another potentially applicable NOC.

• Section 11.2 and the Ministerial Instructions applied

The Applicant’s Express Entry information concerning the qualifications on which she was ranked had to remain valid at the relevant stages. The Ministerial Instructions required applicants claiming points for foreign work experience to identify the relevant NOC and demonstrate that they performed the lead statement and a substantial number of the main duties, including all essential duties. The Officer therefore made no reviewable error in excluding the experience.

• Reconsideration was discretionary

The Court emphasized that reconsideration involves two stages: first, determining whether to exercise discretion to reopen the matter; and second, substantively reconsidering the decision if that discretion is exercised. There is no general obligation to grant reconsideration. The Officer’s brief statement that there was no error of law and that the application would not be reopened was sufficient at the first stage.

• Representative error did not shift responsibility

The Court rejected the argument that the Officer was required to correct the NOC because the error originated with the Applicant’s representative. Applicants remain responsible for the actions of their retained representatives, and the Express Entry profile was not submitted without the Applicant’s knowledge.

• No procedural fairness breach

The Officer was not required to issue a fairness letter concerning the NOC mismatch. The concern arose directly from whether the Applicant had satisfied the applicable immigration requirements, and the onus remained on her to provide the correct NOC and supporting evidence.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. The Officer reasonably excluded the foreign work experience, and the refusal to reopen the application was also reasonable. The Court found no procedural fairness breach and certified no question of general importance.

Case Citation:

Nanda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 649 (CanLII)