Odufodunrin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 736 : Express Entry PR Refusal Upheld After Applicant Failed to Prove Required NOC Work Experience

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Kit Ayodeji Odufodunrin’s permanent residence application under the Federal Skilled Worker Class through Express Entry. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant had at least one year of continuous qualifying work experience in his declared occupation, NOC 5241, Graphic Designers and Illustrators. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding that the refusal reasonably resulted from insufficient evidence connecting his employment duties to the NOC requirements.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that applicants must submit sufficient evidence showing that they meet the requirements of the immigration program under which they apply. Officers are not required to seek clarification where the concern arises from the sufficiency of the documents submitted. Judicial review is not an opportunity for the Court to reweigh evidence or substitute its own assessment.

Background

The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, was invited to apply for permanent residence through Express Entry as a skilled worker. He identified NOC 5241, Graphic Designers and Illustrators, as his primary occupation.

To establish his work experience, he submitted a February 14, 2019 employment letter from Guaranty Trust Bank describing his position as Assistant Banking Officer – In-House Creative. The letter listed duties including interpreting product briefs visually, creating content for internal communications, developing social media content and visual strategies, physical product design, and ensuring compliance with brand guidelines.

The officer concluded that the duties described did not sufficiently establish at least one year of continuous qualifying experience in NOC 5241. His permanent residence application was therefore refused.

Court Findings

• Employment Letter Did Not Establish the Required NOC Experience

The Court found that the employment letter was the only relevant evidence before the officer concerning the applicant’s qualifying work experience. The officer reasonably concluded that the listed duties did not sufficiently demonstrate that his employment matched the declared NOC. The applicant’s request that the Court compare the duties differently amounted to asking the Court to reweigh the evidence.

• Applicant Was Responsible for Providing Strong Evidence

The Court emphasized that the applicant carried the burden of putting forward a convincing application. Although the officer’s reasons were brief, they clearly identified the central problem: the employment duties were insufficient to establish the required NOC experience. The applicant remained responsible for ensuring that his supporting documents demonstrated that he met the regulatory requirements.

• No Procedural Fairness Letter Was Required

The Court rejected the argument that the officer should have issued a procedural fairness letter before refusing the application. The concern was not about credibility, misrepresentation, or information obtained outside the application. It concerned whether the submitted evidence was sufficient. In those circumstances, the officer was not required to contact the applicant or employer for clarification. Evidence submitted only during judicial review also could not be used because it had not been before the officer.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the officer reasonably concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of at least one year of qualifying work experience in NOC 5241 and found no breach of procedural fairness. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Odufodunrin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 736 (CanLII)