Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1788 : Express Entry Refusals Upheld Where Work Experience Was Not Properly Documented

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a permanent residence application under the Express Entry Skilled Worker Class. The applicant, Manpreet Singh Brar, sought to establish eligibility based on his experience as a Deck Officer. The officer refused the application because the evidence did not demonstrate that the applicant had performed the duties required under the National Occupation Classification for the role. The Court found the refusal reasonable and dismissed the judicial review.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that administrative decisions are entitled to deference where they are based on a coherent chain of reasoning supported by the facts and law. Procedural fairness does not require notice of deficiencies in regulatory requirements when an applicant fails to satisfy the legislated criteria. Courts may not consider evidence not before the decision-maker unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Background

The applicant submitted his application along with employment contracts from Gulf Energy Maritime PJSC and MMS Maritime (India) Private Limited confirming his roles as Junior Officer, Second Officer, Third Officer, and Chief Officer. However, the contracts and letters did not detail the duties performed. The officer concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient work experience as required under subsection 75(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) and refused the application on April 3, 2024.

A request for reconsideration was submitted with additional information regarding licensure and references to company manuals. The original officer confirmed the refusal on November 29, 2024. Judicial review was sought only of the initial refusal, not the reconsideration decision.

Court Findings

• Decision Was Reasonable

The Court held that the officer reasonably concluded that the applicant had not established the necessary work experience. The original materials provided no description of the duties performed, leaving a gap in the evidence that was central to the eligibility assessment.

• Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness. Subsection 75(2) and (3) of the IRPR clearly state that failure to meet the requirements results in refusal. Procedural fairness does not obligate the officer to notify the applicant of deficiencies in meeting statutory or regulatory criteria when those deficiencies are inherent in the application.

• Evidence Submitted on Reconsideration Could Not Be Considered

The Court emphasized that only materials before the original decision-maker may be considered for judicial review. Information provided in the reconsideration request could not support the applicant’s challenge.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The officer’s refusal was based on a rational and justified analysis of the record, and the procedural process met the required standards. No question for certification was identified.

Case Citation:

Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1788 (CanLII)