In Garg v. Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1242, the Federal Court considered the
refusal of a permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience
Class (CEC). The central issues were whether the immigration officer
unreasonably questioned the genuineness of the applicant’s employment and
whether the officer assessed her educational credentials rather than her actual
job duties. The Court also examined whether procedural fairness required the
officer to provide another opportunity to respond to concerns about
inconsistencies in the employer’s address history.
Key Principle
An immigration officer may
assess the genuineness of claimed employment by considering the evidence as a
whole, including inconsistencies in business records, employment documentation
and explanations provided in response to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL).
Procedural fairness does not generally require another opportunity to respond
to concerns arising from documents supplied by the applicant herself.
Background
The applicant, an Indian
citizen, applied for permanent residence through Express Entry under the CEC.
She relied on her employment as a Data Administrator with First Point
Financial, an Alberta-incorporated business, to establish the required Canadian
work experience. In November 2024, an IRCC officer issued a PFL expressing
concerns that the claimed employment was not genuine.
The applicant submitted
explanations and supporting documents from her representative and employer.
However, the officer remained unsatisfied, excluded the employment from the
calculation of qualifying work experience and refused the application because the
applicant had not demonstrated at least one year of qualifying Canadian work
experience within the preceding three years. The applicant sought judicial
review, arguing that the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
Court Findings
– Assessment of
Credentials: The Court rejected the
argument that the officer improperly assessed the applicant’s qualifications
instead of her duties. Read as a whole, the reasons showed that the officer
considered her lack of relevant experience and education as factors bearing on
whether the claimed employment was genuine, rather than imposing mandatory
occupational credential requirements.
– Genuineness of
Employment: The officer identified
several inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps, including the employer’s
unfinished website, questions concerning its business operations, discrepancies
in its historical addresses and concerns about the employment documentation. The
Court found that the officer provided detailed reasons explaining why the
evidence and the applicant’s responses did not resolve those concerns.
– Assessment of
Supporting Evidence: The Court held
that the applicant’s disagreement with the officer’s assessment did not
establish a reviewable error. The officer had considered the responses to the
PFL but was not persuaded by them. The Court declined to reweigh the evidence
to reach a different conclusion.
– Procedural Fairness: The PFL had disclosed the officer’s concerns,
including those relating to the business address. The address discrepancy arose
from tax documents provided by the applicant herself. Relying on Tiben v.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 965, the Court held that the
officer was not required to offer another opportunity to respond to concerns
arising from information the applicant had already supplied.
– Additional Evidence: The Court also excluded new corporate tax and
land-title documents submitted with the judicial review application because
they were intended to remedy evidentiary deficiencies before the officer and
did not fall within an applicable exception to the general rule restricting new
evidence.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed
the application for judicial review and certified no question of general
importance.
Case Citation: Garg v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1242 (CanLII)
Written by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
