Kariminezhad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1207 : CEC Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored Employment Letter and Pay Stubs Establishing Qualifying Work Experience

The Federal Court granted judicial review of a Canadian Experience Class (CEC) refusal where the officer concluded that the Applicant had failed to establish the duration and duties of her qualifying Canadian work experience. The Court found that the officer focused on one employment letter while failing to address a second employment letter and corroborating pay stubs that directly addressed the deficiencies identified in the refusal.

Key Principle

Under the Vavilov framework, an officer must meaningfully engage with significant evidence that directly contradicts the basis for refusing an application. Where employment letters and corroborating financial records address the officer’s concerns about the duration and nature of qualifying CEC work experience, the officer cannot simply ignore that evidence without explaining why it was rejected or outweighed.

Background

The Applicant applied for permanent residence through the CEC after receiving an invitation to apply. She relied on Canadian work experience with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), including employment as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow and subsequently as a Research Analyst, both classified under NOC 21110.

The Applicant submitted two CAMH employment letters. The first, dated June 19, 2022, confirmed her Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship, salary, employment period, and duties. A second letter dated September 8, 2023 extended her employment and likewise identified her salary, employment period, and duties. She also submitted pay stubs covering more than one year, showing monthly payments consistent with the salaries stated in the employment letters, as well as Notices of Assessment.

The officer nevertheless concluded that the evidence did not establish the required duration or duties of the Applicant’s qualifying employment. The officer focused on the first employment letter and stated that additional evidence was necessary. The application was therefore refused because the Applicant was found not to meet the requirements of the CEC and section 11.2 of the IRPA.

Court Findings

• Officer ignored central employment evidence

The Court found a fatal breakdown in the officer’s reasoning because the reasons did not mention the second employment letter or the corroborating banking documents. The second letter was particularly important because it covered the period necessary to establish the Applicant’s required one year of qualifying work experience.

• Pay stubs and other corroborative evidence had to be considered

The applicable policy expressly contemplated supporting evidence such as pay stubs and Notices of Assessment. Although an officer is not required to discuss every document in the record, the Court held that this does not permit silence regarding evidence that directly undermines the basis for refusal.

• Respondent could not provide post-hoc justification

The Respondent argued that the employment letters did not fully satisfy the policy because they did not independently confirm that the work had actually been performed. The Court rejected this attempt to supplement the officer’s reasoning. The letters were on official CAMH letterhead and identified the duties, salary, and employment periods, while the pay stubs corroborated the salary information.

The Court emphasized that it was the officer’s reasons, not the Respondent’s submissions before the Court, that had to justify the decision. Counsel could not fill a gap created by the officer’s failure to engage with central evidence.

Outcome

The judicial review application was granted. The refusal was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:
Kariminezhad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1207 (CanLII)