The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a permanent residence
application submitted under the Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident
(TR-to-PR) Pathway – Healthcare Stream. The principal applicant claimed
eligibility based on work experience as a Social and Community Service
Worker (NOC 4212). The Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that
the immigration officer reasonably concluded that the applicant’s actual duties
did not correspond to the claimed occupation and therefore did not satisfy the
requirements of the public policy.
The principal applicant, a citizen of India, applied for permanent
residence under a temporary public policy that required applicants to have at
least one year of qualifying work experience in an eligible occupation. She
relied on employment with Valley United Cultural Society, where she held the
title of “Community Social Worker.” Her employment letter described duties such
as teaching stitching and embroidery, educating individuals about Sikh values
and customs, teaching Punjabi language and prayers, providing emotional
support, organizing drug-awareness programs, assisting women and children
facing abuse, and helping vulnerable members of the community.
During an interview with IRCC, however, the applicant provided a more detailed description of her day-to-day activities. She explained that she had her own stitching room and that most of her responsibilities involved stitching and embroidery work. She stated that approximately 80% of her work related to stitching and embroidery, while activities such as teaching prayers, assisting at religious events, and participating in community outreach occurred only occasionally.
Procedural Fairness Process
Following the interview, IRCC issued two procedural fairness letters
expressing concerns that the applicant’s actual work duties did not correspond
to NOC 4212. Instead, the officer believed that her primary duties
aligned more closely with NOC 6342 (Tailors, Dressmakers, Furriers and
Milliners) and NOC 4217 (Other Religious Occupations), neither of
which qualified under the TR-to-PR pathway. The applicant responded through
counsel, arguing that the officer misunderstood the nature of her employment
and that stitching activities formed part of her broader community service
role. She also argued that procedural fairness required IRCC to provide an
interview transcript.
Court Findings
The Federal Court upheld the refusal. Justice Aylen found that the
officer reasonably relied on the applicant’s own interview statements when
determining the true nature of her employment. The Court emphasized that
immigration officers are entitled to place significant weight on statements
made directly by applicants during interviews, particularly where those
statements are recorded in contemporaneous GCMS notes.
The Court rejected the argument that the officer ignored the employment
letter or the applicant’s submissions. Rather, the officer considered all of
the evidence and concluded that the “pith and substance” of the applicant’s
work involved stitching, embroidery, and religious instruction, not the social
and community services contemplated by NOC 4212. The Court reaffirmed
that job titles are not determinative; the actual duties performed control
the NOC analysis.
The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness. The applicant
received two detailed procedural fairness letters identifying the officer’s
concerns and was given an opportunity to respond. The Court held that
procedural fairness did not require IRCC to provide an interview transcript.
Furthermore, the applicant used her own accredited interpreter and failed to
raise any translation concerns at the first available opportunity.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the refusal of the permanent residence application. The Court concluded that the officer reasonably determined that the applicant’s employment did not constitute qualifying work experience under NOC 4212, making her ineligible for the TR-to-PR pathway.
