Morgan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 897 : CEC Refusal Upheld Because Applicant Failed to Establish That Her Work Experience Matched the Claimed NOC

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Canadian Experience Class application after the officer found that the applicant had not demonstrated that her Canadian work experience matched the duties of the NOC she claimed.

The Court upheld the refusal because the evidence did not establish that the applicant performed the lead statement and a substantial number of the main duties of NOC 1241.

Key Principle

A CEC applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that their work experience meets the requirements of the claimed NOC.

The assessment requires consideration of the actual nature of the work performed, including whether the applicant performed the lead statement and a substantial number of the main duties. A job title alone is not sufficient.

However, where the evidence reasonably supports the officer’s conclusion that the applicant has not established the required experience, the Court will not reweigh that evidence on judicial review.

Background

The applicant was a citizen of the United Kingdom who came to Canada in 2011 under the International Experience Class.

She worked as a Financial Planning Assistant at the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) from June 2011 to December 2012 and later began working as an Office Assistant at Crowe Soberman LLP.

She applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class, relying on NOC 1241 and NOC 1221.

The applicant provided an employment reference letter from HOOPP but did not provide an employment letter describing her duties at Crowe Soberman LLP.

The visa officer refused the application, finding that the HOOPP duties did not correspond to the lead statement or a substantial number of the main duties of NOC 1241 and that there was insufficient evidence concerning her duties at Crowe Soberman.

Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the officer’s decision was reasonable.

The Court accepted that the officer could characterize the applicant’s HOOPP employment as primarily a clerical or bookkeeping role, rather than work matching the lead statement for NOC 1241.

The applicant’s evidence showed that she reconciled financial data, processed journal entries, performed data entry and provided support to planning and performance teams. However, the Court found that the officer was reasonably entitled to conclude that these duties did not amount to a substantial number of the main duties required under NOC 1241.

The Court also emphasized that the CEC requirements are cumulative. The applicant had to satisfy both the lead-statement requirement and the requirement to perform a substantial number of the main duties. Because the officer’s finding concerning the main duties was reasonable, the application could not succeed even if there were some doubt about the lead-statement finding.

The Court rejected the argument that the officer’s reasons were too brief. The reasons identified the relevant NOC and explained that the applicant’s duties did not satisfy its requirements. The Court could therefore understand why the application was refused.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the refusal of the CEC application.

Case Citation:

Morgan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 897 CanLII