Odufodunrin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 736 : Express Entry Refusal Upheld Where Employment Letter Did Not Establish Experience in the Declared NOC

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an Express Entry permanent residence refusal under the Federal Skilled Worker Class. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had at least one year of continuous full-time paid work experience in the declared NOC 5241, Graphic Designers and Illustrators. The Court found that the Officer reasonably assessed the employment evidence and was not required to issue a procedural fairness letter merely because the Applicant believed his duties could be reconciled with the NOC requirements.

Key Principle

An Express Entry applicant bears the burden of establishing that the claimed work experience satisfies the requirements of the declared primary NOC. Where the employment letter does not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant performed the duties of the declared NOC, an officer may refuse the application based on evidentiary insufficiency without first seeking clarification or issuing a procedural fairness letter. The Court will not reweigh the evidence to construct a different NOC match.

Background

The Applicant, a Nigerian citizen, applied for permanent residence as a skilled worker through Express Entry. He identified NOC 5241, Graphic Designers and Illustrators, as his primary occupation and relied on employment with Guaranty Trust Bank. His employer’s February 2019 employment letter described his position as Assistant Banking Officer – In-House Creative. The listed duties included interpreting product briefs visually, creating internal communications content, developing social-media visual strategies, physical product design, and ensuring compliance with brand guidelines.

The Officer concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the required work experience in NOC 5241. The Applicant argued that his employer had simply used different wording and that the duties could be matched to the NOC duties. He presented a comparative analysis to the Court attempting to establish the correspondence.

Court Findings

• Employment evidence was insufficient: The employment letter was the only relevant employment evidence before the Officer for assessing whether the Applicant had the required experience in NOC 5241. The Officer was entitled to assess the actual duties described in that document.

• Court would not reweigh the evidence: The Applicant attempted to demonstrate before the Court that the duties in his employment letter corresponded to NOC 5241. The Court declined to conduct its own comparative assessment because doing so would amount to reweighing the evidence rather than reviewing the Officer’s decision for reasonableness.

• Applicant bore the evidentiary burden: Although the Officer’s reasons were brief, they sufficiently explained why the evidence did not establish the regulatory requirements. The Applicant was responsible for putting forward a convincing application and supporting documentation capable of establishing the claimed qualifications.

• No procedural fairness breach: The Applicant argued that the Officer should have issued a procedural fairness letter because his duties fell within a “grey area” of NOC 5241. The Court rejected this argument. The concern was one of evidentiary sufficiency, rather than credibility, authenticity or a new adverse fact. The Officer was therefore not required to seek clarification from the Applicant or employer.

• Applicant must put forward the best case: Officers are entitled to apply their expertise to the evidence submitted and draw reasonable conclusions without alerting applicants to every potential weakness in their applications.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Officer’s decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Odufodunrin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 736 (CanLII)