Oladimeji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 183 : Express Entry Refusal Upheld Where Open Work Permit Did Not Support Arranged Employment Points

The Federal Court reviewed Amos Oladimeji’s refusal for PR under Express Entry as a member of the Canadian experience class. The issue was whether he should receive 50 Comprehensive Ranking System points for a qualifying offer of arranged employment. The Court upheld the refusal because his employer was not specified on his work permit.

Key Principle

Express Entry applicants must satisfy the specific criteria in the Ministerial Instructions governing Comprehensive Ranking System points. Lawful employment, an open work permit, or authorization to work without a permit does not replace an express requirement that the qualifying job offer come from an employer named on the applicant’s work permit.

Background

The applicant had worked as a pastor for the same church since 2013. He initially worked without a permit under the religious-worker exemption, later studied for a Master of Divinity, and in 2017 received a post-graduation open work permit. His Express Entry profile included 50 arranged-employment points, which determined whether he met the invitation threshold.

Court Findings

• Ministerial Instructions Controlled the Assessment

The Court emphasized that Express Entry is governed by Ministerial Instructions that may impose requirements more stringent than other immigration provisions. The relevant instructions did not award points for any employment offer. They required a qualifying offer of arranged employment meeting every listed condition.

• Employer Had to Be Named on the Permit

For the 50 points claimed, the applicant needed a qualifying work permit and an offer from an employer specified on that permit. His post-graduation work permit was open and did not name the church. That missing requirement was independently sufficient to make him ineligible for the points.

• Religious-Worker Exemption Did Not Create an Exception

The applicant argued that because he could lawfully work as a religious worker without a permit, the employer-specific permit requirement should not apply. The Court disagreed. The Ministerial Instructions contained no such exception, and lawful authorization to work could not substitute for the expressly stated scoring criterion.

• Other Arranged-Employment Rules Could Not Be Imported

The applicant relied on separate provisions governing arranged-employment points where authorization to work without a permit may be relevant. The Court held those rules did not govern the 50 Express Entry points. The Minister incorporated only the definition of arranged employment and deliberately adopted different scoring criteria.

• Possible Permit-Category Error Was Not Material

The officer may have been wrong in stating that the applicant lacked a work permit issued under an eligible provision, since his post-graduation permit may have fallen within that authority. The error did not change the result. Even if that condition was satisfied, his employer was still not specified on the permit.

• Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied

The refusal rested on the legal criteria and the objective absence of the employer’s name from the work permit, not on credibility. The applicant also made two reconsideration requests after learning the officer’s concerns. He therefore had repeated opportunities to make submissions, and the process was fair.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. The officer reasonably denied the 50 arranged-employment points, leaving the applicant below the Express Entry invitation threshold. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Oladimeji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 183 (CanLII)