Probortona v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1461 : Express Entry Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Properly Assess Applicant’s Professional Law Degree and Education Credentials

The Federal Court granted judicial review of an Express Entry Federal Skilled Worker refusal arising from the Applicant’s educational credentials and CRS score. The Applicant, a Bangladeshi citizen and qualified Barrister in England and Wales, received an ITA after the Express Entry system awarded points based on her declared education. The officer later relied on the ICAS assessment to reduce her education points below the applicable CRS threshold. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to explain which educational category applied and failed to consider whether the Applicant possessed a professional degree required to practise in a licensed profession.

Key Principle

Under IRPA s 11.2, an Express Entry applicant must possess the qualifications on which their ranking and ITA were based when the ITA was issued and when the PR application was received. However, where an officer reassesses an applicant’s credentials and reduces the CRS score, the officer must provide transparent and intelligible reasons explaining the applicable education category and resulting score. An officer cannot simply rely on an ECA without meaningfully addressing relevant evidence concerning the nature of the credential.

Background

The Applicant held an LL.B. from De Montfort University and a Postgraduate Diploma in Professional Legal Skills from the City School of Law. The latter followed completion of a year-long Bar Professional Training Course and was a prerequisite to being called to the Bar in England and Wales.

ICAS assessed her credentials as equivalent to a Canadian Bachelor’s Degree and Post-Bachelor’s Diploma. When initially completing the IRCC eligibility questionnaire, the Applicant selected “Two or more certificates, diplomas, or degrees.” However, the subsequent Express Entry Profile did not provide that option. She therefore selected “Master’s degree, or professional degree needed to practice in a licensed profession” for both credentials.

This resulted in 126 CRS points. She received an ITA with a score of 481, while the lowest-ranked candidate in that round had 478 points. After reassessing her education, the officer reduced her score below the invitation threshold and refused the application under s 11.2.

Court Findings

• Failure to identify the applicable education category

The Court found the officer’s reasons unclear because the officer referred to the credentials as a “Bachelor’s Degree and Post-Bachelor’s Diploma,” without explaining how those credentials corresponded to the CRS education categories or what precise CRS score resulted.

More importantly, the officer did not address the second component of the category selected by the Applicant—“professional degree needed to practice in a licensed profession.” The evidence established that the Applicant was a practising Barrister in England and Wales.

• Failure to engage with relevant evidence

The Court found the case analogous to Lakhanpal, where an officer failed to explain why foreign post-secondary education did not satisfy the applicable educational requirement. Here, the officer failed to meaningfully consider the Applicant’s professional legal qualifications and the IRCC webpage, which specifically identified a Bachelor of Law as an example of a professional degree.

The Court rejected the argument that Khan established that a professional law degree could only be recognized where an applicant possessed two Bachelor’s degrees.

• IRCC system and guidance

The Court also noted that the Express Entry system itself created confusion by presenting different education options at the eligibility stage and profile stage. Had the appropriate option been available, the Applicant could have selected the category corresponding to her credentials and received a lower score before being invited.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusal, and remitted the matter to a different visa officer for redetermination. No costs were awarded and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Probortona v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1461 (CanLII)