Ruchika v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 414: Federal Skilled Trades Refusal Set Aside After Officer Ignored Affidavit Evidence of Work Experience

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed an IRCC decision refusing a permanent residence application under the Federal Skilled Trades Class. The officer concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the required two years of qualifying work experience as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor prior to coming to Canada. While the Court accepted that the officer could question inconsistencies between the applicant’s previous Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application and her permanent residence application, it held that the officer failed to consider key evidence supporting her claimed work experience. The decision was therefore found to be unreasonable.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that while officers are entitled to assess the weight and credibility of evidence, they must meaningfully address contradictory evidence that is central to the issues before them. A failure to consider material evidence or explain why it was rejected may render a decision unreasonable under the principles established in Vavilov.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of India, entered Canada in 2018 on a work permit after being hired as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor. She later applied for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Trades Class, claiming that she had acquired qualifying work experience in the same occupation while working for her family’s business in India.

During processing, IRCC noted that her earlier TRV application listed her occupation as “housewife” and made no reference to prior employment. Following a procedural fairness letter, the applicant explained that it is common in India for women working in family businesses to describe themselves as housewives. She also submitted an affidavit detailing her job duties, together with tax records, bank statements, and supporting documentation.

Court Findings

• Officer Could Question Inconsistencies

The Court accepted that it was open to the officer to question the inconsistency between the applicant’s TRV application and her permanent residence application. Similarly, the officer was entitled to reject the explanation that women working in family businesses commonly identify themselves as housewives if adequate reasons were provided.

• Material Evidence Was Not Properly Considered

The Court found that the officer concluded the applicant had “no previous experience in carpet and flooring installation” without addressing her detailed affidavit describing her supervisory duties at the family business. The affidavit specifically outlined responsibilities that closely aligned with the claimed skilled occupation.

• Failure to Address Contradictory Evidence Rendered the Decision Unreasonable

Justice Régimbald held that although the officer could assign limited weight to the affidavit, they were nevertheless required to explain why it was insufficient. Ignoring evidence that directly contradicted a central finding undermined the transparency and intelligibility of the decision and caused the Court to lose confidence in the outcome.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and remitted the matter to a different IRCC officer for redetermination. The Court held that the officer’s failure to consider the applicant’s affidavit and other material evidence concerning her skilled work experience rendered the refusal unreasonable. No question was certified.

Case Citation: Ruchika v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 414 (CanLII)