Samli v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 928 : Express Entry PR Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored H&C Exemption Request

The Federal Court reviewed Kausar Samli and his family’s Canadian Experience Class PR refusal. The officer found that he no longer had one year of qualifying Canadian work experience within the required three-year period when his PR application was submitted. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to address his express H&C exemption request.

Key Principle

Where an applicant expressly requests H&C relief from an immigration requirement, an officer must meaningfully address that request and explain whether it can legally be considered. A reviewing court cannot supply missing reasons, speculate about an unstated statutory bar, or uphold a decision on reasoning the officer never gave.

Background

The applicant worked in Canada from July 2017 to July 2018. He entered the Express Entry pool in July 2020 and received an invitation under the CEC. By the time he submitted his PR application in September 2020, part of that experience fell outside the three-year qualifying window. His counsel expressly requested an H&C exemption and filed supporting establishment, contribution, family, and BIOC evidence.

Court Findings

• H&C Request Was Central to the Application

The applicant expressly acknowledged that he no longer met the CEC work-time requirement and specifically requested relief under subsection 25(1). The request was central to the viability of the PR application and was supported by detailed submissions and updated evidence.

• Officer Completely Failed to Address the Request

Neither the refusal letter nor the GCMS notes mentioned the H&C request. There was no analysis of the supporting evidence, no determination whether relief was legally available, and no explanation for declining to consider it. The Court found the decision unresponsive to a key issue.

• No Reasoning Existed on the Potential Statutory Bar

On judicial review, the Minister argued that paragraph 25(1.2)(a.1) prohibited consideration of the H&C request because it sought relief from Express Entry criteria connected to Division 0.1. The officer, however, never mentioned that provision or explained whether it applied.

• Court Could Not Backfill the Missing Reasons

The Court rejected the Minister’s attempt to defend the refusal based on a statutory interpretation the officer never articulated. Under Vavilov, a decision must actually be justified by the decision-maker. The Court could not speculate that the officer silently relied on the statutory bar or create a rationale afterward.

• Statutory Interpretation Was Not Inevitably One-Sided

The parties advanced competing interpretations of whether H&C relief was legally available. The applicant argued he sought relief only from section 11.2 and the CEC work-time requirement, while the Minister argued those criteria were incorporated into Division 0.1 through the Ministerial Instructions. The Court found neither position inevitably dispositive.

• Redetermination Was the Proper Remedy

Resolving the dispute required interpretation of several statutory and regulatory provisions together with factual determinations about the Express Entry process and the applicant’s circumstances. Because the officer remained the proper merits decision-maker, the Court declined to decide the H&C availability issue itself.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the June 3, 2021 refusal, and remitted the matter to another officer for redetermination. The proposed certified question concerning H&C relief in the CEC context was refused.

Case Citation:

Samli v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 928 (CanLII)