Permanent Residence Refusal Due to Questioned Canadian
Work Experience
The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of permanent
residence application under the Express Entry Federal Skilled Worker Program.
The applicant had claimed Canadian work experience as president of Student
Nurses Canada and received 40 CRS points for that employment. The officer
concluded that the business did not appear to be operating as described and
removed the work-experience points, reducing the applicant’s CRS below the
cutoff for his invitation round. The Court granted judicial review because the officer
did not explain the finding that the company was not operational or engage with
the evidence submitted in response to the procedural fairness letter.
Key Principle
An Express Entry refusal must stand or fall on the reasons
actually provided by the decision-maker. Although gaps in the evidence may
potentially support a finding that a claimed employer was not operational,
government counsel cannot supply new reasons during judicial review to justify
the result. Where the officer gives no explanation for rejecting evidence of
business operations and does not meaningfully address the applicant’s response
to a procedural fairness letter, the decision lacks justification, transparency,
and intelligibility.
Background
The applicant created an Express Entry profile claiming
Canadian work experience as president of Student Nurses Canada. This employment
provided 40 CRS points, raising his score to 476, which was 13 points above the
applicable invitation threshold.
After receiving an invitation to apply, he submitted an
employment verification letter, paystubs, and a T4 statement.
IRCC later issued a procedural fairness letter expressing
concern that Student Nurses Canada was not operational and requesting evidence
of its ongoing business activities and location.
The applicant responded with the company’s 2023 CRA Notice
of Assessment, Facebook screenshots, a memorandum of understanding with
Clarkridge Career Institute, and a declaration from legal counsel stating that
the company provided educational services and remained in good standing.
The officer nevertheless concluded that the business did not
appear to be operating as claimed and that the applicant could not have
performed the stated NOC duties.
Court Findings
• Officer Provided No Supporting Analysis
The GCMS notes stated only that the company did not appear
to be operating. They did not identify which evidence was deficient or explain
how the officer reached that conclusion.
• Evidence Submitted After the PFL Was Not Addressed
The officer failed to engage with the CRA document,
partnership agreement, social media evidence, legal declaration, or the
applicant’s detailed explanation of the company’s services.
• Respondent Could Not Supplement the Reasons
The Minister identified several possible weaknesses,
including limited proof of students, business communications, training
materials, or tax activity. However, these explanations were not found in the
officer’s reasons and could not be added afterward by counsel.
• CRS Recalculation Could Not Stand
Because the decision to remove the Canadian work-experience
points depended on the unexplained finding that the company was not
operational, the resulting conclusion under section 11.2 of the IRPA was
unreasonable.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the
refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for
redetermination. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1944 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
