Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1767 : CEC Refusal Upheld Where Inconsistent Employment Documents Undermined the Genuineness of Claimed Work Experience

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an Officer’s refusal of the Applicant’s permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC). The Officer found that the Applicant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that his declared Canadian employment was genuine because of multiple inconsistencies in his employment documentation. The Court held that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence and that the Applicant had been given a meaningful opportunity to respond through a procedural fairness letter (PFL).

Key Principle

A CEC applicant bears the burden of establishing the qualifying Canadian work experience claimed in the application. Where employment documents contain material inconsistencies concerning periods worked, wages, pay frequency, and employment terms, an officer may reasonably question the genuineness of the employment. Where the officer identifies those concerns in a PFL and provides an opportunity to respond, there is generally no further obligation to conduct additional inquiries or consult provincial authorities.

Background

The Applicant, an Indian citizen and temporary resident of Canada, created an Express Entry profile based on full-time employment as a Tool and Die Maker. He received an Ontario PNP nomination and was invited to apply for permanent residence after receiving points for two years of Canadian work experience. His CEC application declared employment with the Employer from January 5, 2022 to February 3, 2024 and included employment letters, a 2022 T4, Notice of Assessment and limited paystubs.

IRCC subsequently requested additional paystubs. The Officer identified inconsistencies including insufficient paystubs to establish the claimed experience, conflicting pay periods, weekly rather than bi-weekly payment, and a difference between the $17 hourly wage shown in early paystubs and the $22 wage stated in the employment offer.

The Applicant responded that the discrepancies resulted from an administrative error by the Employer. The Employer provided an affidavit confirming the employment and wage increase and supplied additional documentation. The Officer nevertheless remained unconvinced that the employment was genuine and excluded it from the Applicant’s qualifying work experience.

Court Findings

• Officer adequately addressed the evidence: The Court rejected the argument that the Officer ignored the affidavits and supporting evidence. The Officer expressly considered the affidavits but found that they did not adequately explain how the administrative errors occurred, including why pay records, employment letters and other documents contained conflicting information.

• No reweighing of evidence: The Applicant essentially disagreed with the Officer’s assessment of the explanations and documentary evidence. The Court emphasized that its role was not to reassess the evidence or substitute its own conclusion under Vavilov.

• Procedural fairness was satisfied: The PFL specifically identified the documentary inconsistencies and warned of the potential consequences of misrepresentation. The Applicant was given an opportunity to provide further information and documentation and did so through his own affidavit and the Employer’s affidavit.

• No duty to consult PNP officials: The Court rejected the argument that IRCC was required to contact Ontario PNP officials to verify the employment. The Applicant was responsible for proving the information declared in his Express Entry profile and could not shift that evidentiary burden to the provincial authorities.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Officer’s decision was neither unreasonable nor procedurally unfair. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1767 (CanLII)