Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1767 : Court Finds Officer Properly Assessed Credibility of Employment Evidence in Express Entry Application

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Harmanpreet Singh’s permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class. The officer concluded that the applicant’s employment at Bhogal Metal Works Inc. as a Tool and Die Maker was not genuine, leaving him without the required work experience. The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that the officer unreasonably ignored affidavits and supporting documentation.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that a decision is reasonable where it exhibits justification, transparency, and intelligibility. Courts will not reweigh evidence or substitute their own assessment where the officer’s decision falls within a range of defensible outcomes. Alleged misassessment of evidence does not render a decision unreasonable if the officer has provided sufficient explanation for their conclusion.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of India, created an Express Entry profile based on employment at Bhogal Metal Works Inc., submitting a Provincial Nominee Program nomination and subsequent permanent residence application. His supporting documents included an undated letter of employment, letter of offer, T4 slip, Notice of Assessment, and paystubs covering select periods. IRCC requested additional paystubs covering January 2022 to February 2024, and the applicant submitted nineteen additional pay periods and one in August 2023.

The officer issued a procedural fairness letter (PFL) identifying inconsistencies in the paystubs, the letter of offer, and the wage rate. The applicant responded with affidavits from himself and the employer confirming employment, wage increases, and the administrative errors leading to discrepancies. The officer remained unconvinced and refused the application.

Court Findings

• Officer’s Assessment Was Reasonable

The Court held that the officer provided a rational explanation for rejecting the work experience. The decision identified specific inconsistencies, evaluated the affidavits, and explained why the discrepancies undermined the credibility of the claimed employment.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach

The applicant argued that the officer should have contacted PNP officials or conducted an interview. The Court found the applicant was fully aware of the officer’s concerns via the PFL and had an opportunity to respond. The officer’s reliance on documentary evidence and PFL responses met procedural fairness requirements.

• Court Cannot Reweigh Evidence

The applicant’s disagreement with the officer’s evaluation of affidavits and paystubs does not render the decision unreasonable. Judicial review does not permit the Court to substitute its assessment for that of a specialized decision-maker.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The officer’s refusal was justified, transparent, and intelligible. No question for certification was raised.

Case Citation:

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