Song v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 141 : CEC Refusal Overturned Because Officer Misread the Applicant’s Job Duties

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Canadian Experience Class permanent residence application after an officer decided that the applicant’s work experience did not match the duties required for his claimed occupation.

The applicant worked as a Front Store Manager at a pharmacy and relied on NOC 0621, Retail and Wholesale Trade Manager. His employer provided a detailed letter describing his actual responsibilities.

The Court found that the officer had unreasonably concluded that the applicant did not perform the required duties. A proper comparison showed that the employment letter covered almost all of the main duties of the NOC.

Key Principle

An employment letter does not have to copy the exact wording of the National Occupational Classification. In fact, employers should describe what an employee actually does in their own words.

An immigration officer must then meaningfully compare those real duties with the NOC requirements. A refusal may be unreasonable where the officer focuses on differences in wording rather than examining whether the substance of the applicant’s duties matches the occupation.

Background

The applicant applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class in 2012. He claimed qualifying Canadian work experience as a Front Store Manager under NOC 0621 and also relied on earlier experience as a Pharmacy Technician under NOC 3219.

The officer rejected the Front Store Manager experience because the employment letter supposedly did not show that the applicant performed several duties associated with NOC 0621, including planning operations, studying market trends, implementing pricing policies, and planning budgets.

The officer therefore concluded that the applicant did not have the required period of skilled Canadian work experience.

Court Findings

The Federal Court directly compared the duties listed in the employer’s letter with the duties under NOC 0621.

The employment letter stated that the applicant:

• determined merchandise and services to be sold;
• managed staff and assigned duties;
• hired and trained employees;
• handled refunds and customer complaints;
• selected merchandise for resale;
• organized promotions and marketing activities;
• analyzed customer demand;
• managed stock levels; and
• supervised the retail section.

The Court found that these responsibilities satisfied the lead statement and nearly all of the main duties under NOC 0621.

The Court specifically rejected the idea that an employer must use the precise words appearing in the NOC.

It noted that immigration applications can themselves attract concern when employment letters merely repeat NOC language word-for-word. Employers are therefore expected to describe duties naturally and accurately.

The officer’s job is to examine whether those duties, in substance, correspond to the NOC.

In this case, the Court found that the officer had failed to do so properly. The decision was described as incomprehensible because the evidence before the officer substantially supported the applicant’s claimed occupation.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, quashed the refusal, and returned the Canadian Experience Class application to a different officer for reconsideration.

Historical Note: This case was decided under the Canadian Experience Class rules and NOC system in effect in 2012–2015. Current applicants should confirm the applicable Express Entry, CEC, and NOC/TEER requirements before relying on the historical eligibility rules discussed in the decision.

Case Citation:

Song v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 141 CanLII