Su v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2001 : IRCC Officer’s Misreading of Police Certificate Timeline Leads to Express Entry Decision Being Overturned

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class through Express Entry. The application was rejected as incomplete because the applicant’s spouse’s Chinese police certificate was found not to cover the required period of residence. The Court held that the officer made a significant factual error regarding the timing of the police certificate and incorrectly concluded that the certificate was issued before the spouse’s final period of residence in China. As a result, the refusal decision was found to be unreasonable.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that immigration decisions must be based on an accurate understanding of the evidence before the decision-maker. Where a refusal depends on the interpretation of a document, an officer must correctly assess the relevant dates and facts. A material factual error that affects the reasoning process cannot be corrected by the Court through its own reassessment of the evidence.

Background

The applicant, Bin Su, applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class through Express Entry. IRCC rejected the application as incomplete because the police certificate submitted for the applicant’s wife from China was considered unacceptable.

The officer determined that the certificate did not cover the full period of the spouse’s residence in China. The refusal letter stated that the certificate had been issued before the spouse’s last residence in China, suggesting that the uncovered period occurred after the certificate was issued.

However, the evidence showed that the spouse resided in China from February 2018 to August 2022, while the police certificate confirmed no criminal offences during the period from April 2019 to April 2024. The certificate was therefore issued after the spouse had already left China.

Court Findings

• Officer Misunderstood the Relevant Dates

The Court found that the officer incorrectly interpreted the timing of the police certificate. The refusal letter stated that the certificate was issued before the spouse’s final residence in China, but the evidence demonstrated the opposite: the certificate was issued after the spouse had departed China.

• Error Was Material to the Decision

The Respondent argued that the date error did not affect the outcome because the GCMS notes stated that the police certificate failed to cover the entire period of residence in China. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the refusal letter and GCMS notes together showed that the officer believed the missing period occurred after the certificate was issued.

Justice Gagné held that this misunderstanding affected the officer’s assessment because the certificate actually satisfied the requirement that it be issued after the applicant’s last period of residence in the country.

• Court Could Not Substitute Its Own Decision

The Court emphasized that it could not reassess the evidence and decide whether the application should have been accepted. Since the officer’s reasoning was based on a significant factual error, the matter had to be returned to IRCC for a new determination.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, and remitted the matter to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer. The Court concluded that the police certificate issue was assessed based on an incorrect understanding of the evidence. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Su v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2001 (CanLII)