Thompson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 914 : Express Entry PR Application Rejection Set Aside Where IRCC Provided Unclear Document Instructions

The Federal Court reviewed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s rejection of Dominic Kealan Thompson’s Canadian Experience Class (CEC) permanent residence application as incomplete. IRCC refused the application because it found that proof of the applicant’s completed Canadian educational credential was not provided. The Court found the decision unreasonable because IRCC’s own instructions were unclear and the applicant reasonably relied on the guidance provided online.

Key Principle

Applicants are responsible for submitting complete applications, but IRCC must provide clear and accurate instructions consistent with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations. Where an applicant reasonably relies on unclear IRCC instructions and submits a document containing the necessary information, IRCC cannot unfairly penalize the applicant without proper justification.

Background

The applicant was a citizen of the United Kingdom who came to Canada as an international student to complete a Master of Science degree in Chemical Engineering at the University of Alberta. After graduation, he obtained a Post-Graduation Work Permit and later applied for permanent residence through the Canadian Experience Class under Express Entry.

To prove completion of his Canadian educational credential, the applicant requested a verification document from the University of Alberta Registrar’s Office. The university issued a “Certified Information” document confirming that he completed the requirements for his Master of Science degree, including the program and award date. The applicant uploaded this document under the “Education (diplomas/degrees)” category in his Express Entry application.

IRCC rejected the application as incomplete, stating that a completed Canadian credential certificate, diploma, or degree had not been provided. The applicant requested reconsideration and explained that he believed the university-issued document satisfied the requirement. He later provided a copy of his degree certificate.

Court Findings

• IRCC Instructions Created Confusion

The Court found that IRCC’s online instructions stated that applicants must provide proof of completed post-secondary education and gave “a diploma and/or degree” as examples. The Court held that the use of the word “examples” suggested that other documents could also satisfy the requirement.

• Applicant Was Entitled to Rely on IRCC Guidance

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to rely on the instructions provided by IRCC. The instructions did not clearly state that only a certificate, diploma, or degree would be accepted. The applicant should not be penalized for relying on unclear government guidance.

• Certified University Document Contained Necessary Information

The Court found that the document submitted by the applicant contained the information required to assess his education credential. It confirmed that he graduated from the University of Alberta, identified the degree type, subject area, and date of completion.

• IRCC Failed to Explain Why Document Was Insufficient

The rejection letter simply stated that the applicant had not provided proof of his completed Canadian credential. It did not explain why the Certified Information document from the university registrar failed to meet the requirement. The Court found this lack of explanation inconsistent with the requirement for justified decision-making.

• Reconsideration Request Was Reasonable

The applicant contacted IRCC after the refusal and expressed confusion about why the university document was insufficient. He asked for guidance on how to correct the issue. The Court considered this relevant because the applicant was actively attempting to understand and remedy the alleged deficiency.

• IRCC Did Not Need to Complete Applications for Applicants

The Court acknowledged that IRCC is not required to chase applicants or ensure that applications are completed correctly. However, in this case, IRCC had received proof of the Canadian educational credential, even if it was not the exact document later preferred. A simple request for the diploma could have resolved the issue if all other requirements were met.

• Decision Failed the Vavilov Standard

The Court held that although the decision may have been transparent and intelligible, it was not justified on the specific facts. The applicant was misled by unclear instructions and the refusal did not adequately explain why the submitted evidence was insufficient.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and referred the matter back to IRCC for reconsideration of the permanent residence application, taking into account the diploma submitted by the applicant. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Thompson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 914 (CanLII), [2022] 1 FCR 91