Ugboh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 876 : Express Entry Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Changed Primary Occupation Without Declaring Qualifying Work Experience

The Federal Court reviewed Raymond Chukwuemeke Ugboh’s refusal of permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker Program. The officer found insufficient qualifying work experience in NOC 1114, the applicant’s declared primary occupation. The Court dismissed judicial review and found the refusal reasonable.

Key Principle

Express Entry applicants are responsible for maintaining accurate information. Eligibility is assessed both when an invitation is issued and when the permanent residence application is received. If an applicant changes the declared primary occupation but does not establish the required experience for that occupation, an officer may reasonably refuse the application.

Background

The applicant identified NOC 1114, Other Financial Officers, as his primary occupation in his permanent residence application. Earlier, he had identified NOC 1112 and then NOC 2133. Nova Scotia later nominated him under NOC 1114. When he submitted his permanent residence application, his declared work history did not include experience under NOC 1114.

Court Findings

• Express Entry Information Remained the Applicant’s Responsibility

The Court held that candidates must ensure their profiles are accurate and updated. Applicants must continue meeting the requirements when their permanent residence applications are received.

• Eligibility Was Assessed at Two Stages

Section 11.2 of IRPA requires consideration of eligibility when the invitation is issued and when the permanent residence application is received. A change in declared information may therefore affect eligibility at the second stage.

• Changing NOC Declarations Were Central

At the invitation stage, the applicant’s primary occupation was NOC 2133, supported by declared work experience. At the application stage, he changed it to NOC 1114 but did not declare corresponding work experience. Nova Scotia’s nomination did not remove his responsibility to satisfy the federal requirements at the application stage.

• Employer Evidence Did Not Cure the Deficiency

The Court considered the Union Bank employment letter and acknowledged that it may have supported the claimed NOC 1114 experience. However, the applicant had not updated his declared employment history to include that experience. The officer was entitled to assess the application using the information actually declared.

• GCMS Record Supported the Officer

The GCMS record stated that the applicant had not declared employment history under his primary NOC at the time of the permanent residence application. The Court found this consistent with the record and sufficient to understand the reasoning.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Occurred

The applicant argued that he should have been given an opportunity to address the deficiency. The Court held that the concern arose directly from the legislative requirements and the applicant’s own application. An officer is not generally required to invite additional evidence where the applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility.

• Court Would Not Reweigh the Evidence

Although receiving an invitation and later being refused may seem unfair, the Express Entry scheme contemplates this possibility. The applicant must continue to satisfy the applicable criteria when the application is received. The officer therefore committed no reviewable error.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application and upheld the refusal of the permanent residence application. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Ugboh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 876 (CanLII)