In Kariminezhad v. Canada, 2026 FC 1207, the Federal Court granted judicial review of a Canadian Experience Class permanent residence refusal after finding that the officer’s reasons did not address employment evidence central to the applicant’s CEC work experience.
CEC application and refusal under review
Ms. Shohreh Kariminezhad, an Iranian citizen, was invited to apply for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class on September 19, 2024. Her application was refused on April 14, 2025, with a refusal letter communicated on May 16, 2025.
The applicant relied on work experience classified under NOC 21110. She had worked at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow from November 2022 to August 2024 and had worked there as a Research Analyst from September 2024.
Under the Canadian Experience Class requirements described by the Court, an applicant must, among other conditions, have at least one year of full-time skilled work experience in Canada during the three years before applying. During that employment, the applicant must have performed the actions in the occupation’s lead statement, a substantial number of its main duties and all essential duties.
Employment evidence was central to eligibility
The applicant submitted two employment letters to support her work history. Both letters described her duties, employment period and salary. She accepted that the first letter alone did not meet the CEC requirements, but the second letter covered the period needed to establish the required year of work experience.
She also provided pay stubs corresponding to that period, which confirmed the stated salary. Justice Azmudeh found that the officer’s reasons and Global Case Management System notes did not refer to the second letter or the pay stubs. The officer instead referred exclusively to the first letter and concluded that the applicant had not established the required duration and nature of her work experience.
Court finds unreasonable gap in the officer’s reasoning
The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. The Court assessed whether the refusal was transparent, intelligible and justified in light of the record before the officer.
Justice Azmudeh held that there was a fatal breakdown in the officer’s reasoning. The officer stated that no additional supporting evidence had been provided to substantiate the duties performed or confirm the duration of employment, but the record contained evidence directly addressing those concerns.
The Court said the officer could have concluded that the applicant had not met the program requirements despite that evidence. However, the reasons needed to explain why deficiencies in the first letter outweighed the substantive and corroborative evidence elsewhere in the record.
The applicable policy required officers to evaluate other relevant documents an applicant provides, which could include pay stubs and Notices of Assessment. While an officer need not discuss every document, the Court found that this did not justify silence on evidence central to the issue being decided.
The respondent argued before the Court that neither employment letter complied with the policy because they did not confirm that the work had actually been performed. The Court noted that this argument had been raised by counsel rather than the officer, whose notes were silent on the second letter. It held that counsel could not supply a post-hoc justification for deficient reasons.
Judicial review granted
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review. The applicant had also sought reconsideration after the original refusal, but that request was refused on September 22, 2025. The Court confirmed that the initial refusal, rather than the reconsideration decision, was the decision under review.
Neither party proposed a question for certification, and the Court agreed that none arose. The decision addresses the adequacy of the reasons in this record, particularly where evidence bearing directly on CEC work experience was not addressed.
Source: Federal Court Decisions