The Federal Court has set aside a Canadian Experience Class refusal after finding that the applicant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to credibility concerns about his claimed supervisory duties. The Canadian Experience Class work experience application must be reconsidered by a different officer.
CEC application was refused after CRS points were removed
In Badana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1252, Justice Saint-Fleur granted judicial review of an IRCC officer’s refusal of a permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC). The decision was released on October 9, 2026.
The applicant had submitted an Express Entry profile in July 2024 and was invited to apply for permanent residence under the CEC. He claimed Canadian work experience as a gas station supervisor, welder and advisor.
IRCC sent a procedural fairness letter in December 2024 seeking documents about the gas station employer, including business registration material, corporate tax returns, T4 summaries, bank statements and a Record of Employment. The applicant provided most requested documents and explained that he could not obtain a Record of Employment because he had resigned voluntarily.
The officer accepted that the gas station was a legitimate employer and that the applicant had worked there full-time. However, the officer concluded that the evidence did not show that he performed the supervisory duties associated with NOC 62010 for retail sales supervisors.
The officer excluded that work experience from the applicant’s Express Entry calculation. This reduced his score by 24 Comprehensive Ranking System points for Canadian work experience and 13 points under skills transferability, leaving him below the score of the lowest-ranked person invited in his round.
Court found an undisclosed credibility concern
The Court considered the merits of the refusal on the reasonableness standard. It reviewed the procedural fairness issue on a correctness-like standard, asking whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair opportunity to respond.
The officer relied on the employer’s T4 summaries to infer that the applicant had not supervised staff. The 2022 T4 summary showed two T4 slips with total employment income matching the applicant’s individual T4 slip. The officer found that this did not support the applicant’s claim to have supervised anyone.
Justice Saint-Fleur held that this was not simply a deficiency in the application or a concern arising directly from legislative requirements. Rather, the officer used material submitted in response to the fairness letter to raise a new concern about the credibility of the applicant’s claim that he carried out supervisory duties.
The Court noted that the employer’s letter described duties including supervising, coordinating and assigning sales workers, preparing schedules, hiring and training employees, and reporting on and monitoring performance. The officer’s notes and decision letter did not address that employer letter or explain why the T4 information established that the supervisory claim was false.
Given the evidence already on file, the Court found that the applicant should have been informed of the concern and given an opportunity to respond before the refusal was made.
New affidavit evidence was not accepted
The applicant filed affidavit evidence in court about colleagues he said he had supervised and trained. He argued that the information showed what he could have submitted had IRCC disclosed its concern.
The Court agreed with the respondent that this information was not before the officer and did not fall within the recognized exceptions for new evidence on judicial review. It therefore declined to consider the new material.
Refusal set aside and sent to a different officer
The Court found that the CEC application had been assessed unfairly because the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to address the officer’s credibility concern about his supervisory work experience.
The application for judicial review was granted. The permanent residence refusal was set aside and returned for redetermination by a different officer. No question was certified.
The decision does not determine that the claimed work experience qualifies under the CEC. It requires a new assessment conducted with procedural fairness.
What the decision means for CEC applications
This Federal Court decision is fact-specific and is not a general finding that an officer must identify every weakness in a CEC application. The Court distinguished ordinary evidentiary deficiencies from a new credibility concern arising from documents provided during processing.
For immigration practice, the decision illustrates that where an officer relies on application material to make a determinative adverse credibility finding, fairness may require giving the applicant an opportunity to address that concern.
Source: Federal Court Decisions