The Federal Court has dismissed a challenge to the refusal of a Canadian Experience Class permanent residence application after finding the IRCC officer reasonably questioned the genuineness of the applicant’s claimed work as a data administrator. The CEC employment genuineness dispute centred on evidence about the employer, the applicant’s background and inconsistencies in the materials provided in response to a procedural fairness letter.
Case information and immigration context
In Garg v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1242, Madam Justice Go dismissed the application for judicial review. The court file was IMM-7329-25.
The applicant, a citizen of India, had applied for permanent residence through Express Entry as a member of the Canadian Experience Class (CEC). She relied in part on work as a data administrator at an Alberta-incorporated business, First Point Financial.
After issuing a procedural fairness letter on November 22, 2024, an IRCC officer concluded that the claimed employment was not genuine. The officer did not count that employment toward the applicant’s Canadian work experience and refused the application after finding she had not shown at least one year of qualifying work experience in the preceding three years.
Court declines to consider new employer documents
The applicant filed a corporate income tax return and a land title certificate with her affidavit before the Federal Court. The respondent argued that the documents had not been before the officer.
Justice Go found the new evidence inadmissible. The court concluded that the documents were submitted to address deficiencies the officer had identified in the evidence, rather than falling within an exception that would allow new evidence on judicial review.
Officer assessed whether the employment was genuine
The applicant argued that the officer improperly assessed her credentials rather than the duties she performed. She submitted that CEC applicants must establish qualifying work experience and perform the relevant occupational duties, but do not need to meet employment requirements that are usually required to enter an occupation.
The court rejected that characterization of the decision. Justice Go found that, read as a whole, the officer’s reasons addressed the genuineness of the employment rather than imposing credentials as a mandatory requirement.
The officer considered the applicant’s lack of prior programming experience, relevant education, and documented training or shadowing in assessing whether the employer genuinely hired her for the data administrator role. The reasons also referred to the employer’s unfinished website and to gaps in the response to concerns raised in the procedural fairness letter.
Justice Go held that the officer’s Global Case Management System notes provided detailed reasons and a coherent, rational explanation for finding that the inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps did not support the claimed employment. The court found that the applicant’s submissions largely asked it to reweigh the evidence.
No further response was required on address records
The applicant also argued that procedural fairness required another opportunity to explain discrepancies in the employer’s address history, including an address on Sherwood Square.
The court found that the procedural fairness letter had disclosed the officer’s concerns, including concerns about the business address. The address information at issue came from the employer’s tax records that the applicant had provided herself.
Justice Go concluded that the officer was not relying on extrinsic evidence and was not required to provide a further opportunity to respond to an inconsistency arising from documents supplied by the applicant.
Outcome and practical significance
The Federal Court reviewed the merits of the refusal on the reasonableness standard. It considered procedural fairness separately, asking whether the process was fair and just.
The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the court stated that there was no question for certification.
The decision does not establish a general rule that CEC applicants must hold particular credentials for a claimed occupation. In this case, the court accepted that the officer used the applicant’s background and the employer-related evidence to assess the genuineness of the claimed employment.
Source: Federal Court Decisions