– By Dimple Verma, RCIC-IRB – Founder, VG Immigration Services Inc.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) – 2026 FC 79 – 2026-01-19
At VG Immigration Services Inc., the focus is on helping skilled workers and students turn their Canadian immigration goals into approved permanent residence — and avoiding the kinds of mistakes that led to refusal in Gurjeet Kaur v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2026 FC 79. In this important Federal Court decision, Madam Justice Conroy dismissed Ms. Kaur’s judicial review of both the original refusal of her Canadian Experience Class (CEC) application and the subsequent refusal to reconsider, confirming that IRCC’s decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.
👉 Ready to have your CEC or Express Entry profile reviewed by a licensed professional?
Book your appointment online today: https://vgimmigration.square.site/
What Happened in 2026 FC 79?
Ms. Gurjeet Kaur, a citizen of India, applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class in January 2023 based on work as a full‑time Transport/Dispatch Supervisor from October 2020 to November 2021 at a wage of 15 dollars per hour while holding an open work permit.
In September 2023, IRCC sent a procedural fairness letter (PFL) raising serious concerns about the credibility of her Canadian work experience, including the residential nature of the employer’s address, inability to verify the employer’s identity, doubts about her skills for a supervisory role, and a wage far below the Job Bank median of 32 dollars per hour for similar positions.
In response, Ms. Kaur argued that:
- The business operated from the basement of the residential address.
- She provided corporate registry documents confirming the company and director.
- Her Business diploma from St. Clair College (including courses in supply chain, recruitment, organizational behaviour and business communication) gave her the skills to work as a Dispatch Supervisor.
- Her wage was above provincial minimum wage and reflected her being a fresher during the pandemic.
Despite this, the officer refused the CEC application on October 4, 2023, finding it was not credible that she had actually performed the NOC 72024 Dispatch Supervisor duties. A reconsideration request was later refused on April 3, 2024 with the brief explanation that there were “insufficient reasons for re‑opening” the file, and the Federal Court ultimately refused the judicial review.
🔗 You can read the full decision here: Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Key Quotes from the Kaur Decision
The Federal Court’s own words in 2026 FC 79 are particularly instructive for CEC applicants and their representatives:
- On the core concern:
- “The Initial Decision turned on the credibility of the employment declared by the Applicant. The Officer was not satisfied that she performed the duties of a Dispatch Supervisor.”
- On how the officer weighed multiple factors (not only wage):
- “It is apparent from the reasons the Officer considered and weighed multiple factors in making his credibility determination.”
- On education versus actual skills for the NOC role:
- “While the Officer accepted that relevant education could, in principle, compensate for a lack of related work experience, they concluded that the Applicant’s business education did not equip her with the skills required to perform the duties of a transport dispatch supervisor. Based on the record it was open to the Officer to come to this conclusion.”
- On wage as one factor among many:
- “Contrary to the situation in Patil, the Applicant’s low wage was one of multiple concerns that led to the refusal… examining the salary paid as but one of the data points relevant to determining if an applicant possesses the requisite experience to qualify as a member of the CEC.”
- On reconsideration requests:
- “Reconsideration of a decision proceeds in two distinct stages… The onus is on the applicant to show that reconsideration is warranted in the interests of justice or because of the unusual circumstances of the case.”
These quotations show how closely IRCC and the Court scrutinize work experience, job duties, wages and reconsideration arguments in Canadian Experience Class files.
Why This Case Matters for CEC Applicants
Work Experience Must Be Credible and NOC‑Consistent
Under section 87.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), CEC applicants must demonstrate at least 12 months of full‑time (or equivalent part‑time) skilled Canadian work experience in a TEER 0, 1, 2 or 3 occupation and show that they performed the actions in the NOC lead statement and most of the main duties. In Ms. Kaur’s case, the officer concluded that “with no previous work experience in this field” she had not demonstrated that her Business education gave her the skills needed for the Dispatch Supervisor NOC 72024, and therefore did not accept that she performed the required duties.
This decision underlines that:
- A neatly drafted reference letter is not enough if the underlying story is not convincing.
- Officers will look at prior work history, industry experience and whether the applicant’s profile logically fits the NOC.
Wage and Employer Details Are Powerful Credibility Signals
The Court accepted that the officer could consider the 15‑dollar wage in light of the 32‑dollar Job Bank median, but only “as one of the data points” in assessing whether Ms. Kaur truly worked as a Dispatch Supervisor. A low wage, combined with a residential address, unverifiable employer, and limited industry experience, created an overall picture that undermined the genuineness of the claimed skilled work experience.
For many CEC candidates, this reinforces that:
- Deeply discounted wages for “supervisory” roles can damage credibility even where they meet minimum wage.
- Employer legitimacy, business registration, and public presence (website, Google listing, phone, signage) matter.
Procedural Fairness: PFL and No Right to Interview
The Court held that procedural fairness was respected because IRCC sent a detailed procedural fairness letter and properly considered the response, even though it did not invite Ms. Kaur to an interview. The judge specifically rejected the argument that an interview was required, distinguishing prior cases like Maklakov and noting that here the PFL was sufficient to meet the duty of fairness.
This means:
- A PFL is often your only chance to rescue the application before refusal.
- You cannot assume IRCC must call you for an interview where written evidence is available.
👉 Need help drafting a strong, persuasive procedural fairness response? Book your consultation now: https://vgimmigration.square.site/
Lessons and Practical Steps to Avoid a Similar Refusal
1. Align Job Duties with the Correct NOC
Before submitting an Express Entry / CEC profile or e‑APR:
- Carefully choose the NOC that accurately reflects the real work, not just the title.
- Align your reference letters and supporting documents with the NOC lead statement and most of the main duties, not generic or vague tasks.
VG Immigration Services can conduct a detailed NOC analysis and rewrite or recommend changes to employment reference letters so they truly reflect your real job while staying compliant with IRCC expectations.
2. Strengthen Employer Credibility and Documentation
The PFL in Kaur flagged that the address on the employment letter was residential and that the officer could not verify the employer. For CEC applicants, this highlights the need to submit:
- Business registration documents, HST/GST registration, and corporate records where possible.
- Pay stubs, T4s, ROEs and detailed job offers or contracts.
- Evidence that the business actually operates (website, Google listing, photos, business cards, invoices, etc.).
VG Immigration Services helps applicants and employers assemble complete evidence packages that make it easier for officers to verify genuine employment and reduce credibility concerns.
3. Address Wage Concerns Proactively
In this case, the Court endorsed the use of wages as a factor in assessing whether the claimed job truly matches a skilled NOC, while cautioning against treating wage as a strict gatekeeper. If your wage is below Job Bank medians for a given NOC:
- Explain the context upfront (entry‑level role, small business, pandemic effects, part‑time promotion to supervisor, etc.).
- Provide comparative evidence where possible (industry practices, internal salary scales).
VG Immigration can help you prepare explanatory letters that contextualize wage levels and reduce the risk that a low rate will be interpreted as proof the job is not truly skilled.
4. Take Procedural Fairness Letters Extremely Seriously
The Court noted that the officer was entitled to rely on Ms. Kaur’s own PFL response in assessing whether her education actually equipped her for a Dispatch Supervisor role. Poorly drafted or incomplete responses can cement the officer’s concerns instead of resolving them.
An effective PFL response should:
- Directly answer each concern raised, one by one.
- Attach concrete, organized evidence to support every point.
- Avoid emotional or generic statements and focus on facts, documents and law.
VG Immigration regularly drafts and reviews PFL responses for CEC, work permit and study permit files, using case law like Kaur, Qin and Patil to frame arguments the way Federal Court expects.
5. Understand the Limits of Reconsideration
The Court explained that reconsideration has two stages: deciding whether to reopen the file, and then, only if reopened, revisiting the merits. In Ms. Kaur’s case, the officer stopped at stage one, finding “insufficient reasons for re‑opening,” and the Court found this approach reasonable.
This means:
- Reconsideration is not an appeal on the merits.
- You must show new, compelling information or clear error, not just re‑argue old points.
VG Immigration can assess whether a reconsideration request is worthwhile or whether a new application or judicial review is a better strategy in your circumstances.
👉 Unsure whether to file reconsideration, re‑apply, or go to Federal Court? Book a strategy session: https://vgimmigration.square.site/
How VG Immigration Services Can Help
The 2026 FC 79 decision is a clear reminder that Canadian Experience Class cases live or die on the credibility and quality of work‑experience evidence, and on how well applicants respond to IRCC concerns. Working with a licensed RCIC‑IRB who actively follows Federal Court jurisprudence can significantly reduce the risk of a refusal like Ms. Kaur’s.
VG Immigration Services Inc. can assist you with:
- CEC and Express Entry File Review
- Full review of your NOC selections, duties, wages and documentation before submission.
- Identification of red flags similar to those in Kaur so they can be corrected in advance.
- Employment Letter and Evidence Optimization
- Drafting or revising employer reference letters to properly reflect NOC‑consistent duties.
- Building comprehensive proof packages (payroll, tax, business registration, public presence).
- Procedural Fairness and Reconsideration Support
- Preparing detailed, evidence‑driven responses to PFLs grounded in current case law, including Kaur, Qin and related CEC decisions.
- Assessing and drafting reconsideration requests when new evidence or errors justify a re‑opening.
- Judicial Review Strategy (with counsel)
- Collaborating with litigation counsel to structure records and arguments if your case needs to go to Federal Court.
If your Canadian Experience Class, Express Entry or work‑experience‑based PR application is in progress or has been refused, this is the time to act, not wait.
👉 Book your appointment online today: https://vgimmigration.square.site/
📧 Email: immigration@vgis.ca
📞 Phone: +1 (416) 578‑9269
By learning from Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) – 2026 FC 79 – 2026-01-19 and proactively structuring your file, you give your CEC application the strongest chance to succeed the first time.