Docket: IMM-672-25
Citation: 2026 FC 414
Ottawa, Ontario, March 31, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald
|
BETWEEN: |
|
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Ruchika Ruchika, seeks judicial review of an Immigration Officer’s [Officer] decision, dated December 23, 2024, refusing her application for permanent residence [PR] under the Federal Skilled Trades Class. The Officer rejected the Applicant’s PR application on the basis that she failed to demonstrate that she possessed, during the five years before the date on which her PR application was made, at least two years of full-time work experience in the skilled trade occupation specified in her application, which was as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor, prior to her arrival in Canada.
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is granted.
II. Background
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of India. In May 2018, she applied for a temporary resident visa [TRV] in which she declared that she worked as a housewife from August 2001 until May 2018, with no other work experience listed.
[4] On May 26, 2018, the Applicant was issued a multiple-entry visitor visa, valid until October 2025.
[5] On September 24, 2018, after receiving a positive labour market impact assessment, the Canadian company Payless Carpet Ltd. [Payless] hired the Applicant to work as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor in Canada.
[6] On September 25, 2018, the Applicant entered Canada on her TRV and was issued a closed work permit to work for Payless until September 24, 2020. She started working at Payless on October 1, 2018.
[7] On October 16, 2019, the Applicant received an invitation letter from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] inviting her to apply for PR under the Federal Skilled Trades Class. She applied on November 9, 2019, declaring having experience as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor at M.S. Builders, which is her family business in India.
[8] On April 11, 2024, the Applicant received a procedural fairness letter from an IRCC Officer, conveying concerns that the prior qualifying work experience as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor at M.S. Builders in India was not genuine. The Officer noted that in her TRV application, she omitted to mention any prior work experience and only declared “housewife”
as her occupation from 2001 to 2018. Consequently, the Officer was concerned that the Applicant did not have at least two years of full-time work experience in the skilled trade occupation specified (carpet installation and flooring supervisor) and did not have any other qualification to perform her duties.
[9] On April 16, 2024, the Applicant responded to the procedural fairness letter by providing a letter of explanation through her counsel, wherein she explained that she listed “housewife”
as her occupation in her TRV application because it is common for women in India to indicate “housewife”
as their occupation when they work for their own family business. She also provided an affidavit, tax assessments from M.S. Builders, bank statements and education credentials.
[10] On December 23, 2024, the Applicant received a letter from the Officer in which they concluded that she could not qualify for PR because she was not qualified for the skilled trade occupation specified (carpet installation and flooring supervisor). The Officer found that her failure to declare in her TRV application of May 2018 that she previously worked as a carpet installation supervisor for her family business in India (instead declaring that she was a “housewife”
), as well as her lack of evidence to prove her qualifications were indications that she was not qualified and had no prior work experience as a carpet installation supervisor.
[11] The Officer considered the fact that the Applicant was interviewed by a Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] officer to explain the inconsistencies between her 2018 TRV and current PR applications and her declarations therein. During her interview with the CBSA officer, the Applicant explained that she worked as a carpet installation supervisor and that it was common in India for women who worked at their own family businesses to represent themselves as housewives. The CBSA officer did not pursue misrepresentation proceedings because of a lack of evidence.
[12] Nevertheless, the Officer in this case ruled that they “do not find it reasonable that the [Applicant] would declare housewife [on their TRV application] if they were working as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor […] from 2013-2018”
(Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at pp 442-443).
[13] With respect to the documents provided by the Applicant such as tax documents to prove her previous working experience as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor for M.S. Builders in India, the Officer concluded that while they indicate that her employment in India was genuine, it did not confirm that she worked as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor nor did it confirmed how often she was working at M.S. Builders and in what capacity. As a result, the Officer ruled that while her employment with M.S. Builders was genuine, her declared qualification as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor was not.
[14] Finally, the Officer ruled that the Applicant, having a Bachelor of Arts degree, exceeds the credential requirement for the job, which requires the completion of a secondary school degree. The Officer also ruled that the Applicant “has no previous experience in carpet and flooring installation”
(CTR at p 445) [emphasis added].
[15] Consequently, the Officer concluded that the Applicant’s declared employment at M.S. Builders was not genuine for the purposes of her PR application. The Officer was not satisfied that, during the five years before the date of her PR application, the Applicant had acquired at least two years of full-time work experience in carpet and flooring installation, which is the relevant criteria under section 87.2(3)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR].
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[16] The sole issue in this case is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable.
[17] In such matters, the applicable standard of review is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44 [Mason]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 99; Mason at para 59). The decision must be read holistically and contextually, in light of the evidence, the submissions and the context in which it was rendered (Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 at para 47 [Pepa]; Vavilov at paras 94, 97). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the legal constraints of the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 99, 101, 105, 108, 111, 125-128; Mason at para 73). However, the reviewing Court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker”
(Vavilov at para 125). In determining reasonableness, the reviewing Court must not create its “own yardstick”
and use it to measure what the decision maker did (Pepa at para 48; Vavilov at para 83, and Canada Post Corp. v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 at para 40). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping”
exercise, it is a robust form of review (Vavilov at para 13; Mason at para 63). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100). Any alleged flaws must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable”
or cause the “reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached”
(Vavilov at paras 100, 106; Pepa at para 49).
IV. Analysis
[18] Paragraph 87.2(3)(b) of the IRPR provides that:
Member of class
87.2 (3) A foreign national is a member of the federal skilled trades class if
(b) they have, during the five years before the date on which their permanent resident visa application is made, acquired at least two years of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work, in the skilled trade occupation specified in the application after becoming qualified to independently practice the occupation, and during that period of employment has performed
(i) the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification, and
(ii) a substantial number of the main duties listed in the description of the occupation set out in the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties;
|
Qualité
87.2 (3) Fait partie de la catégorie des travailleurs de métiers spécialisés (fédéral) l’étranger qui :
(b) a accumulé, au cours des cinq années qui ont précédé la date de présentation de sa demande de visa de résident permanent, au moins deux années d’expérience de travail à temps plein ou l’équivalent temps plein pour un travail à temps partiel dans le métier spécialisé visé par sa demande après qu’il se soit qualifié pour pratiquer son métier spécialisé de façon autonome, et a accompli pendant cette période d’emploi, à la fois :
(i) l’ensemble des tâches figurant dans l’énoncé principal établi pour le métier spécialisé dans les descriptions des métiers spécialisés de la Classification nationale des professions,
(ii) une partie appréciable des fonctions principales du métier spécialisé figurant dans les descriptions des métiers spécialisés de la Classification nationale des professions, notamment toutes les fonctions essentielles;
|
[19] Pursuant to paragraph 87.2(3)(b) of the IRPR, the Applicant was required to have at least two years of full-time work experience as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor before the date on which her PR application was made.
[20] The Officer ruled that the evidence adduced by the Applicant was insufficient to demonstrate that she met the criteria. They found that the evidence of work in India, as demonstrated by the tax documents filed, did not establish any experience as a carpet installation and flooring supervisor.
[21] Although it may have been reasonable for the Officer to find inconsistencies between the Applicant’s May 2018 TRV and current PR applications (and to reject the Applicant’s assertion that it is normal for women in India to represent themselves as being housewives when working for their family business), the Officer failed to consider the entire evidence.
[22] As stated, the Officer ruled that the Applicant “has no previous experience in carpet and flooring installation”
(CTR at p 445). In doing so, the Officer failed to consider, or provide reasons for rejecting, the affidavit evidence filed by the Applicant in response to the procedural fairness letter describing her tasks at M.S. Builders, between February 2013 and March 2018. In her affidavit, the Applicant explained that she worked as a carpet installation supervisor and that her job duties included:
-
a)Managing workflow to accommodate volume and special project demands, meet customer expectations while performing quality floor installations;
-
b)Follow-up of working areas booking by subsystem installation teams and access management to working areas;
-
c)Monitoring risk management applied to installation works;
-
d)Building and maintaining a good and safe work environment on site;
-
e)Monitoring the carpet installation by filling the seams with the help of an adhesive or heated carpet iron;
-
f)Calculating the carpet needed to cover the area by measuring;
-
g)Designing the carpet and records the measurements;
-
h)Ensuring work orders are efficiently processed and accurately reflect the type and quantity of services and materials used according to company standards and guidelines.
[23] Notwithstanding that it was open to the Officer to attribute low weight to the Applicant’s affidavit, it does not absolve them of the responsibility to address contradicting evidence that undermines significant aspects of their decision (Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), [1998] FCJ No 1425; Rezaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 462 at para 9; Iloh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1374 at para 6).
[24] In this case, the Officer opined that the evidence on the Applicant’s employment with M.S. Builders was genuine, but that it was insufficient to confirm that her duties included carpet installation and flooring supervision, nor to confirm how often she was working at M.S. Builders and in what capacity.
[25] However, while the latter conclusion may be reasonable, the Officer failed to address the description of tasks detailed in the Applicant’s affidavit and failed to provide any justification in their reasons explaining why, despite the description of these duties, they concluded that the Applicant had “no previous experience in carpet and flooring installation”
(CTR at p 445). It may have been open to the Officer to rule that the evidence was insufficient, but the Officer was required to provide reasons.
[26] Consequently, the omission to address the Applicant’s contradictory evidence in her affidavit has caused this Court “to lose confidence in the outcome reached”
as a whole (Vavilov at paras 100, 106; Pepa at para 49).
V. Conclusion
[27] This application for judicial review is granted.
[28] There is no question for certification.
Email this Content