Date: 20260305

Docket: IMM-17994-24

Citation: 2026 FC 309

Vancouver, British Columbia, March 5, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen

BETWEEN:

KANWALJEET KAUR

HARMEET SINGH

JASKIRAT SINGH

DISHLEEN KAUR

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Kanwaljeet Kaur [the Principal Applicant], a citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision dated September 12, 2024, of an immigration officer [Officer] that denied the Principal Applicant’s permanent residence application under the Temporary Public Policy: Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway: Workers in-Canada: Stream A (healthcare) [Policy]. The Officer was not satisfied that the Principal Applicant met the requirements of having accumulated eligible work experience. Her spouse and children are co-applicants on this application for judicial review as their associated applications were also denied.

[2] The Applicants assert that: (a) the Officer’s decision was unreasonable because it was not appropriately justified or intelligible, having regard to the evidence that was before the Officer; and (b) the Principal Applicant was denied procedural fairness as no transcript of her interview with the Officer was provided.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that the Applicants have demonstrated any basis for the Court’s intervention. Accordingly, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.

I. Background

A. The Policy

[4] Pursuant to subsection 25.2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, the Minister established the Policy, a limited-time pathway to permanent residence, which is now closed. To be eligible under the Policy, an applicant must have had one year (at least 1,560 hours) of eligible work experience in an eligible occupation. The work experience must have included most of the main duties and all of the essential duties list in the relevant National Occupation Code [NOC].

[5] NOC 4212 – Social and Community Service Workers was listed as a qualifying occupation. At the relevant time, the following description and main duties applied to NOC 4212:

B. The Principal Applicant’s application under the Policy

[6] The Principal Applicant based her application under the Policy on her employment with Valley United Cultural Society, also known as Valley United Cultural Club [Valley United], as a Community Social Worker, under NOC 4212 – Social and community service workers, from September 2019 to the time of her application. The Principal Applicant provided an employment letter which listed the following job duties:

• Teach young girls and women various formats of garment [s]titching, different types of embroidery and knitting.

• Arranging community gatherings and helping people who need counseling.

• Teach children and adults Gurbani, prayers and Gurmukhi (Punjabi Language).

• To teach children and adults the [sic] about of social values and customs of Sikh Religion.

• Help organize Religious events and address people during the events.

• Providing emotional support to the people who need care.

• Educate children on child abuse.

• Organising Camps for Drug awareness and other social evils in the society.

• Educating the youth about the right path, to help them in decision making.

• Help the underprivileged females and children to understand their rights against various abuses.

• Recognizing people who need food, shelter & care.

• Evaluating the behaviour of children and offering them relevant help as per their state of mind.

[7] Though not listed in her employment letter, the Principal Applicant indicated that she would also go door-to-door to provide people with food, assistance and spread awareness about the COVID-19 pandemic and the precautions required.

[8] The Principal Applicant was invited for an interview, which took place on March 3, 2023. The interview invitation letter indicated that the Applicant was required to bring her own accredited interpreter, if she required one, which she did. The Officer’s interview notes (which were produced as part of the Certified Tribunal Record) show that, during the interview, the Principal Applicant stated:

1. When asked what her job position was with Valley United, the Applicant responded that, due to her background and experience in stitching and boutique work, they gave her assignments relating to stitching and, if there was no stitching work to be done, she would “take care of” the children who would come to the facility for prayer or music education and would help during events held.

2. When asked what percentage of her work involved stitching, the Applicant responded that most of her responsibilities were stitching-related. She went on to state that if there was an event (which would occur once or twice a month) or if she was teaching children prayers (approximately 10 to 30 children, which would occur once or twice a month for 30 minutes to one hour) or if there were any door-to-door campaigns (which would occur once a month), then she would assist.

3. She had her own stitching room and she was a “permanent person for stitching for the office”.

4. She taught others (including children) to stitch about three to four times per month.

5. 80% of her job duties and responsibilities were related to stitching and embroidery.

[9] On October 25, 2023, the Officer sent the Principal Applicant a procedural fairness letter [Initial PF Letter]. The letter detailed the main duties for a social worker under NOC 4212 and advised the Principal Applicant that, based on the information she provided, there were concerns that she did not meet the Policy requirements for not having accumulated at least one year of qualifying work experience. Specifically, the Officer noted that the duties listed in her employment letter and Schedule 3 were not consistent with NOC 4212, and that the duties indicated in her application better aligned with NOC 6432, which was not an eligible occupation under the Policy. The Officer instructed the Principal Applicant to submit, within seven days, additional information and warned that if further information was not provided, a decision would be made based on the information and documents already provided.

[10] On October 29, 2023, the Principal Applicant responded to the Initial PF Letter, indicating that she had already provided cogent and clear evidence that she met the requirements of NOC 4212, as a comparison of her job duties (as listed in her employment letter) and those of NOC 4212 demonstrate that she is working as a social and community service worker for Valley United. The Principal Applicant also stated that the Initial PF Letter’s reference to NOC 6432 was misplaced, as NOC 6432 refers to pursers and flight attendants (according to the NOC released in 2016) or major group tourism (according to the NOC released in 2021), and the Principal Applicant does not fall into any of the example categories under this code, nor do any of the job duties listed apply to her.

[11] Additionally, the Principal Applicant noted that, in the absence of transcripts forming the basis for issuance of the Initial PF Letter and a pointed reference to the answers given, the Principal Applicant did not know the case to meet, which impacted the procedural fairness owed to her.

[12] In a subsequent procedural fairness letter dated November 14, 2023 [Second PF Letter], the Officer advised the Principal Applicant of their ongoing concerns that she did not meet the Policy requirements. The Second PF Letter also acknowledged that there was an error in the Initial PF Letter and the correct alternative classifications were NOC 6342 – Tailors, dressmakers, furriers and milliners and NOC 4217 – Other religious occupations. The Second PF Letter further detailed the Officer’s concerns. It stated:

You indicated in your Schedule 3 that you are employed by Valley United Cultural Society as a Community Social Worker, which you stated falls under NOC 4212, from September 1, 2019 – present. Additionally, your employment letter, offer of employment, and employment contract from Valley United Cultural Society indicates you were employed as a Community Service Worker (NOC 4212). However, the duties listed in your employment letter do not align with the duties you stated in your interview on Mar 3, 2023.

In your interview on Mar 3, 2023, you indicated that approximately 80% of your duties (i.e. the majority of your duties) performed with Valley United Cultural Club were related to stitching and embroidery, which would fall under NOC 6342 – Tailors, dressmakers, furriers, and milliners. Furthermore, you indicates [sic] that you performed door-to-door campaigns approximately once a month and taught kids prayer education approximately one [sic] or twice a month for 30mins to 1 hour per session, which would fall under NOC 4217 – Other religious occupations. Both NOC 6342 and NOC 4217 are not eligible occupations listed in Annex A or Annex B.

[Emphasis added.]

[13] As emphasized above, the Officer stated that the majority of the Principal Applicant’s duties performed at Valley United did not appear to fall under NOC 4212 and instead appeared to fall under NOC 6342 and NOC 4217, which are not eligible occupations listed in Annex A or B. The Officer invited the Principal Applicant to submit additional information and provide a response within seven days.

[14] On November 20, 2023, the Principal Applicant responded to the Second PF Letter. By way of submissions from her counsel, she stated that the reference to NOC 6342 was wrong, as she had not performed 80% or the majority of her duties as a tailor. The work relating to stitching, mending, repairing, etc., of clothes was also part of her broader role as a social and community service worker. Moreover, she submitted that the stitching work was only done for a short period of time during her employment term (from September 2019 to December 2019) and that this period of time was, in any event, outside the one-year eligibility requirement under the Policy. The Principal Applicant reiterated that without the transcripts of the interview and pointed references to the answers she gave, she did not know the case to meet.

C. The Officer’s decision

[15] By letter dated September 12, 2024, the Officer refused the Principal Applicant’s application. After setting out the general requirements under the Policy, the Officer stated that they were not satisfied that the Principal Applicant met the requirements of having accumulated eligible work experience. The Officer noted that, during the interview, the Principal Applicant “repeatedly stated that the clear majority of [her] job duties were in stitching and embroidery, as well as teaching children music and prayer.” The Officer found that those job duties fall under NOC 6342 – Tailors, dressmakers, furriers and milliners and NOC 4217 – Other religious occupations, neither of which are found in Annex A or B to the Policy.

[16] The Officer’s Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which form a part of the decision, further provide:

***OFFICER REVIEW*** ELIGIBILITY FAILED***

After reviewing all of the information before me, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the principal applicant has demonstrated per IRPA 25.2 that they meet the eligibility requirements for the TR-PR Pathway public policy.

The applicant has provided an employment letter for Valley United Cultural Club which lists their NOC as 4212 - Social and community service workers, along with supporting job duties and responsibilities. However, during the interview with the primary applicant on March 3, 2023, they stated repeatedly that their job duties were 80% tasks related to stitching and embroidery, sometimes related to teaching children prayer and music, and only very infrequently related to going door to door to provide food and support. The stitching and embroidery job duties fall under NOC 6342 - Tailors, dressmakers, furriers and milliners, while the prayer and music job duties fall under NOC 4217 - Other religious occupations, neither of which are listed in Annex A or B. While the door to door job duties do fall under NOC 4212 - Social and community service workers, they only make up a fraction of the applicant’s job duties. I am therefore not satisfied that the applicant meets eligibility requirements for Workers in-Canada: Stream A (healthcare).

PFL sent on November 14, 2023, no new information provided to dissuade my concerns.

Admissibility assessment not completed, due to eligibility not passed. A refusal letter will be sent and RPRF refund will be initiated.

II. Issues and Standard of Review

[17] There are two issues for determination on this application: (i) whether the Officer’s decision was unreasonable; and (ii) whether the Principal Applicant was denied procedural fairness.

[18] The applicable standard of review with respect to the merits of the Officer’s decision is reasonableness. When reviewing for reasonableness, the Court must take a “reasons first” approach and determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified [see Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 8, 59]. A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker [see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85]. The Court will intervene only if it is satisfied there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency [see Adeniji-Adele v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 418 at para 11].

[19] Breaches of procedural fairness in administrative contexts have been considered reviewable on a correctness standard or subject to a “reviewing exercise […] ‘best reflected in the correctness standard’ even though, strictly speaking, no standard of review is being applied” [see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54]. The duty of procedural fairness is “eminently variable,” inherently flexible and context-specific. It must be determined with reference to all the circumstances, including the Baker factors [see Vavilov, supra at para 77]. A court assessing a procedural fairness question is required to ask whether the procedure was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances [see Canadian Pacific Railway Company, supra at para 54].

III. Analysis

A. The Officer’s decision was reasonable

[20] The Applicants’ overarching argument is that the decision was unreasonable, as the Officer failed to consider the evidence before them, including the responses to the PF Letters and the Principal Applicant’s duties as set out in her employment letter. The Principal Applicant asserts that she did not state in her interview that 80% of her duties were related to stitching and embroidery. Moreover, the Principal Applicant submits that the totality of the evidence supports the finding that her employment fell within NOC 4212 and that the Officer failed to address why the evidence provided by the Principal Applicant did not address the Officer’s concern as set out in the PF Letters. The Principal Applicant asserts that it was unreasonable for the Officer to solely rely on the alleged statements made by the Principal Applicant in her interview.

[21] I find that there is no merit to the Principal Applicant’s assertions. As is clear from the PF Letters, the decision and the GCMS notes, the Officer did not rely solely on the responses given by the Principal Applicant during her interview. The Officer also clearly considered her duties as set out in her employment letter. Moreover, the Officer was entitled to place significant weight on statements made by the Principal Applicant in her interview and to prefer those to submissions made later in response to the PF Letters. In that regard, it is of note that the Principal Applicant did not provide the Officer with any additional evidence in response to the PF Letters, such as a statement by the Principal Applicant denying the accuracy of the Officer’s interview notes or further evidence from her employer detailing the percentage of time spent on her various duties. Thus, there is no basis to assert that the Officer ignored or failed to deal with evidence provided by her in response to the Officer’s concerns.

[22] Even if the Principal Applicant had provided such evidence to the Officer in response to the PF Letters, it is unlikely that it would have overcome the jurisprudence of this Court that GCMS notes are presumed to be accurate because they are a contemporaneous record of what transpired at the interview and officers are highly trained and have no personal interest in the outcome of an application [see Al Fares v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 373 at para 59]. As stated by this Court in Wei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 982:

[23] Generally, it is a very rare case where a highly self-interested applicant will be able to convince the Court that a trained visa officer falsified records in his or her contemporaneous notes without very clear evidence to support the allegation. The Court must defer to an employee who has developed an expertise in assessing these types of economic claims in terms of determining that there is insufficient persuasive evidence to conclude that there is a likelihood that the applicant will follow up on his business plans after obtaining permanent residency. To do otherwise would involve the Court reweighing the evidence.

[23] I agree with the Respondent that, even if the “80%” comment was incorrectly recorded, the Principal Applicant’s other responses to questions asked during the interview supports the Officer’s conclusion that the vast majority of her time was spent on stitching-related activities.

[24] The Principal Applicant also asserts that the Officer failed to consider that the work she performed for Valley United was in “two separate stints” and that the majority of the stitching work was in the first stint, which was irrelevant to her application as it was over one year prior to the submission of her application. However, the responses the Principal Applicant gave in her interview with the Officer made no reference to different duties during different stints of her employment and, as noted above, I find that the Officer was reasonably entitled to prefer her interview statements to the legal submissions made in response to the PF Letters which raised, for the first time, this idea of two separate stints.

[25] The Officer was tasked with determining what was the pith and substance of the work performed by the Principal Applicant for the purpose of determining the proper NOC classification. In that regard, her job functions, rather than her job title, are key to the proper classification of her employment [see Zarrabi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1336 at para 9; Adewunmi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1186 at para 23]. I find that the Officer considered the Principal Applicant’s job functions, as detailed in her employment letter and as described in her interview, and reasonably concluded that they were not consistent with NOC 4212. As such, I find that the Officer’s decision was reasonable.

B. The Principal Applicant was not denied procedural fairness

[26] The Principal Applicant asserts that she was owed a heightened duty of procedural fairness, because the consequences of the denial of her application are severe, as she is unable to resubmit an application due to the expiration of the Policy.

[27] The Applicants assert that this heightened duty of procedural fairness was breached since, notwithstanding the Principal Applicant’s requests, the Officer did not provide her with a transcript of her interview and did not specify her specific answers during the interview that underpinned the Officer’s ultimate conclusion that she does not meet the eligibility requirements of the Policy. In the absence of same, the Principal Applicant asserts that she did not know the case to meet and that her ability to meaningfully respond to the PF Letters was unfairly impaired. Moreover, the Principal Applicant denies having stated that 80% of her duties were related to stitching and embroidery and, thus, it is possible that the translator mistranslated her answer. The Applicant relies on Selamssa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2017 FC 966 at paragraph 20, wherein the Court found that the officer’s decision was tainted by a faulty translation at the interview after concluding that: “In the absence of any transcript or audio recording of the interview, it is not possible to determine whether the interpretation at the interview was adequate, precise or competent, or whether any inadequacies or errors in the translation related to trifling or immaterial matters.”

[28] Even if I were to accept the Principal Applicant’s assertion that she was owed a heightened duty of procedural fairness, I do not accept that the Officer was under a duty to provide the Applicant with a transcript of her interview or the Officer’s interview notes in order to meet their procedural fairness obligation [see Darwisheh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 98 at para 24]. The Principal Applicant was interviewed and thereafter provided two PL Letters (including specific answers she gave during her interview) that sufficiently detailed the nature of the Officer’s concerns, such that the Principal Applicant was well-positioned to understand the case to meet and to respond to the Officer’s concerns. Yet, the Principal Applicant chose to provide no additional evidence to address the Officer’s concerns.

[29] I agree with the Respondent that the circumstances of this case are unlike those in Selamssa, as the applicant in that case provided affidavit evidence about difficulties understanding the interpreter. There was no such evidence in this case. The Principal Applicant brought her own accredited interpreter and there was no suggestion that she had difficulty understanding what was asked during the interview. Moreover, and importantly, it is well-established that where translation problems exist, an applicant must raise the problem at the first reasonable opportunity [see Baloul v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1151 at para 23; Oei v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 466 at paras 40 and 42; Kompanets v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 15377 (FC) at para 9]. The first reasonable opportunity for the Principal Applicant to do so in this case was when the concerns were raised in the PF Letters, which she did not do. In any event, as detailed above, even if the Applicant did not actually say that 80% of her duties related to stitching and embroidery, there was sufficient additional evidence relied upon by the Officer to reasonably underpin their determination of the proper characterization of the Principal Applicant’s employment with Valley United.

[30] Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Applicants have demonstrated that there was any breach of the Principal Applicant’s procedural fairness rights.

IV. Conclusion

[31] As the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable, or that the Principal Applicant was denied procedural fairness, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.

[32] No question for certification was raised and I agree that none arises.

 

JUDGMENT in IMM-17994-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises.

“Mandy Aylen”

 

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	IMM-17994-24
STYLE OF CAUSE:	KANWALJEET KAUR, HARMEET SINGH, JASKIRAT SINGH, DISHLEEN KAUR v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:	Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING:	March 5, 2026
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:	AYLEN J.
DATED:	March 5, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Saravpreet Singh	For The Applicants
Devi Ramachandran	For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Gurna Law Corporation Barrister and Solicitor Surrey, British Columbia	For The Applicants
Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia	For The Respondent