Canada’s Express Entry system is an online system used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to manage applications for permanent residence under certain economic immigration programs.
Two of the main programs managed through Express Entry are the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) and the Canadian Experience Class (CEC).
Understanding the difference between program eligibility and Express Entry CRS points is important. An applicant must first qualify under an eligible immigration program. Once eligible to enter the Express Entry pool, candidates are ranked under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS).
Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP)
The Federal Skilled Worker Program is generally intended for skilled workers who have qualifying skilled work experience, including work experience obtained outside Canada.
To qualify, an applicant must meet several requirements relating to skilled work experience, language ability and education. Generally, the applicant must have at least one year of continuous paid skilled work experience, or 1,560 hours, in an eligible occupation during the applicable qualifying period.
The FSWP also has its own 67-point selection system. Points are awarded based on six selection factors:
- age;
- education;
- official-language ability;
- skilled work experience;
- arranged employment in Canada; and
- adaptability.
An applicant generally needs at least 67 points out of 100 to qualify under the Federal Skilled Worker Program.
It is important not to confuse these 67 FSW eligibility points with CRS points. The 67-point test determines whether an applicant meets the selection criteria of the Federal Skilled Worker Program. The CRS is a separate system used to rank eligible candidates after they enter the Express Entry pool.
Canadian Experience Class (CEC)
The Canadian Experience Class is primarily designed for skilled workers who have obtained qualifying work experience in Canada and wish to become permanent residents.
Generally, an applicant must have accumulated at least one year, or 1,560 hours, of qualifying skilled Canadian work experience during the three years before applying. The work must have been obtained while the applicant was authorized to work in Canada and must fall within an eligible National Occupational Classification (NOC) category.
The applicant must also demonstrate that they performed the actions described in the lead statement of the occupation and a substantial number of its main duties, including the essential duties. This requirement was directly relevant in the Federal Court decision discussed below.
Unlike the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the CEC does not have a separate 67-point eligibility test. However, a person applying through the CEC must still meet the CEC requirements and, when applying through Express Entry, will be ranked under the CRS.
What Are CRS Points?
The Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) is the points-based system used to rank eligible Express Entry candidates against one another.
CRS points can be awarded for factors such as:
- age;
- level of education;
- English and/or French language proficiency;
- Canadian work experience;
- spouse or common-law partner factors, where applicable;
- combinations of education, language ability and work experience; and
- certain additional factors recognized under the Express Entry system.
A candidate’s CRS score is therefore different from determining whether that person qualifies under the CEC or FSWP.
For example, a person might satisfy the minimum requirements of the Canadian Experience Class but still have a CRS score that is not sufficient for a particular invitation round. Similarly, an applicant under the Federal Skilled Worker Program may satisfy the 67-point FSW selection test, but their ranking in the Express Entry pool will depend on their separate CRS score.
Receiving an Invitation to Apply Does Not Guarantee Permanent Residence
Receiving an Invitation to Apply (ITA) is an important step, but it does not mean that permanent residence has been approved.
After receiving an ITA and submitting the permanent residence application, the applicant must provide documents supporting the information and points claimed in the Express Entry profile.
IRCC may examine the applicant’s employment history, duties, dates of employment, hours worked, salary and other evidence to determine whether the claimed work experience actually qualifies.
This distinction was important in the recent Federal Court decision of Kariminezhad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration).
Federal Court: Express Entry Refusal Found Unreasonable
In this case, the applicant was an Iranian citizen who applied for permanent residence through the Canadian Experience Class. She had been invited to apply for permanent residence in September 2024 and relied on her Canadian skilled work experience at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Her claimed experience was classified under NOC 21110.
The applicant submitted two CAMH employment letters. The first offered her a full-time Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship and provided information about her salary, employment period, tasks and duties. A second CAMH letter extended the position and also contained information concerning her duties. She additionally submitted more than a year of pay stubs showing monthly payments of $5,000 and relevant information from her 2023 Notice of Assessment.
Why Was the Express Entry Application Refused?
The immigration officer concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the applicant’s qualifying Canadian work experience. The officer found problems with the documentation concerning the duration of the employment and the duties performed.
The officer stated that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the applicant had performed the lead statement and main duties of the claimed NOC. The officer therefore awarded no points for the claimed periods of employment and concluded that the applicant no longer met the applicable requirements under section 11.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and section 87.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Why Did the Federal Court Find the Decision Unreasonable?
The Federal Court found a significant problem with the officer’s reasoning. The officer focused on the first employment letter but failed to meaningfully address the second CAMH employment letter, even though that letter was important to establishing the required period of Canadian work experience. The applicant had also submitted corresponding pay stubs corroborating the salary and employment evidence.
The Court found that there was a “fatal breakdown” in the officer’s chain of reasoning. The officer stated that no additional supporting evidence had been provided to substantiate the duties or duration of employment, even though the record contained evidence directly addressing those concerns. The reasons did not explain whether the officer considered that evidence or, if it was considered, why it was rejected.
The Court further emphasized that although an immigration officer is not required to discuss every document submitted with an application, an officer cannot simply ignore evidence that is central to the issue being decided and that directly undermines the basis for the refusal. The applicable policy specifically contemplated consideration of supporting evidence such as pay stubs and Notices of Assessment.
The government also attempted during the judicial review to argue that the employment letters did not comply with the applicable policy. The Court rejected this attempt to justify the decision after the fact, emphasizing that government counsel cannot step into the shoes of the decision-maker and provide a post-hoc justification for reasoning that was missing from the officer’s decision.
The Federal Court therefore granted the application for judicial review and returned the permanent residence application for redetermination by a different immigration officer.
What Express Entry Applicants Can Learn From This Case
This decision highlights an important distinction. Express Entry applicants have the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence establishing that they meet the requirements of the immigration program under which they apply. However, IRCC officers must also meaningfully consider relevant evidence that has actually been submitted.
An officer does not necessarily have to discuss every document in an application. But where documents directly address the reason for a potential refusal—such as evidence establishing the duration of employment, salary, duties and actual payment for the work, the decision should demonstrate that this important evidence was considered.
The case also demonstrates why Express Entry applicants should provide clear and consistent documentation supporting their Canadian work experience, particularly where eligibility or CRS points depend upon that employment.
YA Law Corporation assists clients with Canadian immigration matters, including Express Entry applications, Canadian Experience Class applications, Federal Skilled Worker applications, refusals and Federal Court judicial review proceedings.