Proof of Education for Express Entry - Can Your Application Be Refused? (Thompson v. Canada, 2021 FC 914)
Too often we hear of stories when minor and innocent mistakes in the Express Entry Application resulted in IRCC refusing the application. In fact, sometimes, even one missing stamp or translation is all it takes to get your dream of immigrating to Canada ruined forever. In today’s blog post, we’ll cover a recent Federal Court decision, Thompson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CarswellNat 4388, 2021 FC 914, 2021 FC 914 (“Thompson”) that deals with yet another refusal of the Express Entry application. In this particular case, the luck and the Court was on the side of the applicant.
So what actually happened?
The Applicant, Dominic Thompson (“Dominic”), a citizen of the UK and a graduate of the University of Alberta applied for permanent residence under Canadian Experience Class (CEC) through the Express Entry system on June 19, 2020. While preparing the eAPR section for his Express Entry application, Dominic had to provide proof of his education under the “Education (diplomas/degrees)” category. An electronic pop-up screen explains the type of documents accepted by the IRCC as proof of post-secondary education, which is prefaced with the following instructions: “You must provide proof that you completed your post-secondary education. Examples of proof of education include a diploma and/or degree”: Thompson at para. 11.
In an attempt to meet these requirements, Dominic requested a formal confirmation from the University of Alberta on the University's website and received a "Certified Information" document from the Office of the Registrar. This document reads as follows:
Dominic Kealan Thompson
(student number expurgated for the purpose of these reasons)
This is to certify that the above student
Has completed all the requirements of the
Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
For the Master of Science
In Chemical Engineering
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering
Awarded June 08, 2017.
Upon acceptance of the “Certified Information” document from the University, Dominic uploaded it under the “Education (diplomas/degrees)” category in his eAPR application and submitted his overall file on June 19, 2020: Thompson at paras. 12, 13. It is important to note in this instance that later, in his further communications with IRCC, Dominic confirmed that he did not have access to the degree certificate when he was preparing his application for his permanent residence: Thompson at para. 16.
Refusal From the IRCC and the Request for Reconsideration
Just in less than 2 months, on August 11, 2020, IRCC contacted the applicant and informed him that his application was rejected for being incomplete. In particular, the refusal letter said that the application does not include the following elements:
Canadian Education Credential:
Proof of your completed Canadian credential (certificate, diploma or degree) was not provided with your application. This document is required based on the education details you provided in your Express Entry profile. The letter of explanation and/or the transcripts you have provided with your application has been reviewed, however, the document(s) provided does not overcome the requirement of providing a completed Canadian credential (certificate, diploma or degree). Applications submitted without proof of information provided in your Express Entry profile cannot be considered complete.
Shortly after receiving this letter, Dominic submitted the request for reconsideration, and after not hearing back from IRCC for about a month, sent one more reconsideration request on September 10, 2020. Nevertheless, on September 14, 2020, the IRCC advised the Applicant that the Decision remained the same and that his application would not be reopened.
What did the Court say?
The Court began by confirming that the only issue at hand is whether the Decision rejecting the application and IRCC's subsequent refusal to reopen the application is justified in relation to the facts and law: Thompson at para. 19.
IRCC maintained that Dominic did not submit the required documentation, which would have been a copy of his degree, and insisted that IRCC can not accept anything else. The Court disagreed with this statement. In contrast, the Court agreed with Dominic that most reasonable people would be led to believe that certified information obtained from the office of the registrar of a reputable Canadian university would be considered sufficient proof of a Canadian Education Credential based on the wording of the "Instructions for Proof of Education" webpage: Thompson at para. 27.
The Court referred to the webpage, which provides plain language instructions to applicants when they upload their documents, and which states at the top:
'“You must provide proof that you completed your post-secondary education. Examples of post-secondary education include a diploma and/or degree.”
Further, the Court referred to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary and identified the meanings of the words “example” and “includes”. Accordingly, the Dictionary defines the word "example" as "one that is representative of all of a group or type", while one of the definitions of the verb "include" is "to take in or comprise as a part of a whole or group.": Thompson at para. 29.
The Court reasoned that the use of the word "examples" raises the spectre of other types of documents existing that are not restricted to the specific documents identified in the instructions. This is bolstered by the use of the word "include", which suggests that the type of documents that can serve as a proof is not exhaustive: Thompson at para. 30.
As such, if IRCC had intended proof of CEC to be limited to a "diploma, certificate or credential" within the meaning of subsection 73(1) of the Regulations, it should have clearly stated so in the instructions. It was the responsibility of the IRCC to provide clear instructions that were consistent with the IRPA and its regulations and to avoid creating confusion.
Further, the Court found that the Applicant was misled by the instructions provided by IRCC, which failed to specify that only a copy of a certificate, diploma, or degree would be accepted as proof of Canadian Education Credentials. The Court further stressed that the Applicant was entitled to rely on the instructions provided online and assume that they were accurate and communicated precisely. He should not be faulted or penalized for relying on imprecise instructions drafted by IRCC itself.
Having said above, the Court, however, acknowledged that the facts in this case were fairly unique. In particular, the uniqueness of the situation is in the fact that the Applicant provided IRCC with all of the information necessary to assess his application. The “Certified Information” document certified on its face that Dominic graduated from the University of Alberta, identifying the type of degree, the subject, and the date on which it was awarded.
Key takeaways
There are a few conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of Thompson case.
First, it clearly reveals once again that there is a significant miscommunication issue when it comes to the instructions provided to the Express Entry applicants. As was stressed by the Court, applicants should not need a law degree to understand the requirements to apply for immigration or have to crosscheck government guidelines by delving into the complexities of the IRPA and its regulations to ensure consistency: Thompson at para. 32.
Second, notwithstanding the outcome of this case, it is important to understand that not all files similar to Dominic’s will get the same result if challenged in the Court. As shown above, the Court placed a lot of factual weight on the fact that the Applicant provided IRCC with “all of the information necessary to assess his application”. Should Dominic not have done so, we would probably see a very different result.
Third, and maybe the most important, applicants for Express Entry applications should read all instructions carefully and follow them precisely. Often, unfortunately, government guidelines are not clear enough or may seem to contradict each other. It may be a good idea to consult with a licensed practitioner should the applicant need help understanding the requirements of the immigration program.
Continue Reading
About the author:
Igor Kyryliuk
Canadian Immigration Lawyer, LLM
