Federal Court: Inconsistent Paystubs Can Invalidate Genuine Work Experience Claims
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1767
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-19875-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1767
The applicant sought permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC), but his application was refused due to significant inconsistencies in his employment documents, including paystubs, pay rates, and pay periods. The immigration officer concluded the claimed work experience was not genuine.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when faced with conflicting documents and an inadequate explanation, an officer is justified in concluding that the applicant has not met their burden of proof.
Key Quote from the Court
At no time is an explanation provided as to how an administrative error occurred that resulted in the PA being paid for periods he states he did not work, receiving paystubs for periods he states he did not work, and receiving a letter of experience and a letter of offer that were both inaccurate. ... Given the conflicting information supplied and the inadequate explanations offered, I am not convinced on the Balance of Probabilities, that the employment as stated is genuine.
Expert Takeaways
-
Document Consistency is Non-Negotiable Every detail across all submitted documents-including letters of offer, paystubs, T4s, and reference letters-must be perfectly aligned. Discrepancies in pay rates, pay periods, or dates can be fatal to an application.
-
'Administrative Error' Requires Detailed Explanation Simply claiming an 'administrative error' by an employer is an insufficient explanation for inconsistencies. Applicants must provide a detailed, credible explanation from the employer detailing how and why the errors occurred.
-
The Onus of Proof is on the Applicant The burden is always on the applicant to provide clear, consistent, and convincing evidence to support their claims. An officer is not required to conduct follow-up interviews or contact third parties to resolve doubts created by the applicant's own documentation.
-
Post-Decision Evidence is Inadmissible Evidence gathered after a refusal, such as a Record of Employment or new affidavits, cannot be used to challenge the original decision in a judicial review. The Court will only consider the evidence that was before the officer at the time of the decision.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Believe the officer got it wrong?
We bring unreasonable immigration refusals before the Federal Court of Canada.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Skilled Worker / Canadian Experience Class rulings
Federal Court: Procedural Fairness Breached in CEC Refusal Over Hidden Concerns
Federal Court Upholds Refusal of PR Application Over Genuineness of Employment
CEC Refusal Overturned: Court Slams Officer for Ignoring Key Evidence
Federal Court: Officer Unreasonably Refused CEC for Wholesale Sales Role
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)