Background
Shreyas Suhas Joshi applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class, relying on his employment with Rogers Communications Canada. His employment letter described him as a sales associate who used technical knowledge to support sales involving devices and product features and offered Rogers Preferred Plan services to commercial and government clients. He claimed that this experience fell within National Occupational Classification 62100, Technical Sales Specialists—Wholesale Trade.
An immigration officer refused the application after concluding that Joshi worked at a retail store and was not employed in the wholesale sector. The officer noted that he was paid an hourly wage plus commission and accepted that his responsibilities included only “a couple” of NOC 62100’s main duties. Although Joshi later sought reconsideration, the Federal Court reviewed only the original refusal dated January 27, 2025 and excluded materials that had not been before the officer when that decision was made.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, holding that the officer’s decision was unreasonable because its reasons were not justified, intelligible, and transparent. The officer did not explain why working at a retail location or receiving hourly pay plus commission meant that Joshi’s experience could not qualify as wholesale technical sales work.
The Court emphasized that Rogers’ letter described duties resembling several main duties under NOC 62100 and stated that Joshi served commercial and government clients. The officer also failed to address the similarity between Joshi’s sales role at a telecommunications company and NOC 62100’s illustrative titles, including “communication equipment sales representative” and “technical sales representative.” The government could not cure these omissions on judicial review by supplying comparisons with other occupational classifications that the officer had not made.
The Court did not decide that Joshi’s employment necessarily qualified under NOC 62100. It quashed the refusal and returned the permanent-residence application to a different officer for redetermination. Because unreasonableness resolved the case, the Court did not address procedural fairness, and it certified no question.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration officer assessing claimed work experience must explain how the evidence relates to the applicable NOC’s lead statement, main duties, and exclusions.
- A workplace’s retail location and an hourly-plus-commission pay structure do not, without a reasoned explanation, establish that an applicant performed retail rather than wholesale technical sales work.
- Courts review the reasons actually given by the decision-maker; government counsel cannot uphold an unreasonable decision by adding a new NOC comparison during judicial review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that occupational-classification findings must rest on the substance of an applicant’s work and the evidence before the officer, not unexplained assumptions based on store location, compensation, or job labels. Relevant duties, clientele, and illustrative NOC titles must be meaningfully addressed when they bear directly on eligibility.
For applicants and counsel, the judgment also underscores the importance of submitting detailed employment evidence with the original application. Documents first provided on reconsideration ordinarily cannot be used to challenge the reasonableness of the initial decision.