Do not depend upon the "arranged job offer" for those points under Express entry.

This was an application for judicial review of a decision of an immigration officer at the High Commission of Canada in London, United Kingdom refusing the applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa as a skilled worker.

The applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, had submitted an Arranged Employment Opinion based on an offer of employment as a jewellery appraiser for a business owned by his father-in-law. In a procedural fairness letter, the officer noted that the applicant did not provide objective or credible evidence of his experience, and was not satisfied that the job offer was genuine because of the amount of time the job had remained open and the applicant’s family connections to the employer. The officer found that the applicant’s response did not provide any new information and did not address the concerns identified.

At issue was whether the officer breached procedural fairness; whether he unreasonable found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the requisite work experience; and whether he unreasonably found that the applicant’s job offer was not genuine.

Held, the application should be dismissed.

There was no breach of procedural fairness. An applicant has the onus to support his application with sufficient evidence. If the concern is about the sufficiency of evidence, given that the applicant is clearly directed to provide a complete application with supporting documents, no duty of procedural fairness arises. However, if the concerns are truly about credibility, some further assessment of the scope of the duty of procedural fairness will be required. Here, the officer did not find the applicant’s evidence to be sufficient. The officer’s procedural fairness letter clearly conveyed this message and provided notice to the applicant of the officer’s concerns. The applicant failed to take advantage of the opportunity given to him to respond with additional objective evidence. There was no requirement for the officer to hold an interview. Nor was the officer required to follow up and make inquiries about the applicant’s experience and qualifications.

The officer’s finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that he had the requisite work experience was reasonable. The officer identified several issues, notably the absence of objective evidence of training or experience.

Finally, the officer’s finding that the job offer was not genuine was also reasonable. The factors in subsection 200(5) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations are not the only factors that can be considered to determine the genuineness of a job offer. They should not be interpreted so narrowly that the officer’s legitimate concerns about the genuineness of a job offer cannot be considered. Whether the offer is consistent with the reasonable employment needs of the employer is a broad question that would include a range of relevant factors, including: the nature of the business and of the particular employment offered; the size of the business; the volume of sales; and the number of employees. It would not be consistent with the reasonable employment needs of an employer in a specialized area, such as a jewellery business, to offer employment to a person who has not provided objective evidence of their qualifications and experience and whose personal connection to the business owner appears to be a higher priority than the objective and legitimate needs of the employer and business owner for a qualified jewellery appraiser. The applicant’s concern that the delay in processing applications could have a negative impact on job offers was acknowledged. Indeed, if a job offer remains open for an indefinite period of time, questions may arise about the genuineness of the offer, as they did in this case. However, in the present case, the duration of the job offer was not the only concern and the reasonable employment needs of the employer must always be considered. No undue delay was attributable to the respondent in the processing of the application.

You can read the whole case as it is on https://recueil.fja-cmf.gc.ca/eng/2016/2016fc509.html