Published
Sundeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2018, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.
The fix: judicial review in the Federal Court, after a lawyer reviews the refusal and the officer’s notes. A judge can set the refusal aside and send your application back to a different officer.
The deadline: 15 days from notice of the refusal if you are in Canada, 60 days if outside (IRPA s.72). Asking IRCC to reconsider does not stop this clock.
Why a lawyer: only a lawyer can take this to the Federal Court. Why a lawyer
The lawyers who review these refusals
Sundeep S. GrewalBarrister and Solicitor
Prabhpreet Kaur SanghaBarrister and Solicitor
Pardeep S. GrewalBarrister and SolicitorAbout our lawyers
Sundeep S. Grewal founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.
Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.
Pardeep S. Grewal is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.
If IRCC refused your Express Entry application because the officer was not satisfied that your reference letter shows you performed the lead statement and the main duties of the NOC you claimed, the fix is usually judicial review in the Federal Court. The application must be filed within 15 days of being notified of the refusal if you are in Canada, or 60 days if outside, and only a lawyer can represent you there. This guide covers Canadian Experience Class and Federal Skilled Worker refusals over work experience; I also review refusals where the officer said your job belongs in a different NOC.
Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, challenges Express Entry refusals in the Federal Court for applicants across Canada; this guide is by Sundeep S. Grewal.
Leave your details and our team will contact you to arrange a time with a lawyer. Or call (778) 598-3785.
Thank you, we have your request
A member of our team will contact you to arrange a time. If your matter is urgent, call us at (778) 598-3785, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
What does a work experience refusal under section 75 or 87.1 say?
In these refusals the officer usually accepts that you worked for the employer and for the time claimed. What the officer rejects is the content of the work: the duties in your reference letter do not match the “lead statement” of your NOC and enough of its “main duties”. Sometimes the officer says the duties fit a different NOC, sometimes a lower TEER, and sometimes that the letter is too general to tell.
You will often see phrases like these in the Officer Decision Notes:
- “I am not satisfied that the PA has performed the lead statement and a significant number of the main duties of their declared NOC”
- “Job responsibilities listed on your letter of employment [..] do not match NOC-[..]. They match NOC-[..] which is not an eligible occupation”
- “the provided submission was a Letter of Offer for the declared Canadian work experience and as such, they speak in the future tense”
Other wording that appears in Express Entry refusals:
- “The documents you have submitted in support of your work history are insufficient in demonstrating that you worked 1,560 hours in a qualifying position.”
- “This change in your qualifications resulted in a loss of points that brought your rank below the lowest ranking person who was invited to apply”
- “you no longer possess the qualification on the basis of which you were ranked”
In other words, IRCC says the experience that earned your invitation is not proven, so your application fails, or your points drop below the cut-off for your draw.
Why this refusal needs a lawyer
One lawyer, one file, every step:
- reviewing the refusal and the officer’s notes against your letter and the NOC;
- filing the judicial review within the deadline (15 days in Canada, 60 outside);
- arguing it in the Federal Court;
- a new Express Entry profile with a stronger letter, if that turns out to be the faster route.
A refusal like this turns on how the officer compared your duties with the NOC description, and whether the reasons explain the comparison. That is administrative law argued from the record.
Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.
Reconsideration is often suggested by people who cannot represent you in the Federal Court. It is discretionary, rarely changes the result and does not stop the deadline.
What are my options after an Express Entry refusal over work experience?
- Have a lawyer review the refusal and the officer’s notes. Put your letter next to the NOC lead statement and main duties line by line.
- Judicial review in the Federal Court. 15 days in Canada, 60 days outside. A judge can send it back to a different officer.
- A new Express Entry profile. Only if your score is still competitive and you can get a better letter or other proof. Note any change in your circumstances since the invitation.
- Protect your status. If you are in Canada on a permit that is about to expire, plan an extension or another permit now.
- Reconsideration request. Discretionary, rarely changes the result and does not stop the court deadline.
The court deadline does not wait for the other options.
Could the refusal be challenged in court?
The strongest argument, in my view, is usually that the officer did not explain the comparison. An officer who says the duties do not match the NOC must engage with the duties actually listed. In Joshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1049, the officer decided that a Rogers employee in Vancouver claiming the technical sales NOC (62100) was a retail worker, relying on the store’s location in the Pacific Centre and his hourly wage. The Federal Court set the refusal aside because the officer did not deal with the letter’s description of work with commercial and government clients.
The second argument is about the test itself. Section 75(2) requires the lead statement and “a substantial number of the main duties”, not every duty and not the same words. An officer who expects the letter to copy the NOC, or who counts duties without explaining which are missing, is applying a stricter test than the Regulations set.
The limits matter. The burden is on you to prove your experience, and officers do not have to warn you before refusing when the evidence is thin. A letter that is vague, unsigned or in the future tense is hard to defend in court.
Under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, a decision must be justified and intelligible, and must respond to the evidence that contradicts it.
Whether this fits your case depends on what your letter says and how the officer dealt with it.
What do the Express Entry rules require?
For the Federal Skilled Worker class, section 75(2) of the Regulations requires that “during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation” and “a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation [..] including all of the essential duties”. Section 75(3) says that if these are not met, “the application for a permanent resident visa shall be refused and no further assessment is required.” Section 87.1 has similar wording for the Canadian Experience Class.
IRCC’s document guidance asks for “reference letters from employers (with your job duties, dates you worked there, and salary).” Full-time work means 30 hours a week (section 73).
What a reference letter needs
| Item | Why it matters | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Company letterhead, address, phone, signer’s name and title | Shows the letter is genuine and who to contact | IRCC document guidance |
| Your job title(s) and dates for each | Matches the period claimed | IRCC document guidance |
| Duties in your own role, in the past tense | Must show the lead statement and main duties | IRPR s.75(2), s.87.1 |
| Hours per week | Full-time is 30 hours a week | IRPR s.73 |
| Salary and benefits | Supports the job level and paid work | IRCC document guidance |
| Pay stubs, T4s, tax records | Confirm the letter | IRCC checklist |
How is Joshi different from a weak-letter case?
In Joshi the letter described work with commercial and government clients, which is what the wholesale NOC is about. The officer looked past it to the store location and the pay structure. The Court said those details did not explain why the described duties did not count.
A refusal is harder to challenge when:
- The letter does not describe your duties at all, or copies the NOC word for word with no detail about your job.
- The letter is a job offer, not experience, written in the future tense.
- Other evidence contradicts the letter, such as pay stubs at a lower level or a different job title.
Joshi shows the officer must deal with what the letter actually says. It does not help a letter that says too little.
Refused for a different Express Entry reason?
I also review refusals over arranged employment points, proof of funds, category-based draws, self-employment and work while studying, and certificates of qualification. See our guide to Express Entry refused over a pesticide certificate (CoQ) and our 2026 Express Entry guide.
Worked example: the deadline date
Example. An applicant in Burnaby received an Express Entry refusal by email on Monday, November 2, 2026, and read it that day. He is in Canada, so he has 15 days from notice: Tuesday, November 17, 2026. If he were outside Canada, he would have 60 days: January 1, 2027, a holiday, so the deadline would move to Monday, January 4, 2027.
Mistakes I have seen
- I have seen letters that copy the NOC duties word for word, which officers sometimes treat as less credible than a letter in the employer’s own words.
- I have seen applicants submit a job offer letter for experience they already had, instead of an experience letter.
- I have seen people pick the NOC by job title, when their actual duties fit a different NOC.
- I have seen people create a new profile with the same letter and get the same refusal.
Frequently asked questions
What is the lead statement in a NOC?
It is the opening description of the occupation in the National Occupational Classification. Under section 75(2), you must show you performed the actions it describes, plus a substantial number of the main duties.
Does my letter have to match the NOC exactly?
No. It must show you did the lead statement and a substantial number of the main duties, including the essential ones. A letter in your employer’s own words that clearly covers them is better than copied text.
My employer won’t give me a letter. What can I do?
You can explain why and send other proof, such as a sworn statement, pay stubs, contracts and tax records. Officers decide whether that is enough.
Can I use a new profile instead of going to court?
Yes, if your score is still competitive and you can fix the evidence. A new profile does not stop the court deadline on the refusal.
Does a refusal affect my status in Canada?
A permanent residence refusal does not end a valid work permit. If your permit is expiring, you need a separate plan to stay in status.
Can IRCC refuse without asking me for more information?
Yes. When the problem is weak evidence, officers are generally not required to ask first. The burden is on you to send enough proof with the application.
What should I do right now?
Note the date you were notified of the refusal, and gather the refusal letter, the Officer Decision Notes, your reference letters, pay stubs and the NOC you claimed. Mark the lead statement and main duties against your letter. Fifteen days passes fast.
Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.
Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑
Sources (official)
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 73, s. 75 and s. 87.1 (current to October 19, 2026)
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 72
- IRCC, Common supporting documents (modified April 23, 2026)
- Joshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1049 (August 12, 2026)
- Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.