The Federal Court has set aside a permanent-residence refusal after an immigration officer used payroll records requested to verify an employer’s legitimacy to raise a different, undisclosed concern about an applicant’s supervisory experience.
In Badana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1252, Justice L. Saint-Fleur ruled on October 9, 2026, that Shamsher Singh Badana had been denied a fair opportunity to answer the credibility concern that became the principal reason for refusing his Canadian Experience Class application.
The court ordered a different officer to reconsider the application. The judgment does not grant permanent residence or finally determine whether Badana’s claimed supervisory work qualifies.
Employer inquiry turned into a question about job duties
Badana submitted an Express Entry profile in July 2024 and was invited to apply for permanent residence. He claimed three years of qualifying Canadian work experience across positions as a gas station supervisor, welder and advisor, supported by an employment letter, pay stubs and T4 tax slips.
In December 2024, an officer questioned why the gas station’s address was also registered to a vehicle service business. A procedural fairness letter sought documents about the employer’s existence, business activities and Badana’s employment, including corporate tax returns, T4 summaries, bank statements showing salary deposits and a Record of Employment.
Badana supplied most of the requested documents. The officer accepted that the gas station was a legitimate employer and that he had worked there full-time. The two businesses shared a property but were separate entities.
The refusal instead turned on whether Badana had performed the duties of a retail sales supervisor under National Occupational Classification code 62010. The officer inferred from payroll information that he was the sole full-time employee and had not established that he supervised or coordinated sales staff and cashiers.
Removing that work experience cost Badana 24 points for Canadian work experience and another 13 under the skills-transferability factor. According to the officer, the reduction put him below the minimum ranking for the round in which he had been invited to apply. The permanent-residence application was refused on January 8, 2025.
Credibility concerns required an opportunity to respond
The federal government argued that Badana bore the burden of proving his eligibility and had opportunities to provide supporting material both with his application and in response to the fairness letter. Officers are not generally required to alert applicants to every evidentiary deficiency or concern arising directly from statutory requirements.
The judge acknowledged that procedural fairness obligations in Canadian Experience Class applications sit at the lower end of the spectrum. The central question, however, was whether the applicant knew the case he had to meet and had a full and fair chance to answer it.
Here, the court distinguished a simple lack of supporting evidence from a credibility concern. The officer used the newly supplied payroll records to question whether Badana’s account of his supervisory duties was true, without telling him that this was the concern.
An employer’s letter already on the record described duties including supervising and assigning sales workers, preparing schedules, hiring and training employees, and monitoring performance. The officer’s notes and decision letter did not mention that letter. They also did not explain why the payroll totals, considered alongside the employer’s account and Badana’s own declaration, established that he had not supervised staff.
Given that record, Justice Saint-Fleur concluded that Badana should have been told about the concern and allowed to respond before it became the basis for refusal.
New affidavit information excluded
Badana did not succeed on every issue. In court, he offered additional information about colleagues he said he had supervised and trained. He argued that it illustrated the response he could have given had the officer disclosed the concern.
The judge declined to admit that new material. Judicial review generally proceeds on the evidence before the original decision-maker, subject to limited exceptions. Badana had not established that his additional information met those exceptions.
The fairness ruling therefore rested on the existing record. The refusal was set aside and sent back for a fresh decision by another officer; no question was certified for appeal. The decision applies established fairness principles to the specific shift in the officer’s concerns and does not require immigration officers to invite responses to every weakness in an application.
