PGWP fairness letter left unanswered

Overview

PGWP fairness letter left unanswered

Amanpreet Kaur Dhamu completed a Canadian program and applied for a post-graduation work permit. When IRCC requested a WES assessment of an earlier Indian credential, she resent education records but did not provide the assessment or explain why it could not be obtained. The Federal Court dismissed her challenge.

What happened

IRCC asked for one specific credential assessment, but the response did not supply it or say why it was unavailable.Source [1]

Ms. Dhamu, an Indian citizen, studied at St. Clair College and later sought a PGWP. The officer questioned an earlier foreign vocational credential connected to her original entry as a student.

The fairness letter requested a World Education Services assessment. Her response resubmitted educational records, leaving the requested assessment and the reason for its absence unaddressed.

What the applicant argued

She said the WES request was unnecessary for PGWP eligibility and impossible to satisfy because WES would not assess that credential.Source [1]

Those explanations appeared in the court challenge. The problem was that the officer had not received them while deciding the application.

What the Minister argued

The Minister said the request was relevant to the integrity of the applicant's immigration history and that section 16 required a candid response.Source [1]

An applicant who cannot obtain a requested record can explain the obstacle and provide supporting evidence. That did not happen here.

What the Court decided

The Court found the request relevant and the refusal reasonable because the central demand had gone unanswered.Source [1]

The Court did not accept a new explanation that had never been put to the officer. Judicial review examines the decision on the record that existed when it was made.

What the result actually meant

Ms. Dhamu did not receive a new PGWP decision; the refusal stood.Source [1]

The judgment did not create a rule that WES reports are routinely required in every PGWP application. It addressed this officer's request, this immigration history and this response.

Our analysis: an impossible request still needs an answer

If WES truly would not assess the credential, a documented explanation made during processing could have put a materially different record before the officer. That is our opinion about case preparation, not a prediction that the permit would then have been approved.Source [1]

A response can challenge relevance, explain impossibility and offer substitute evidence at the same time. Silence on the requested item leaves the officer to infer non-compliance.

• Answer each numbered concern directly.
• Prove attempts to obtain an unavailable record.
• Explain why substitute evidence answers the underlying concern.
• Do not save the key explanation for Federal Court.

Use the current PGWP rules

PGWP eligibility rules have changed repeatedly and this case does not freeze the April 2026 instructions in place.Source [2]

Check the current program, language, field-of-study and filing requirements before relying on any older application record.