Since November 1, 2024, international graduates in Canada seeking to apply for a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP)—a work permit that allows recent graduates to gain Canadian work experience—are required to submit proof of language test results within 180 days of graduating. Despite these requirements, many students could not upload language proficiency documents because there is no designated field in the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) website portal, other than an optional column called “client information.” This has led to many graduates failing to include language results in their initial applications, resulting in different and unclear outcomes for each student.
Four students who recently graduated from Canadian designated learning institutions—government-approved schools that international students can attend—face different outcomes despite submitting identical applications that omitted proof of language test results. These inconsistent decisions by IRCC officers reveal potential procedural defects in immigration decision-making. Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lena Metlege Diab, who was appointed in 2025, and other Members of Parliament (MP) should be aware of the apparent lack of internal guidelines for frontline immigration officers deciding PGWP applications.
The inconsistencies raise questions about whether procedural fairness—the legal principle that individuals affected by administrative decisions should have an opportunity to respond—is being applied consistently. Upon program completion, student A submitted their initial application without language test results because they did not know where to include them. Three months after submitting, an IRCC officer requested proof of language requirements through the application portal. Student A uploaded the documentation before a decision was made and received their work permit after another three months.
However, students B and C faced different outcomes. Their applications were rejected outright after waiting six months and nine months respectively, with no opportunity to submit missing documents. The material differences between these cases—why one applicant received an opportunity to respond while others did not—remain unclear.
Under Canadian administrative law, applicants may be entitled to submit omitted documents through the doctrine of legitimate expectation. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that if a public authority assures applicants of a procedure through a clear statement or consistent practice, applicants are entitled to rely on that assurance and the authority is bound by it. Both elements exist in this situation.
Student A’s case demonstrates that IRCC sometimes allows applicants to submit additional information when officers find initial submissions incomplete. The portal itself displays a statement to applicants: “We are processing your application. We will send you a message when there is an update or if we need more information from you.” This serves as a clear assurance that applicants would be afforded an opportunity to submit omitted documents at a later stage. Failing to provide this opportunity may constitute a breach of applicants’ legitimate expectations.
The rejected applicants face additional uncertainty about their options. By the time their applications were rejected, the 180-day window had expired. Student B sought help from their MP, while student C consulted an immigration lawyer. Through the MP, IRCC instructed student B to reapply for the PGWP and restoration of status—a process to regain legal status after it expires—with the correct documents. However, the immigration lawyer advised student C that the new 180-day rule bars them from reapplying, leaving a discretionary reconsideration request as the only available option.
Neither student B nor C was in Canada during the review process. Upon their return, they entered Canada as visitors, their statuses valid for six months. IRCC, through the MP, notified student B that their student status had expired and they must restore their status to reapply. The immigration lawyer advised student C that restoration of status is unnecessary since they had obtained valid visitor status upon entry. These contradictory instructions create confusion: Can graduates reapply after rejection? Do they require restoration of status? What are the correct procedures?
Student D’s experience highlights additional concerns about the effectiveness of IRCC’s system. Student D submitted their initial application without language proof but later submitted it through the “Contact IRCC” section of the website, finding a tab that allows applicants to add documents before decisions are made. Despite submitting language results well above required benchmarks, their application was rejected eight months later, with failure to provide language results cited as the sole reason for rejection. This raises the question: where did their submitted language result go, and why was it not available to the decision-maker?
Some immigration practitioners have expressed concerns about automation in the process. In a Red Tape Review Progress Report dated September 8, 2025, IRCC stated it has adopted automation to streamline decision-making and reduce processing times since 2018. Automation, including software and artificial intelligence, now assists IRCC officers by summarizing information in complex cases and providing positive eligibility determinations in high-volume routine processes.
Immigration lawyers Will Tao and Karina Juma, who practice Canadian immigration law, have pointed to lack of transparency, disclosure, and procedural fairness in automated decision-making systems. They argue that non-disclosure of automation in individual decision-making may compromise an applicant’s meaningful opportunity to respond and their ability to challenge decisions.
Questions remain about whether these automated tools have access to additional information submitted through IRCC web forms. Even if they do not, automation “does not refuse or recommend refusing applications that are not considered routine,” according to IRCC. Instead, the program sends these applications to an officer for review. This aligns with the Directive on Automated Decision-Making, which establishes four categories of administrative decisions based on risk to individual rights, equality, and data. Higher risk decisions or those with more irreparable and long-lasting impacts require additional procedural safeguards, including notice, explanation, and ensuring human involvement. If IRCC operates as stated, what prevented an IRCC officer from reviewing student D’s language results? What differentiates students A and D, who both submitted language results at a later date, resulting in opposite outcomes?
These cases raise numerous unanswered questions about the reality many graduates currently face in Canada. Ambiguous immigration policies have left these graduates in limbo, raising concerns about legal certainty and procedural fairness. The inconsistent application of procedural fairness principles and lack of clear guidance create barriers for international graduates seeking to work in Canada after completing their studies.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our correspondents in the field and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.