This family of four had already spent years building a life in Canada when their permanent residence application reached a critical moment.
The principal applicant was living and working in Quebec on a closed work permit. That meant the authorization to work in Canada was connected to a specific employer in Quebec. The family’s current circumstances were therefore rooted in the province, even though their Express Entry application was being processed through the Canadian Experience Class.
Verge Immigration was already representing the family when a Procedural Fairness Letter arrived from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). The letter did not refuse the application, but it made clear that the officer had serious concerns. If those concerns were not answered successfully, the application could be refused.
For the family, the letter placed years of planning and their future in Canada under immediate pressure. Four people were depending on the outcome.
Why Living and Working in Quebec Became a Concern
The Canadian Experience Class is a federal immigration program. IRCC’s public guidance states that applicants must plan to live outside Quebec because Quebec selects its own skilled workers through a separate immigration system.
The same IRCC guidance also confirms that Canadian work experience gained while living in Quebec may still count, provided the applicant can prove that they do not plan to settle in Quebec.
That distinction was central to this application. The principal applicant had been residing and working in Quebec for several years. The closed work permit was tied to a Quebec employer, so the family’s present address and source of employment were naturally connected to the province.
From the officer’s perspective, however, the application did not yet provide enough assurance that the family genuinely intended to establish themselves somewhere else after becoming permanent residents. The PFL stated that the officer was not satisfied with the declared intention to reside outside Quebec.
This is where the difference between a person’s current temporary circumstances and their future intention can become extremely important. A closed work permit may explain why someone is presently working for a particular employer in a particular province, but an Express Entry application is assessed on whether the applicant meets the requirements of the federal program. The officer still needed to be satisfied about the family’s genuine plans after permanent residence.
The Letter Raised a Second, Independent Problem
The Quebec issue was serious, but it was not the only concern in the letter.
IRCC also questioned the qualifying work experience claimed in the Express Entry application. The applicant had been unable to obtain official employment letters for certain periods of work and had instead provided information describing the roles and responsibilities performed.
After reviewing those materials, the officer was not satisfied that the claimed experience demonstrated the lead statement or a substantial number of the main duties associated with the declared National Occupational Classification.
This created two separate risks. Even if the concern about the family’s intention to leave Quebec could be resolved, the application could still fail if the officer remained unsatisfied about the work experience. Likewise, resolving the employment issue alone would not answer the concern about where the family intended to settle.
The response therefore had to deal with the complete letter, not just the issue that appeared easiest to explain.
A Limited Opportunity to Protect the Application
Receiving a PFL can be frightening because the officer has already identified reasons the application may not meet the program requirements. At the same time, it is an opportunity to respond before a final adverse decision is made.
The response cannot be treated like a general explanation letter. It must engage directly with the officer’s concerns, respect the deadline, and give the officer a proper basis to reconsider the preliminary conclusions drawn from the file.
Because Verge Immigration had been involved before the PFL arrived, our team already understood the family’s immigration history, the principal applicant’s closed work permit, the employment background, and the application that was before IRCC. We did not have to begin by reconstructing an unfamiliar file while the family waited under a deadline.
Our response was grounded in relevant case law, careful advocacy, and the specific record of this application. We addressed the two concerns separately while ensuring that the overall response remained consistent with the family’s circumstances.
We are intentionally not publishing the legal arguments, evidence strategy, or way the response was organized. PFL work is highly fact-specific. A strategy that fits one family’s circumstances may be irrelevant or harmful in another case, and protecting the substance of our advocacy matters.
What can be shared is that the response did not rely on a generic template or a bare promise about future plans. It was prepared for the concerns raised in this particular application, with the future of four family members depending on the result.
The Final Decision Changed Everything
After IRCC reviewed the response, the family received the decision they had been hoping for: the Express Entry application was approved.
The principal applicant and three accompanying family members were each issued Confirmation of Permanent Residence documents.
The approval meant that the concerns in the Procedural Fairness Letter had not become a refusal. For the family, it brought an end to the uncertainty surrounding their application and allowed all four of them to move forward as permanent residents of Canada.
It also meant that the principal applicant’s temporary situation in Quebec, including employment under a closed work permit, did not prevent IRCC from ultimately approving the federal permanent residence application after considering the response and the complete file.
What Other Express Entry Applicants Should Understand
Living in Quebec does not automatically make Canadian work experience unusable under the Canadian Experience Class. IRCC states that experience gained while living in Quebec may count if the applicant can prove that they do not plan to settle there.
However, applicants should expect their stated intention to be assessed against the full record. Current residence, employment, work authorization, family circumstances, previous statements, and the supporting documents in the application may all form part of the officer’s assessment.
A closed work permit can explain why an applicant is currently working for a specific employer in Quebec, but it does not remove the need to satisfy the federal program requirements. The application still needs to make the applicant’s circumstances and future intention credible to IRCC.
Applicants should also avoid focusing on only one paragraph of a PFL. This family’s letter raised two independent concerns. An incomplete response to either issue could have left the application at risk.
This story reflects the outcome of one family’s application. Every PFL and Express Entry case depends on its own facts, evidence, immigration history, and legal issues. Past results do not guarantee that another application will receive the same decision.
For official information, review IRCC’s guidance on where Canadian Experience Class applicants can live.
If IRCC has sent you a Procedural Fairness Letter or raised concerns about your Express Entry application, Book a Consultation with Verge Immigration to discuss your circumstances.