Express Entry Policy Gaps: A Practitioner’s Review of Systemic Issues and Proposed Solutions

Summary

As a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant, I have observed several recurring issues in the Express Entry system that create confusion, misalignment, and risk for applicants and representatives alike. This article outlines four policy gaps that continue to cause concern, ranging from how work experience is assessed to how educational credentials are evaluated. Each issue is paired with a proposed solution aimed at improving transparency, consistency, and fairness within the system.

Key Issues Identified

• Overlapping Canadian and Foreign Work Experience
• Distance Learning and Canadian Work Experience
• PGWP Eligibility and Canadian Education Points
• Remote Foreign Work Experience Performed in Canada

In each case, a practical solution is proposed to align IRCC policy, and system design, with a view to ensuring procedural fairness and predictability for applicants and practitioners.

A response from ImmReps (REP-2024-1152), the Immigration Representative inbox responsible for responding to procedural and policy-related inquiries from authorized representatives and lawyers, states that an applicant may claim concurrent work experience for two full-time jobs, one in Canada and one performed remotely abroad. The reply clarifies that CRS core points and skill transferability points may be awarded for these experiences but does not explicitly address how overlapping work is treated under Section 25(4) of the Ministerial Instructions.

Section 25(4) clearly states that for the purposes of sections 23 and 24, overlapping full-time work experiences in more than one occupation are to be evaluated as a single period of full-time experience. However, current system behaviour awards skill transferability points for both experiences, treating them as distinct.

There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicants who have overlapping full-time Canadian and foreign work experience can be awarded distinct CRS skill transferability points for each experience.

• Conflicting interpretations may lead to inconsistent advice
• Applicants may rely on overlapping work periods that are later disqualified
• RCICs face increased liability due to unclear policy guidance

IRCC should issue explicit guidance confirming whether a combination of full-time Canadian and foreign work experience that occurs concurrently can legitimately generate CRS skill transferability points. If Section 25(4) is intended to restrict the awarding of such points in overlapping periods, then system logic, program delivery instructions, and officer training should be updated to reflect that. A system warning could help prevent incorrect profile creation. If the intention is to allow these points despite overlap, then Section 25(4) should be revised or clarified to reflect this interpretation and avoid misalignment between the Ministerial Instructions and actual system behaviour.

Section 87.1(3)(a) of the IRPR and Section 15(7)(a) of the Ministerial Instructions exclude full-time study from counting as Canadian work experience. However, it is unclear whether this includes distance learning from a foreign institution while working in Canada.

The lack of policy guidance leaves RCICs unsure whether full-time online study disqualifies Canadian work experience, even when the applicant is working lawfully in Canada.

• Inconsistent interpretation leads to conservative or conflicting advice
• Clients may avoid legitimate online education options unnecessarily
• Risk of refusal despite lawful employment and compliance

IRCC should clarify whether full-time distance learning from a foreign institution disqualifies Canadian work experience under CEC. This clarification should distinguish between in-person and remote learning, and be reflected in both Ministerial Instructions and program delivery guidance.

Ministerial Instructions section 30(4) defines an eligible credential based on the type of institution and the nature of the credential. While this definition broadly parallels the criteria used to determine Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) eligibility, it does not make PGWP status a formal requirement.

However, IRCC has introduced new program-level restrictions, such as field of study criteria that now result in some institutions such as publicly funded colleges offering both PGWP-eligible and PGWP-ineligible programs. This creates a situation where a graduate may hold a credential that satisfies section 30(4), but still be denied CRS points because their specific program is not PGWP-eligible at the time of e-APR.

This evolving distinction is not reflected in the Ministerial Instructions or in the system design, creating a serious disconnect. The A11.2 operational guideline states that "institutions or programs that are not eligible for a PGWP (at the time of e-APR) should not be awarded CRS points for additional factors," adding a layer of program-specific eligibility not found in section 30(4). If PGWP eligibility is to be determinative, it should be formally integrated into the Ministerial Instructions and the CRS scoring logic. Without this alignment, applicants are penalized for relying on the definition set out in the Ministerial Instructions, which is silently overridden by unpublished backend criteria.

There is an added challenge for IRCC here. Many applicants studied in programs that were PGWP-eligible at the time they attended, but those programs are no longer PGWP-eligible today. These individuals must still be awarded Canadian education CRS points, or the process becomes unfair and retroactive. At the same time, graduates from institutions that meet the 30(4) definition but who completed PGWP-ineligible programs should not receive CRS points. The current system does not account for this distinction. As it stands, if the designated learning institution meets the 30(4) criteria, Canadian education credential points are automatically awarded, regardless of the program's PGWP status.

The Express Entry system awards CRS points for education based on profile questions that do not reflect PGWP eligibility status. Applicants may receive points at the profile stage only to have them removed later, even if they answered truthfully and held a credential that meets the official definition set out in the Ministerial Instructions at the time of their studies. This outcome reflects the application of internal guidance found in Express Entry: Assessing an electronic application on section A11.2, which introduces PGWP eligibility at the time of e-APR as a criterion, despite it not being part of the Ministerial Instructions.

• RCICs must reconcile conflicting legal and operational guidance
• Clients risk post-submission point loss despite good faith
• Risk of A11.2 refusal or misrepresentation allegations due to system flaws

IRCC should revise the operational guidance in Express Entry: Assessing an electronic application on section A11.2 to align with the formal definition of eligible credentials under section 30(4) of the Ministerial Instructions. If Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) eligibility is to be used as a filter for awarding CRS points for Canadian education, this criterion must be clearly and formally integrated into the Ministerial Instructions.

In addition, the Express Entry profile questionnaire must be updated to include explicit questions regarding PGWP eligibility at the time of study, not only at the time of e-APR. This distinction is essential to ensure procedural fairness and to avoid penalizing applicants who studied in programs that were PGWP-eligible when they enrolled and graduated, but which have since lost that designation due to recent policy changes.

There is a growing cohort of applicants in this exact situation, and failing to acknowledge their circumstances leads to retroactive unfairness. These individuals often answer all profile questions truthfully and meet the published definition of a qualifying credential, yet may have CRS points removed during the application stage based on unpublished backend filters that did not apply when they studied.

The current system awards points solely based on institutional eligibility under section 30(4) without capturing program-level PGWP status. To address this gap, the profile design should incorporate a mechanism to confirm PGWP eligibility at the relevant time. This change would strengthen the fairness, accuracy, and transparency of Express Entry and protect applicants from refusals rooted in misalignment between the legal framework and internal assessment practices.

Section 25(1) of the Ministerial Instructions defines foreign work experience as work done outside Canada. IRCC has confirmed through ImmReps that remote work for a foreign employer may qualify as foreign experience, even when performed from within Canada. Applicants are expected to document the nature of the employment and the employer’s location.

Despite clear ImmReps guidance confirming that remote work for a foreign employer may qualify as foreign work experience, and in the absence of any restriction in the Ministerial at least one refusal has been issued on the basis that such experience does not qualify if performed from within Canada. This creates legal uncertainty for both applicants and RCICs.

This refusal, shared within our professional network with client details redacted, cites section 25(1) of the Ministerial Instructions. The officer concluded that the applicant’s foreign work experience could not be considered because it was not physically performed outside Canada. The refusal specifically notes that the applicant continued working remotely for their Indian employer after arriving in Canada and states that this experience “cannot be considered.”

While the full details of the file are not known, the reasoning reflects a restrictive interpretation of “acquired outside Canada” that is not supported by any explicit wording in the Ministerial Instructions. IRCC’s internal guidance, as shared through ImmReps, has indicated that remote work for a foreign employer may be valid when properly documented. The lack of publicly available, formal policy creates space for conflicting interpretations and inconsistent outcomes.

This policy gap exposes applicants to the risk of losing points or facing refusals despite acting in good faith and meeting the general definition of foreign work experience.

• RCICs cannot confidently advise on remote work eligibility
• Applicants may be refused despite solid documentation
• The absence of fields for remote work in the system adds risk

IRCC should publicly confirm that remote work for a foreign employer can qualify as foreign work experience, even when done in Canada. This should be included in program delivery instructions and officer training materials, along with clear examples.

The Express Entry system is a cornerstone of Canada’s economic immigration strategy, but unresolved policy inconsistencies continue to undermine fairness, predictability, and transparency. Aligning regulatory definitions, internal guidance, and system design will strengthen both applicant outcomes and the ability of RCICs to provide reliable advice.

Let’s keep the conversation going. If you are an RCIC, lawyer, or stakeholder navigating these issues, I would love to hear your experiences or suggestions in the comments.

Shortly after publishing this article, I received a response from ImmReps regarding Issue #2 (distance learning and Canadian work experience):

“Distance learning that does not require an in-Canada portion of the course/program is not considered study for the purposes of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). If these conditions are met, studies in a distance learning format would not impact the eligibility or points for Canadian or foreign work experience.”

For those wondering, “study” is not precisely defined in the IRPR, but in practice, it refers to full-time education that typically requires a study permit and physical presence in Canada. Under IRPR section 87.1(3)(a), full-time study can disqualify periods of work from being counted as Canadian work experience. However, IRCC has now clarified that distance learning from a foreign institution, completed from within Canada and without any in-Canada component, is not considered “study” for the purposes of this exclusion.

This is a welcome clarification, but it also reinforces the need for clearer, publicly available policy guidance so that both applicants and representatives can interpret the rules with confidence.