IRCC's Error Caught. PGWP Issued.

Our client had spent four years completing a business administration diploma at a Canadian college. She had complied with every condition of her study permit, maintained full-time enrollment, and graduated on time. Her post-graduate work permit application was straightforward.

Except that IRCC refused it. The reason given: her institution's program was "not eligible" under the PGWP rules. The problem was that IRCC was wrong.

The post-graduate work permit is designed to allow international graduates to gain Canadian work experience and, in most cases, transition to permanent residency through programs like Canadian Experience Class. Refusing a PGWP doesn't just delay a work permit — it severs the graduate's pathway to permanent residency entirely.

For our client, who had spent four years and significant money building toward that goal, a wrongful refusal threatened to undo everything.

The PGWP program requires that an applicant's institution be a Designated Learning Institution (DLI) with degree-granting authority or specific college-level designation at the time of study. IRCC's refusal letter asserted that our client's program did not meet this requirement.

We contacted the institution's international student office, requested formal written confirmation of their DLI designation status for the relevant academic period, and obtained the designation records from the relevant provincial ministry. What those records showed was clear: the program had full DLI eligibility at every relevant point during our client's enrollment. IRCC had assessed the wrong program, or relied on outdated information.

We prepared a comprehensive reapplication package — rather than a judicial review — because the error was factual rather than legal. We included a legal submissions letter that cited the specific DLI designation records, the provincial authorization documents, the institution's formal confirmation letter, and the relevant IRCC operational instructions confirming the program's eligibility.

We directly addressed the basis for refusal, line by line, and demonstrated that each of IRCC's stated concerns was contradicted by the documentary record. We also filed a web form submission to IRCC with a summary of the error, flagging it for priority processing review.