IRCC updated its guide for assessing job offers: before and after
When someone applies for a work permit tied to a specific employer, the IRCC officer does not only assess the applicant. The officer also has to be satisfied that the job offer is genuine, as subsection 200(5) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) requires. To do that, officers use an internal instruction that IRCC publishes on canada.ca.
On September 17, 2026, IRCC published a new version of that instruction. The previous one was dated November 2019. We compared the two versions.
What did not change
It makes sense to start here, because this is what weighs most in an application.
- The offer is still assessed against the same four factors: the employer is actively engaged in its business, the job is consistent with the employer’s reasonable needs, the employer can fulfill the terms offered, and the employer has complied with employment and recruitment laws.
- If the offer is not genuine under any one of the four factors, the permit is refused.
- If the employer does not provide the information requested, the result can be a refusal.
- If the officer relies on information that is not on file, such as an internet search, a letter must be sent so the applicant or the employer can respond before the decision. That obligation already existed.
- Open work permits remain outside this assessment, because there is no specific employer or job offer.
Before and after, point by point
| Topic | Previous version | Version of September 17, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Written for LMIA exempt permits under the International Mobility Program. Permits with an LMIA appeared only at the port of entry | Also covers permits with an LMIA under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, with separate instructions for each |
| Doubts about the offer in general | The officer could request information directly from the employer | The instruction says to send the applicant a procedural fairness letter stating which of the four factors is of concern and why |
| Doubts about whether the employer can pay and deliver | The officer could request information or refuse the permit | If the officer doubts the credibility of the information, they must send the letter and ask the employer to submit the evidence |
| Who responds | The officer contacted the employer | The letter goes to the applicant, but the employer sends the evidence directly to IRCC |
| Deadline | None was set | 15 days for the employer, or the office standard. If the reply comes through the IRCC webform, the officer schedules a review 30 days after that deadline |
| Work location | A physical work location in Canada where the foreign worker would work was required | An address in Canada appears as an example, not a requirement, and it may differ from the work location |
| Home based business | Appeared in the negative examples | The instruction clarifies it is not a concern in itself and is weighed together with the type of business |
| Shell companies | Documents were requested to rule them out | It says expressly that a company with no employees, set up only to facilitate the entry of foreign nationals, does not count as an operating business |
| Employers with complaints or past non compliance | The officer had to refer the case for inspection and the application was put on hold until it ended | There is no mandatory referral. Being on the list of non compliant employers leads to a more in depth assessment, and the case may be referred for a potential inspection if information is missing |
The core change: the letter before the refusal
Under the previous version, an officer who doubted the offer could refuse the permit without going through the applicant. The new version sets out a path: a letter to the applicant, a deadline for the employer and a later review. In its summary, IRCC describes it as a procedural fairness process for collecting information directly from the employer when the office has no other process in place.
For permits with an LMIA, the instruction adds a nuance. If ESDC, the department that issues the LMIA, approved it, it is assumed to have found the offer genuine. If the IRCC officer reaches a different conclusion, the applicant and the employer should be told and given the opportunity to respond.
It is recommended that officers send a procedural fairness letter to the applicant when there are genuineness concerns.IRCC, Assessing the genuineness of the offer of employment on a work permit application
As a general rule, IRCC frames it as a recommendation. The letter is mandatory in two cases: when the officer relies on information from outside the file, and when they doubt the credibility of the information on the employer’s ability to fulfill the offer.
Why the reply depends on the employer
The letter reaches the applicant, but the employer is the one who has to answer, by sending the evidence directly to IRCC. The documents the instruction mentions include confirmation of the Canada Revenue Agency business number, any required licences, income and tax documents, the T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid and a workers’ compensation clearance letter.
This has a practical reading, which is ours. If the employer is real, the letter gives it a concrete chance to show it before a refusal. If the offer comes from a company that exists only on paper, the letter does not save it, because there is no T4, no tax filing and no operation to show. The new version describes that case explicitly.
What to do if the letter arrives
- Tell the employer the same day. The deadline runs for them.
- Read which factor is in question. The letter has to say so, and the reply has to address that factor.
- Confirm how the employer will respond. The letter sets out the office procedure. If there is none, the instruction provides for the IRCC webform, with the exact application details and, if possible, a copy of the letter.
- Keep a copy of everything sent and the confirmation of submission.
A warning about job offers for sale
A more orderly instruction for officers does not make an offer acceptable when it was not. If someone offers a job in exchange for a payment and the company has no real operation, the new version describes exactly that case as not genuine.
Before accepting an offer, check that the employer exists and operates, and that whoever advises you is authorized. We explain how to verify a consultant in this note.
If you received a procedural fairness letter about your job offer, the deadline is short and the reply has to address the factor the officer questions. Speak to our regulated consultants at Megrez Immigration Consultants, operating in Vancouver since 1996, to review the letter and organize the response with your employer.
Source: IRCC, on canada.ca, Assessing the genuineness of the offer of employment on a work permit application, version of September 17, 2026, and the update summary of the same date. The previous version, dated November 19, 2019, was consulted in an Internet Archive copy from July 31, 2026. Justice Laws Website, IRPR, section 200. Consulted October 1, 2026. Illustrative image generated with AI.
Verification: the comparison between versions is Megrez analysis, as are the readings on shell companies and on the steps after a letter. IRCC has not published figures on refusals for lack of genuineness.
Megrez is a regulated immigration consultancy and does not arrange or sell job offers. Informational article on general processes. It does not constitute legal advice. Requirements change: always confirm on canada.ca.
