On September 17, 2026, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) published an extensive update to its instructions for assessing whether an offer of employment is genuine.
The update is relevant to employer-specific work permit applications, including renewals, under both the International Mobility Program (IMP) and the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP).
The most significant changes concern how officers investigate questionable job offers, communicate their concerns, obtain information directly from employers, and handle evidence collected outside the application.
IRCC’s official update announcement identifies the areas revised. The explanation below covers those changes and the practical requirements in the updated instructions. Because IRCC has not provided a tracked comparison, not every requirement discussed below should be understood as newly introduced.
1. A clearer procedural fairness process
One of the main additions is a specific process for obtaining evidence directly from the employer when an officer has concerns about the genuineness of a job offer.
The instructions say the officer should send the applicant a procedural fairness letter explaining which genuineness factor is in question, why the concern has arisen, and what additional information or documents are needed.
The letter must explain how the employer should submit the requested evidence directly to IRCC. The usual response period is 15 days, unless a different office standard applies.
Where an office does not already have a submission procedure, the revised instructions provide a webform process. The employer must provide enough information to connect the response to the correct application, together with the requested documents and a signed letter acknowledging IRCC’s request and confirming their willingness to support the prospective employee’s application.
For this webform procedure, officers are instructed to set a follow-up date 30 additional days after the response deadline so that the documents have time to be attached to the application. This is an administrative allowance for IRCC; it does not give the employer an extra 30 days to respond.
If the employer does not respond, the officer can assess the application using the available information and refuse it if the genuineness requirements are not established.
For applicants and representatives, the practical point is that a request for evidence directly from the employer should be followed carefully. An applicant’s upload should not simply be assumed to replace the employer’s required response.
Source: IRCC’s procedural fairness instructions.
2. More specific instructions for evidence obtained outside the application
IRCC has clarified how officers should handle “extrinsic information.” This means information used in the decision that the applicant would not reasonably know about or have access to.
An officer may, for example, research the employer online and find information that raises doubts about whether the business is still operating.
The revised instructions require officers to record the steps taken during their investigation and the results, including the URLs and search dates of websites consulted. Additional information or documents used to assess genuineness should also be added to the application’s electronic record.
Where extrinsic information is used in the genuineness decision, a procedural fairness letter must disclose it to the applicant. An opportunity to respond must be provided before a finding that the offer is not genuine.
This gives applicants a chance to address information that may be outdated, incomplete or misunderstood, and creates a clearer record of the evidence underlying the decision.
Source: IRCC’s instructions on extrinsic information.
3. Separate instructions for LMIA-exempt and LMIA-based applications
The revised guidance more clearly distinguishes the assessment process under the IMP from the process under the TFWP.
For employer-specific IMP applications, the employer submits the offer directly to IRCC under section R209.11 before the worker applies. The applicant includes the offer of employment number, commonly called the A-number, in the work permit application.
Submitting the offer through the Employer Portal does not mean IRCC has approved its genuineness. The offer is reviewed when the work permit application is submitted.
The guidance also states that a copy of the employment contract is not required where the offer was submitted through the Employer Portal. However, if the applicant provides a contract or employment letter, the officer may compare it with the employer’s portal submission. Applicants should still follow any applicable program-specific or application checklist requirements.
For TFWP applications, the applicant must provide a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a copy of the employment contract. Officers compare the submitted employment information with the LMIA information in their system.
Source: IRCC’s instructions for reviewing offers of employment.
4. A positive LMIA does not guarantee work permit approval
The revised guidance explains that when Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) issues a positive LMIA, it is assumed that ESDC found the offer genuine.
However, IRCC must still be satisfied that the work permit application meets all relevant requirements, including the genuineness of the offer.
If an IRCC officer concludes, based on the information before them, that the offer is not genuine, the instructions say the applicant and prospective employer should be advised of the concerns and given an opportunity to respond.
Employers and applicants should therefore be prepared to address questions about the business, the position and the employer’s ability to honour the offer even after a positive LMIA has been issued.
Source: IRCC’s TFWP assessment instructions.
5. Why information must come directly from the employer
The instructions explain an important distinction between evidence provided by an employer and evidence provided by a worker.
For employer compliance inspections, information submitted by the foreign national is not considered information provided by the employer for the purpose of inspecting the employer’s obligation to provide accurate information. The guidance says information supplied by the worker may be used to confirm their knowledge and understanding of the offer.
This distinction helps explain the emphasis on direct employer responses. Where IRCC requests confirmation of the employer’s business operations, financial position or staffing needs, the employer should respond through the specified process.
Source: IRCC’s guidance on employer-provided information.
6. More practical examples of active business operations
IRCC has updated its examples to explain what may demonstrate that an employer is actively engaged in business.
A business must do more than legally exist. The evidence should show that it actually provides goods or services and carries on the activities associated with the job offer.
A business that is less than one year old may require closer examination. However, the instructions do not establish a blanket rule that businesses must operate for one year before hiring a foreign worker.
The guidance also expressly recognizes that a business operating from a residential address may make a genuine offer. The address must be considered together with the nature of the business and the other evidence.
For example, a home-based digital services business may reasonably operate without commercial premises. The concern is whether the evidence supports real business activity and a suitable employment arrangement.
Depending on the circumstances, officers may request business registration information, licences, tax documents, contracts or other proof of ongoing operations. The instructions emphasize considering the evidence as a whole rather than treating one factor as decisive.
Source: IRCC’s active business assessment.
7. The employer must explain why the position is needed
The offer must be consistent with the reasonable employment needs of the business.
The revised examples include a catering company hiring a roofer, a company with 10 employees offering a sixth supervisor position within a year, and an individual franchise restaurant hiring a full-time business analyst.
These examples illustrate situations where an officer may question whether the occupation or staffing level fits the employer’s operations. They are not automatic prohibitions on particular job titles.
Where concerns arise, the employer should be able to explain the worker’s role, how the duties relate to the business, and why the position is reasonably needed.
For applications involving an unusual role or a small business hiring a senior employee, a detailed business explanation may be particularly useful.
Source: IRCC’s reasonable employment needs assessment.
8. Financial capacity must support the promised employment
The employer must be able to provide the wages, hours, benefits and working conditions stated in the offer for the duration of the work permit.
Where concerns arise, officers may request documents such as a T4 Summary, corporate tax schedules, business income statements, workers’ compensation clearance letters or business contracts showing future income.
The revised examples include a business that reported only $10,000 in profit but proposes paying a foreign worker $45,000 per year without providing further supporting evidence.
This example does not create a fixed profit-to-salary threshold. It illustrates the need to provide sufficient evidence explaining how the employer will meet its commitments.
The instructions also state that where an officer questions the credibility or truthfulness of information about the employer’s ability to fulfil the offer, a procedural fairness letter must be sent requesting further evidence directly from the employer.
Source: IRCC’s assessment of the employer’s ability to fulfil the offer.
9. Employment and recruitment compliance remains relevant
The assessment considers compliance with federal and provincial or territorial laws regulating employment and recruitment.
Violations may be relevant whether they involved foreign workers, Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
The guidance also explains that appearing on a provincial list of employers with violations does not necessarily mean an employer is prohibited from hiring. Not every penalty results in a ban. Further inquiries with the employer are required to support a genuineness refusal based on past non-compliance.
The use of an unlicensed recruiter in a province where licensing is required can also support a refusal.
Source: IRCC’s employment compliance guidance and provincial recruitment requirements.
10. Questions may still arise at the port of entry
The revised instructions explain that genuineness concerns can arise after provisional approval and the issuance of a letter of introduction.
If new information suggests the offer no longer meets the requirements, a border services officer may contact the employer for further information before issuing the work permit. If the requirements are no longer met, the officer must refuse the application.
For people who are eligible to apply for a work permit at the port of entry, the genuineness assessment also applies despite a positive LMIA or an opinion from the International Mobility Workers Unit.
Employers and workers should therefore ensure that the offer remains available and accurate when the worker travels to Canada.
Source: IRCC’s port-of-entry considerations.
11. The four genuineness factors continue to apply
The updated instructions continue to use the four factors under subsection R200(5):
The employer must be actively engaged in the business in which the offer is made, subject to the stated live-in caregiver exception.
The offer must be consistent with the employer’s reasonable employment needs.
The employer must be able to fulfil the offer’s terms.
The employer or recruiter must satisfy the relevant employment and recruitment compliance requirements.
Failure to satisfy any one of these factors can result in refusal. The assessment applies to employer-specific work permit renewals as well as initial applications.
The guidance expressly states that open work permits are not subject to this R200(5) assessment because they do not involve a specific employer or job offer. This does not remove any separate eligibility or evidence requirements for the applicable open work permit category.
Source: IRCC’s scope and genuineness factors.
Preparing an application under the revised guidance
A practical approach is to ensure that the employer’s evidence explains its actual operations, the need for the position, its ability to meet the employment terms and its compliance with applicable laws. The employment contract, Employer Portal submission or LMIA information, and the worker’s application should be consistent.
This does not mean every application requires every business document mentioned in the guidance. The evidence should respond to the circumstances of the employer and the position.
If a procedural fairness letter is issued, the response should address each identified concern, follow the instructions for direct employer submission and meet the stated deadline. Where the concern relies on information obtained outside the application, the applicant should have a meaningful opportunity to review and answer it.
IRCC also reports updates to referral and verification contacts, corrections to differences between internal and public instructions, and improvements to formatting and readability. The announcement does not identify every internal discrepancy corrected.
The complete source material is available in IRCC’s September 17, 2026 update announcement and its revised instructions on assessing the genuineness of an offer of employment.