CANADA

A Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) application can become complicated when an applicant receives a refusal after the 180-day period following completion of their studies.

The situation becomes even more unusual when the applicant also does not have the required English language test score.

This is exactly what happened in the case discussed here. The applicant received a PGWP refusal after more than 180 days had passed since completing his studies. He also did not have the required English test score. Despite these two major issues, he later submitted another PGWP application after restoring his status and ultimately received approval.

However, this should not be treated as a normal pathway or something applicants should follow. It was an exceptional outcome, and the case itself demonstrates why exceptions should never be generalized.

1. A PGWP Approval That Came After a Refusal

The applicant, referred to here as Mr. Patel, completed his studies in December 2024.

His study permit was valid until 31 December 2024, and after completing his program, he became eligible to apply for a PGWP.

However, the application later received a refusal on 21 October 2025.

By that point, more than 180 days had passed since his course completion.

The refusal also identified another important issue: his English language test score did not meet the required level for his application.

Despite these issues, another application was eventually submitted, and the PGWP was approved on 26 May 2026.

2. Why the 180-Day Period Matters in This Case

The 180-day period became one of the central issues in the application.

The applicant completed his studies in December 2024 and received his course completion documentation. His first PGWP application was eventually refused in October 2025, which meant that more than 180 days had already passed from the completion of his studies.

The case therefore involved a situation where the applicant was attempting to submit another PGWP application after the 180-day period.

The discussion specifically warns applicants not to follow this approach simply because this particular case resulted in approval.

The approval is described as an exception rather than something applicants should expect to receive.

3. The 90-Day Restoration Period Does Not Mean PGWP Eligibility Is Guaranteed

One important distinction highlighted in the case is the difference between the 90-day restoration period and the 180-day PGWP application period.

After a refusal, the refusal letter indicated that the applicant had a 90-day period in which to restore his status and submit a reapplication.

However, having 90 days available for restoration does not mean that a person automatically remains eligible to apply for a PGWP after the 180-day period has passed.

The case explains that the 180-day requirement remains a separate consideration.

Therefore, applicants should not assume that the 90-day restoration period automatically extends the period available to apply for a PGWP.

4. The English Test Score Was Also an Issue

he second major issue in this case involved the applicant’s English language test score.

The applicant had taken an English test, but his scores did not meet the required CLB 7 level in every module.

His scores included:

6.5
6.5
6
6

The overall score was 6, but the overall score wasn’t what determined whether he met the CLB 7 requirement in this situation.

The requirement discussed was CLB 7 in all four modules.

5. What CLB 7 Meant in This Application

For the university program discussed in this case, the applicant required CLB 7 in all modules.

For IELTS, this meant achieving:

6, 6, 6, 6

For CELPIP, the requirement discussed was:

7, 7, 7, 7

An overall score alone wasn’t sufficient.

In this case, the applicant had two modules at 6.5 and two modules at 6, meaning he did not have CLB 7 in all modules.

This was one of the reasons his first PGWP application was refused.

6. Why the Applicant Was Asked to Take the Test Again

The applicant had been advised to take the English language test again to obtain the appropriate score.

However, he did not agree to take the test again.

As a result, the first application continued with the existing score and eventually received a refusal.

Even during the processing of the first application, the applicant was advised to take the test again, but he chose not to do so.

This became an important part of the unusual circumstances surrounding the case.

7. A One-Year Program and PGWP Eligibility

The applicant completed a one-year PG diploma in Canada and completed his studies in December 2024.

Because he studied for one year, the discussion explains that he was eligible for a one-year PGWP based on the length of his studies.

The case also mentions that some exceptional situations have resulted in applicants receiving a three-year PGWP after one year of study at the university involved.

However, this is specifically described as another exception that should not be generalized.

Applicants should therefore not assume that completing a one-year PG diploma will automatically result in a three-year PGWP.

8. Two Major Problems Were Present

What makes this case particularly unusual is that the applicant did not have just one issue.

There were two major issues:

First, the application was submitted after the 180-day period following completion of studies.

Second, the applicant did not have the required English test score.

Despite both issues, the second application received approval.

This is precisely why the case is presented as an exceptional success rather than a strategy that other applicants should copy.

9. Important Warning: An Exception Cannot Be Generalized

The most important lesson from this case is that an unusual approval does not change the underlying requirements.

Some applicants may hear about someone receiving a PGWP despite not meeting a particular requirement and assume the same result will happen in their own case.

That approach can be extremely risky.

The case discussed here is specifically described as an exception, with the probability of receiving a similar outcome presented as extremely low.

Applicants should therefore follow the applicable requirements rather than relying on an unusual approval received by someone else.

10. What Happened After the First Refusal?

After the first PGWP application was refused, the applicant requested another application even though the 180-day period had already passed.

The application was submitted again despite the fact that the applicant still did not have the required English language score.

The decision to proceed was not considered a standard or recommended approach. The application was submitted because the applicant insisted on trying again, even though there were concerns about both the 180-day requirement and the English language requirement.

The second application eventually received approval in May 2026, making this an unusual and unexpected outcome.

11. The Final PGWP Was Approved in May 2026

The second application resulted in PGWP approval on 26 May 2026.

The permit was approved until 25 May 2027, giving the applicant a one-year work permit.

This was consistent with the discussion surrounding the applicant’s one-year PG diploma and the corresponding one-year PGWP described in the case.

The entire journey began with completion of studies in December 2024 and ended with the PGWP approval in May 2026.

That means the overall process extended for approximately 16 to 17 months from the beginning of the case to the final approval.

12. The Applicant Was Lucky — But This Is Not a Strategy

The most important lesson from this case is not that applicants can ignore PGWP requirements.

It is exactly the opposite.

The case involved two major issues:

The applicant submitted the second application after the 180-day period had already passed.

The applicant also did not have the required CLB 7 English language score in all modules.

Despite both issues, the application was approved.

This is described as a lucky and exceptional case, not as a pathway that other applicants should attempt.

Applicants should not look at this approval and conclude that they can safely apply after 180 days or submit an application without meeting the required English language score.

13. Why You Should Not Generalize Exceptional Approvals

mmigration applications don’t always produce predictable outcomes.

There may be cases where an applicant doesn’t appear to meet a particular requirement and still receives approval. However, an unusual approval doesn’t remove the underlying requirement for everyone else.

The case demonstrates exactly why relying on another person’s exceptional outcome can be dangerous.

If there is only a very small possibility of receiving an exceptional approval, an applicant cannot assume that they will be the person who falls into that exception.

The safer approach is to follow the applicable requirements and avoid deliberately submitting an application that doesn’t meet them.

14. What Was the Applicant's English Score?

The applicant’s English test results included:

6.5
6.5
6
6

The overall score was 6, but the overall score wasn’t sufficient for the requirement discussed in this case.

For CLB 7, the applicant needed to meet the required level in every module.

For IELTS, the score discussed was:

6 in all four modules.

For CELPIP, the equivalent requirement discussed was:

7 in all four modules.

Therefore, having a satisfactory overall score wasn’t enough. Each individual module had to meet the required level.

15. Why the English Score Caused the First Refusal

Because the applicant was studying at a university, the requirement discussed in the case was CLB 7 in all modules.

His two modules with a score of 6 did not meet that requirement.

The applicant was advised to take the English test again during the processing of the first application.

However, he chose not to take the test again.

As a result, the first application continued with the existing score and ultimately received a refusal.

16. A One-Year PG Diploma Does Not Automatically Mean a Three-Year PGWP

The case also discusses the length of the PGWP.

The applicant completed a one-year PG diploma and therefore the case describes him as being eligible for a one-year PGWP.

The discussion separately mentions that a one-year master’s degree can lead to a three-year PGWP.

It also mentions exceptional cases involving a one-year PG diploma where applicants received three-year PGWP approval.

However, those situations are specifically described as exceptions.

Students should therefore not assume that completing a one-year PG diploma automatically guarantees a three-year PGWP.

17. The Two Major Lessons From This Case

There are two major lessons that should be taken from this unusual approval.
First: Respect the 180-Day Period

The case strongly warns applicants not to submit a PGWP application after the 180-day period simply because a refusal letter provides a 90-day restoration period.

The 90-day restoration period and the 180-day PGWP application period are presented as separate requirements.

Having restoration time available doesn’t automatically mean that a person can continue applying for a PGWP after 180 days.

Second: Meet the English Language Requirement

If CLB 7 is required, applicants should make sure they meet the required score in every module.

An overall score isn’t enough when the requirement applies to each individual language skill.

The case itself demonstrates the risk of relying on an insufficient score, even though the second application happened to receive approval.

18. Why This Case Should Not Be Repeated

The applicant was ultimately successful, but the circumstances were highly unusual.

The application was submitted after the 180-day period.

The English language score didn’t meet the required level.

Both were significant issues.

Yet approval was still granted.

The appropriate lesson isn’t that the rules can be ignored. The lesson is that exceptional outcomes can happen, but they shouldn’t be treated as predictable immigration strategies.

Applicants should prepare their PGWP application correctly from the beginning and meet the applicable requirements wherever possible.

19. Key Takeaways

A PGWP refusal can create significant complications, particularly when the refusal occurs after the 180-day period following completion of studies.

This case resulted in an unusual approval after the applicant submitted another application following the refusal.

However, the case involved two major issues: the application was submitted after 180 days and the applicant didn’t have the required CLB 7 English score in all modules.

The final approval on 26 May 2026 therefore represents an exception rather than a standard pathway.

The safest lesson is to avoid relying on exceptional cases and instead make sure your own application satisfies the applicable requirements.

Final Message

This PGWP case is unusual precisely because the final approval came despite two significant problems.

The applicant completed his one-year PG diploma in December 2024, received a refusal on 21 October 2025 after the 180-day period had passed, and did not have the required English language score in all modules.

A second application was nevertheless submitted and ultimately approved on 26 May 2026.

While the outcome was positive, the case should not be treated as evidence that applicants can ignore the 180-day period or apply without meeting the required English language score.

Exceptions happen, but exceptions cannot be generalized.