Can Non-Credit Programs Earn Canadian Education CRS Points?

Non-credit programs have recently become an important immigration issue in Canada. Some international graduates, particularly graduates of certain Portage College programs, have encountered Post-Graduation Work Permit refusals because IRCC considers their programs non-credit. This raises a separate question: can those graduates still claim the additional 15 or 30 Comprehensive Ranking System points for Canadian education under Express Entry?

In my view, a program being classified as non-credit does not automatically disqualify the resulting credential from Canadian education CRS points. However, the opposite assumption is also incorrect. A student cannot claim the points merely because the institution is a Designated Learning Institution, or DLI.

The correct analysis requires us to look separately at the credential, the program, the institution, and the specific requirements governing Canadian education points under Express Entry.

The short answer

A graduate of a non-credit program may potentially claim Canadian education CRS points if the credential and underlying program otherwise satisfy the requirements of the Express Entry Ministerial Instructions.

The most important points are:

• The Express Entry rules do not expressly require that a Canadian educational program be credit-bearing to receive these additional CRS points.
• The Express Entry rules do not expressly exclude non-credit programs.
• The PGWP rules use different language and expressly address credit-earning and non-credit studies.
• DLI status alone does not establish eligibility for Canadian education CRS points.
• The applicant must still establish that the credential, institution, program length, nature of study, and other requirements satisfy the applicable Express Entry rules.

This means PGWP eligibility and Canadian education CRS eligibility are related but legally distinct questions.

How non-credit programs fit the Express Entry rules

Express Entry candidates may receive additional CRS points for completing eligible Canadian education.

Under section 30 of the current Ministerial Instructions governing Express Entry, a candidate may receive:

• 15 additional CRS points for an eligible credential from a one-year or two-year post-secondary program
• 30 additional CRS points for an eligible credential from a post-secondary program of three years or more, or from certain master’s, professional, or doctoral programs

These points are separate from the regular CRS points a candidate may receive for their overall level of education.

The Ministerial Instructions also impose conditions concerning how the studies were completed.

Subject to specific exceptions, including rules that applied during the COVID-19 period, the candidate generally must have:

• studied or trained at a Canadian educational institution located in Canada
• completed at least eight months of study or training on a full-time basis
• been physically present in Canada for at least eight months during those studies or training

The candidate must therefore satisfy more than one requirement.

The fact that a diploma or certificate exists is important, but it does not necessarily end the analysis.

What is a Canadian educational credential?

Subsection 73(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, or IRPR, defines a Canadian educational credential.

The definition includes a Canadian secondary school diploma and certain post-secondary diplomas, certificates, or credentials issued upon completion of a Canadian program of study or training at an institution recognized by the relevant provincial authorities.

Something important is missing from that definition.

The IRPR does not expressly state that:

• the courses must carry academic credits
• the credits must be transferable to another college or university
• the program must be eligible for a PGWP
• the institution cannot describe the program as non-credit

Similarly, section 30 of the Express Entry Ministerial Instructions identifies eligible credentials and expressly excludes certain types of education.

Yet, it does not expressly exclude non-credit programs.

That absence does not automatically make every non-credit program eligible. However, it is significant when comparing the Express Entry and PGWP regimes.

DLI status is not enough

One common misconception is that a credential qualifies for Canadian education points simply because the school appears on Canada’s DLI list.

That is too broad.

A DLI is an institution that a province or territory has approved to host international students. However, the same institution may offer many different kinds of education.

For example, a Canadian public college could offer:

• a two-year post-secondary diploma
• a one-year post-secondary certificate
• a professional-development program
• continuing education
• short occupational training
• general-interest courses
• non-credit programs

Those programs do not necessarily have identical immigration consequences.

Therefore, this reasoning is insufficient:

“I attended a DLI, so my credential must qualify for Canadian education CRS points.”

The better question is:

What exactly was the program, what credential did the student receive, and does it satisfy the requirements in section 30 of the Express Entry Ministerial Instructions?

Non-credit programs and PGWP eligibility are different

The distinction becomes clearer when we compare the Express Entry rules with the Post-Graduation Work Permit rules.

For PGWP purposes, IRCC expressly addresses the nature of the program.

Current IRCC guidance defines a qualifying program as a credit-earning program that leads to a degree, diploma, or certificate, subject to applicable requirements and exceptions.

IRCC also expressly addresses non-credit studies in its PGWP guidance.

That language matters because it is not replicated in the Canadian education provisions of the Express Entry Ministerial Instructions.

The two regimes can therefore be summarized this way:

This is why I do not believe that the following conclusion is necessarily correct:

“The student cannot get a PGWP because the program was non-credit, therefore the student cannot receive Canadian education CRS points.”

The first conclusion does not automatically establish the second.

Canadian immigration law frequently imposes different requirements for different immigration benefits.

The same studies may be assessed differently when considering:

• study permit eligibility
• authorization to work during studies
• PGWP eligibility
• Canadian education CRS points
• eligibility under a particular permanent residence program

We therefore need to apply the legal test governing the particular immigration benefit in question.

Portage College and non-credit programs

The issue has become particularly significant because of the situation involving Portage College and certain programs delivered through partner institutions.

Portage College has published information concerning PGWP refusals affecting graduates of some of these programs.

Of particular importance is Portage’s explanation of what it means by non-credit.

Portage explains that a non-credit program is one in which the credential or courses are not transferable as credit toward another program at another accredited Alberta post-secondary institution.

Portage also states that certain programs were delivered by former private partners, including Campbell College and CIOT, and that students completing designated Portage programs received certificates or diplomas issued by Portage College.

This distinction could be critical for Express Entry.

Two meanings of non-credit programs

Consider two very different situations.

Scenario 1: General continuing education

A student attends several continuing education or professional development courses at a Canadian public college. The courses do not constitute a regular post-secondary credential program, although the student eventually receives a certificate of completion.

That student could face substantial difficulty establishing eligibility for the additional Canadian education CRS points.

Scenario 2: A structured post-secondary program

A student completes a structured one-year, two-year, or longer program leading to a college-issued certificate or diploma.

The college describes the program as non-credit because those courses cannot be transferred as academic credits toward another program or institution.

That is a different situation.

If the program is otherwise genuinely post-secondary and satisfies the requirements of section 30, the fact that its courses are not transferable is not expressly identified in the Ministerial Instructions as a disqualification.

Therefore, the meaning of the phrase “non-credit program” in the particular institution’s academic system is highly relevant.

What have the Federal Courts said?

I have not identified a reported Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal decision that directly answers the following question:

Does an otherwise qualifying Canadian post-secondary credential lose eligibility for the additional 15 or 30 CRS points merely because the program is classified as non-credit?

Therefore, I would not describe this precise question as settled by Canadian jurisprudence.

However, several Federal Court decisions provide useful guidance.

Thompson v. Canada, 2021 FC 914

Thompson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 9,14 is particularly useful because it addressed a Canadian educational credential in the Express Entry context.

The applicant had completed a Master of Science degree at the University of Alberta. IRCC rejected his permanent residence application as incomplete due to the specific documentation submitted to prove his Canadian education.

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review.

The decision is relevant because the Court emphasized the importance of clear IRCC instructions that are consistent with IRPA and the IRPR.

Thompson does not establish that non-credit programs qualify for CRS points.

However, it supports an important proposition: if IRCC intends to impose a particular requirement on applicants, there should be a proper legal or administrative basis for that requirement.

This becomes relevant if one attempts to read an absolute credit-bearing requirement into section 30 even though the Ministerial Instructions do not expressly contain one.

Singh v. Canada, 2026 FC 892

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 892 is a more recent Express Entry case.

It did not concern Canadian education points. Instead, it involved CRS points associated with a Canadian certificate of qualification in a trade.

The applicant had various Ontario truck-driving qualifications. However, the important question was whether he possessed the particular qualification contemplated by the applicable Express Entry provisions.

The Court focused on the specific legal requirements governing the points being claimed.

This approach is useful by analogy.

When determining Canadian education CRS points, the starting point should similarly be:

1. What does section 30 actually require?
2. What does the IRPR definition require?
3. What credential does the applicant possess?
4. What is the legal and academic nature of the underlying program?

DLI status cannot replace these requirements.

By the same reasoning, PGWP ineligibility should not automatically create a separate CRS disqualification unless the legal requirements governing CRS points support that conclusion.

Masam v. Canada, 2018 FC 751

Masam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 751, concerned a PGWP refusal.

An important aspect of the case was the relationship between DLI status and eligibility for a PGWP.

The Court did not accept the proposition that studying at a DLI automatically established entitlement to a PGWP.

This principle is relevant here because it demonstrates that different immigration consequences associated with Canadian education must be considered under their respective requirements.

In other words:

• DLI status is one question
• PGWP eligibility is another
• Canadian education CRS points are another

The concepts overlap, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

Ijaz v. Canada, 2015 FC 67

Ijaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 67 predates the present CRS question.

However, it illustrates an important distinction between completing a period of education and possessing the particular educational credential contemplated by Canada’s immigration legislation.

For our purposes, the case reinforces the need to identify the actual credential.

A student cannot simply say:

“I studied in Canada for two years.”

The relevant questions include:

• What program was completed?
• What credential was issued?
• Who issued it?
• Was it post-secondary?
• How long was the qualifying program?
• Does it fall within the applicable Ministerial Instructions?

These questions become especially important with non-credit programs.

Tcerkovnaia v. Canada, 2022 FC 861

Tcerkovnaia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 861 involved a PGWP application and evidence concerning the applicant’s student status.

The decision is useful mainly for its treatment of evidence.

Where an educational institution provides relevant evidence about the nature or status of studies, an immigration officer should meaningfully consider that evidence.

For a disputed non-credit program, a detailed letter from the institution could therefore be highly useful.

The letter should ideally explain:

• the official name of the program
• whether the program is considered post-secondary
• the normal duration of the program
• whether it was full-time
• the credential issued upon completion
• which institution issued the credential
• why the program is classified as non-credit
• whether “non-credit” refers primarily to the transferability of courses

A generic graduation letter may be significantly less useful than a detailed explanation of the academic status of the program.

What documents should graduates of non-credit programs obtain?

I would not recommend that a graduate automatically claim Canadian education CRS points merely because they possess a Canadian diploma or certificate.

For a potentially controversial program, I would want to review:

1. The final diploma or certificate
2. The official transcript
3. The original letter of acceptance
4. The completion letter
5. The exact official program name
6. The official duration of the program
7. Evidence of full-time enrolment
8. Evidence of physical presence in Canada, where applicable
9. The academic calendar applicable when the student enrolled
10. The official program description for that cohort
11. Provincial information concerning the classification of the program
12. Documentation concerning any partnership through which the program was delivered
13. A detailed institutional letter explaining the meaning of the non-credit designation

Historical evidence can also matter.

If the institution later changed its webpage or program description, the applicant may need to establish how the program was officially characterized when the student enrolled and completed their studies.

What if the CRS points were necessary for the ITA?

This is where the issue becomes particularly important.

Suppose a candidate claims 15 or 30 points for Canadian education.

Those points cause their CRS score to exceed the cut-off score for a particular Express Entry round, and IRCC issues an Invitation to Apply, or ITA.

After the permanent residence application is submitted, an officer concludes that the Canadian education did not qualify.

If removing those points causes the candidate’s score to fall below the score at which they were invited, the application may be refused.

Section 11.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is particularly relevant to this assessment.

Therefore, disputed Canadian education points should not be claimed casually.

Where there is a credible legal basis for claiming the points but the program’s non-credit status could be confusing, I would consider submitting a detailed letter of explanation with the permanent residence application.

The submission could address:

• the exact requirements of section 30
• the credential obtained
• the legal status of the institution
• the post-secondary nature of the program
• the program’s duration
• full-time study
• physical presence, where applicable
• the institution’s definition of non-credit
• the difference between PGWP eligibility and CRS eligibility
• the supporting institutional and provincial evidence

It is usually better to address a foreseeable issue directly than to leave the officer to interpret an unusual educational designation without context.

Are non-credit programs automatically ineligible?

No.

That conclusion goes further than the current Express Entry provisions appear to support.

However, non-credit programs are not automatically eligible either.

The label should trigger further examination.

The decisive question is not merely:

“Was the program non-credit?”

Instead, the proper question is:

Did the candidate obtain an eligible Canadian educational credential through a qualifying post-secondary program and institution while satisfying the requirements of section 30 of the Express Entry Ministerial Instructions?

That requires a fact-specific analysis.

Conclusion

Graduates of non-credit programs should not assume that a PGWP refusal automatically prevents them from claiming Canadian education CRS points.

The current Express Entry Ministerial Instructions do not expressly require that eligible Canadian education be credit-bearing, nor do they expressly disqualify a credential solely because the institution describes the program as non-credit.

This is materially different from the PGWP framework, where the credit-earning nature of a program is expressly relevant.

However, DLI status alone is insufficient.

The applicant must still establish that the credential, institution, program, program length, manner of study, and other requirements satisfy the Express Entry rules.

For affected Portage College graduates, I would therefore assess the issue on a program-by-program and credential-by-credential basis.

If the term non-credit merely means that the courses cannot be transferred toward another credential. At the same time, the student nevertheless completed a genuine qualifying post-secondary program and received a Portage-issued diploma or certificate, there may be a credible legal basis for claiming the additional Canadian education points.

On the other hand, if the program was actually continuing education, professional development, or another form of study that does not amount to the required post-secondary program, the claim may be considerably weaker.

As of August 25, 2026, I have not identified a reported Federal Court decision that conclusively decides this precise question.

Candidates whose eligibility for an ITA depends on these 15 or 30 points should therefore proceed carefully and seek individualized advice before relying on them.

Frequently asked questions about non-credit programs.

Can non-credit programs earn Express Entry points?

Potentially. The Express Entry Ministerial Instructions do not expressly disqualify a Canadian educational credential simply because the program is described as non-credit. The program and credential must still satisfy all applicable requirements.

Does a program have to be credit-bearing to receive Canadian education CRS points?

The current Express Entry Ministerial Instructions do not expressly impose a credit-bearing requirement for the additional Canadian education points. This differs from IRCC’s PGWP guidance.

Does studying at a DLI guarantee Canadian education points?

No. DLI status alone is insufficient. The specific program, credential, institution, study duration, and other statutory requirements must be considered.

Can I claim CRS points if IRCC refused my PGWP because my program was non-credit?

Possibly. A PGWP refusal does not automatically determine whether you qualify for Canadian education CRS points. The two immigration benefits operate under different requirements.

Can Portage College graduates claim Canadian education points?

Possibly, depending on the particular Portage program, credential, mode of delivery, duration, and supporting documentation. The answer should be assessed individually.

Should I claim the points if my CRS score depends on them?

Exercise caution. If IRCC later removes the points and your CRS score falls below the score required for your invitation round, your permanent residence application may be refused.

Has the Federal Court ruled on non-credit programs and CRS points?

I have not identified a reported Federal Court decision that directly determines whether the non-credit classification alone prevents a Canadian credential from receiving the additional 15 or 30 CRS points.

Authorities and Sources

Legislation and regulations

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 10.3
  Statutory authority concerning the Express Entry system and Ministerial Instructions.
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 11.2
  Relevant to assessing whether an Express Entry applicant possessed the qualifications on which the invitation was based.
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, subsection 73(1)
  Includes the regulatory definition of a Canadian educational credential.

Express Entry and IRCC guidance

• Ministerial Instructions respecting the Express Entry system
  See, in particular, section 30 concerning additional CRS points for Canadian education.
• IRCC: Designated learning institutions list
  IRCC information concerning DLI status and program-related considerations.
• IRCC: Post-Graduation Work Permit eligibility
  Current IRCC guidance concerning PGWP eligibility.
• IRCC Guide 5580: Applying for a Work Permit, Student Guide
  Detailed IRCC instructions concerning work permit and PGWP eligibility requirements.
• IRCC: Documents required for a Post-Graduation Work Permit
  IRCC guidance concerning evidence of completion of a qualifying program.

Federal Court decisions

• Thompson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 914
  Express Entry decision concerning proof of a Canadian educational credential and the clarity of IRCC requirements.
• Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 892
  Express Entry decision illustrating the importance of applying the precise legal requirements governing the particular CRS points claimed.
• Masam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 751
  PGWP decision illustrating that DLI status does not, by itself,f establish eligibility for every immigration benefit associated with Canadian studies.
• Ijaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 67
  Decision addressing the importance of possessing the educational credential required by the immigration regime rather than merely completing a period of education.
• Tcerkovnaia v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 861
  PGWP decision relevant to the assessment of institutional evidence concerning a student’s studies.

Portage College

• Portage College: PGWP Updates and Supports
  Portage College’s information concerning affected programs, partner institutions, PGWP refusals, and its explanation of non-credit programs.

Secondary discussion

• CanadaVisa Forum: Difference between non-credit and credit courses and Express Entry points
  An older public discussion illustrating that uncertainty about non-credit Canadian credentials and Express Entry points predates the current Portage College situation. This is not a legal authority.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about Canadian immigration law and policy. It is not legal advice and does not establish a consultant-client relationship. Immigration legislation, Ministerial Instructions, and IRCC policies may change. Candidates should obtain advice based on their individual circumstances before claiming disputed CRS points.