When the institution is gone: what Canada's designated ECA bodies actually publish about records that cannot be produced

Canada publishes a national recommendation that applicants who cannot obtain verifiable documents — including because their institution closed — should be given an alternative assessment route. Four of the five designated multipurpose organisations publish no such route for an immigration ECA. One of them states the position in a single sentence: “There are no exceptions made for a closed institution.”

That gap is the subject of this page. It is not a complaint; it is a set of quotations, gathered on 3 September 2026, because the alternative — guessing, or repeating what a forum said — leaves people paying non-refundable fees for applications that were never going to complete.

We summarise published rules. We do not carry out assessments, we do not predict what any body will do in any case, and we do not give immigration advice.

What Canada recommends, and to whom

The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials, a unit of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, ran an initiative called Assessing the Qualifications of Refugees, funded by the federal Foreign Credential Recognition Program. Its own account of the origin: in 2015, as Canada prepared to settle 25,000 Syrian refugees, it asked “How would the broad and diverse organizations responsible for assessing and recognizing academic credentials and professional qualifications support refugees? This is especially crucial, as refugees and those in refugee-like situations may not have access to the documentation normally required for these procedures.”

The output was five approaches — “country profile plus comparability statement; background paper; some documentation; some verifiable documentation; testing of skills and competencies” — and 13 recommended best practices and guidelines “that can be used by organizations to put in place an alternative qualification-assessment procedure without access to verifiable documentation.”

Four of the 13 matter directly here.

Recommendation 3, eligibility, is broader than the initiative’s title suggests:

“All applicants who do not have access to verifiable documentation of their qualifications—for legitimate reasons beyond their control—should have access to an alternative assessment of their qualifications. There may be many reasons why an individual cannot access verifiable documentation, including refugee status, institutional closures, and environmental disasters.”

Recommendation 4 sets the floor: “many organizations that adopt an alternative process require at least one document in addition to a sworn affidavit by the applicant”, such as “a student-issued or copied transcript or degree certificate; public lists of graduates or other evidence of enrolment or completion; evidence of admittance to state examinations; statements of professional standing; a licence to practise in another jurisdiction.”

Recommendation 6 describes the background paper and affidavit, including “reasons why the applicant cannot use the ‘regular’ process” and “description of attempts made to obtain documents”, and says the applicant’s own affidavit “can be strengthened by affidavits from: fellow students who completed the program at the same time; instructors or professors who taught the applicant; former employers; and other individuals who are not family members.”

Recommendation 10 adds a safety rule most people never think about: an organisation in Canada may be able to obtain documents the applicant cannot, but “given the potential for harm to an applicant seeking refuge in Canada or to their family members who may have been left behind, it is imperative that organizations in Canada always have the express written consent of the applicant before any contact is made with issuing institutions in the country (or countries) an applicant has fled.”

Now the crucial limitation. These are recommendations to organisations, not rights held by applicants. The framework they sit inside says of itself that it “respects the autonomy of organizations; and is not prescriptive.” Whether any of it is available to you depends entirely on what the body you are applying to has chosen to publish.

ICES: the clearest published answer, and it is a refusal

ICES is the only designated organisation that answers the question head-on. Its FAQ, in the ECA section:

“My school is closed and cannot send my documents. Can I still apply?” “Our requirements are mandatory. We must receive official documents for all the credentials you wish to have assessed. If you cannot meet this requirement, the credential will not be eligible for an assessment. There are no exceptions made for a closed institution. If the school is no longer operational, its documents will still be accessible. They may be stored with a higher authority such as a Ministry of Education or other similar body. The onus would be on the applicant to research and find out who is now in charge of the documents and have them sent by that body.”

Its front page says the same thing in general terms: “Please make sure you can meet all application requirements before you apply. There are no exceptions to the document requirements. If your assessment type requires official documents, you must be able to provide them before submitting your application.”

Two further ICES answers close off the obvious workarounds. On whether it will chase the institution for you: “No. This is beyond the scope of our service. We do not contact the institution to arrange for your documents. This is the responsibility of the client.” And on what happens if its own enquiries go unanswered: “After repeated attempts or time elapsed, ICES may choose to close the file.”

And on money: “There are no refunds for ECA applications. ICES is not responsible for document requirements that cannot be met. Please ensure all requirements can be met before proceeding with an application, as no refund will be issued after the fact.”

ICES does publish flexibility — on the other side of the wall

The same FAQ page contains two answers that read like the alternative procedure CICIC recommends. Both appear under General applicants (Basic & Comprehensive), not under ECA applicants.

“In rare cases, ICES may be able to complete an evaluation based on photocopies or incomplete documents. This is entirely dependent on what has been submitted and the requirements of the organization you are applying to. When doing so, this is the notification that will be included in your evaluation: IMPORTANT NOTE – Document Authentication: ICES recommends that all official or original documents be submitted for evaluation. Since all required documents were not submitted, authentication of this credential was not possible.”

“If you are a refugee and do not have any documents we may be able to complete a program evaluation that will provide a statement of comparability, but no other personal identifiers on the report. You will need to provide a sworn affidavit listing the credential you’re earned.”

A statement of comparability carrying no personal identifiers is a description of an education system, not of you. Whether such a document could ever satisfy a body that needs to attach a credential to a named applicant is a question for that body — and ICES itself frames both answers as depending on “the requirements of the organization you are applying to.”

The published structure is therefore: flexibility exists at ICES for general-purpose reports; the immigration report has “no exceptions”.

WES: a named programme, with a border around it

WES is the only designated organisation running a standing programme for this situation. The WES Gateway Program “supports the educational and career advancement of refugees and other forcibly displaced individuals who cannot obtain official academic documents from their country of education.”

Its published eligibility criteria: applicants must be “unable to obtain official academic documents directly from the authorized institution”, must have “completed high school or have complete or partial college or university education”, must have “copies of their diploma and/or transcript”, must be “currently living in Canada or the U.S.”, and must have been educated in a listed country.

The list is where care is needed. The programme page names Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Türkiye, Ukraine, and Venezuela. The FAQ on the same site, answering “I am unable to get my documents and my country of education is not one of the countries on your list, can you help?”, names eight: “Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Türkiye, Ukraine, and Venezuela” — omitting Palestine and Sudan. Both were read on 3 September 2026. If your education is from Palestine or Sudan, that discrepancy is worth resolving with WES before you assume either way.

The FAQ’s answer to everyone outside the list is candid and short: “Our research team will continue to review all factors and whenever possible expand this list. A public announcement will be made if countries are added.”

Three more published facts about the programme:

• It is referral-only in Canada. “WES works with partner organizations across Canada to refer individuals to the WES Gateway Program. These referral organizations confirm the eligibility of prospective applicants, submit documents for evaluation, and provide additional information.” WES publishes the partner list, which runs to dozens of settlement agencies, colleges and two engineering regulators. It adds that partners “may have additional criteria when determining which individuals are eligible for their services”.
• Documents accepted are wider than a transcript: “Diploma / Degree Certificate; Transcript / Mark Sheet / Statement of Marks; Professional License / Certificate; Other officially issued documents (such as a letter of appointment, student ID card, or membership in a recognized professional association or certification body).”
• The report is explicitly not authenticated: “The documents used for this evaluation come from the applicant and are not authenticated as in a standard WES evaluation. Because academic institutions and licensing bodies value authenticated documents, we recommend that you attempt to obtain your official documents for a standard WES evaluation before applying through the WES Gateway Program.” Stated turnaround: “about 15 business days after we receive, review, and accept all your documents.”

What we could not verify, and will not assert either way: the WES Gateway pages list the uses of the report as “University and college admissions; Credit transfers; Starting the licensing process; Obtaining employment”. Immigration is not among them, and the WES ECA pages make no mention of the Gateway Program. We found no statement on either set of pages that a Gateway evaluation can serve as an IRCC ECA, and no statement that it cannot. Ask WES directly; do not infer it from this page or any other.

One country-level detail: for Afghanistan, WES notes it “evaluates education from all high schools and 31 post-secondary institutions at this time”. For Ukraine it says it “is working with ENIC to ensure continued evaluation of Ukrainian educational credentials through standard procedures” — i.e. the standard route may still be open where you might have assumed it was not.

IQAS, ICAS and CES: nothing published, and terms that say so

IQAS. Its country-specific document requirements run to roughly 80 country entries. We read the whole document on 3 September 2026 and found no provision for unavailable, destroyed or un-reissuable records, and no refugee or displaced-persons route. The document’s own framing is that country entries are “examples of what to provide”, that the list “is not an exhaustive list of countries”, and that “Submitting documentation does not guarantee that an assessment can be issued.”

For two of the countries most associated with this problem, IQAS applies the standard process. Its Syria entry lists the ordinary sealed-envelope and electronic-transcript methods. Its Afghanistan entry adds a hard boundary that closes the door for an entire generation: “IQAS only assesses credentials issued in or after 2003, subject to the completion of IQAS verification and validation processes.”

What happens when it cannot proceed is stated in four words on its application page — “Your application will be cancelled if IQAS cannot complete an assessment. IQAS will let you know if your application has been cancelled” — and the money position is stated twice: “All IQAS fees are non-refundable… The fees cover the cost of processing your application and are required whether an assessment certificate is issued or not.”

ICAS. No alternative-evidence procedure appears on its immigration pages or in its terms. What does appear is the reverse. Its Terms and Conditions: “ICAS does not guarantee the issuance of an Assessment Report if ICAS is not satisfied with the documentation and information received, in ICAS’ sole discretion, and/or cannot obtain information or verification from the applicable institutions, agencies and/or authorities.” And a clock: if required documents have not arrived within “180 days of the date of the client’s application” or “180 days from the date of ICAS’ document request… the application will be deemed terminated. No refunds are offered for cancelled or terminated applications.”

Its FAQ also removes the most common improvisation: “Documents submitted to ICAS in a sealed envelope by an applicant or another third party are not considered to be official documents and will not be accepted in lieu of official documents.”

CES. Likewise nothing on its application steps, its country requirements page or its terms. Its Terms and Conditions carry the same non-guarantee: “U of T does not guarantee the issuance of an ECA report if U of T is not satisfied with the official documents received and/or cannot obtain information or verification from the applicable institution(s). Such an application is deemed as incomplete and subject to termination.” Its Step 4 page is unambiguous about who must arrange things: “It is your responsibility to make these arrangements with your awarding institution. CES cannot order these documents on your behalf.” Applications “incomplete for more than 180 days will be terminated”, with no refund.

The one route that does exist everywhere: find the successor custodian

ICES’s refusal contains the actual answer, and it is the same answer the other bodies imply: in most systems the records did not vanish with the institution, because in many systems the institution was never the awarding body in the first place.

ICES’s own country notes are the best public illustration. For Cameroon, several credentials’ “Documents must be issued by Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur du Cameroun (MINSUP) which issued your credential. They cannot be issued by the institution that you attended because they are not the awarding body.” For Benin, official attestations “must be sent directly to ICES by DECOB”. For Haiti, awards must be attested by the education ministry. For India, “The confirmation of a credential from affiliated institutes and colleges is not acceptable, as they are not the awarding body of the credential.” In each case, a closed college is not the end of the trail — the ministry, board or parent university is.

ICES also publishes two narrower concessions that do apply to ECAs:

• Where a document cannot be reprinted: “If a degree or transcript cannot be re-issued, applicants may make arrangements for an official letter of confirmation to be sent directly to ICES. This letter of confirmation must include details about study and the credential awarded (including the date of award). This confirmation can be sent by mail or by email as long as the source can be confirmed.”
• Where a transcript never existed: “In the case of PhD’s there are many instances where a transcript is not issued or available. In this case, please have your institution send either a copy of your degree or a confirmation letter confirming the award.”

Both still require a living body willing to sign. That is the whole boundary of what is published.

What to do with this

1. Identify who now holds the records before you identify an agency. In many systems the awarding authority is a ministry, examinations board or parent university, and it still exists. Every designated body will accept documents from the awarding authority; none will accept an assurance that the school is gone.
2. Ask in writing, and ask before you pay. Every body we read makes fees non-refundable, and two of them say explicitly that the fee is owed whether or not a certificate is ever issued.
3. Separate the purpose. Published flexibility in Canada attaches to general-purpose evaluations — ICES’s photocopy route and its refugee programme evaluation, and WES’s Gateway Program for admissions, licensing and employment. For an immigration ECA, the published position at ICES is “no exceptions”, and IQAS, ICAS and CES publish termination clauses rather than alternatives.
4. If you were educated in one of the ten countries WES lists, start with a referral partner, not with WES. The programme is entered through partner organisations, and WES publishes the list.
5. Take the CICIC recommendations to the receiving body, not to the agency. Recommendations 7 and 8 — competency-based assessment and prior learning assessment and recognition — are addressed to “recognition bodies”, meaning universities, regulators and employers. They are the parties CICIC suggests should assess what you can do when documents cannot be produced.
6. Do not let anyone contact an institution in a country you fled without your written consent. CICIC’s recommendation 10 exists because of the risk to people still there.

Related on this site: which report each receiving body asks for, who IRCC designates and for what, why agencies reach different conclusions, and what happens when a transnational provider or partnership closes.

Everything above is quoted from the official pages listed in the sources, read on 3 September 2026. Where a body publishes nothing, we have said so rather than filled the gap.