TEER 0 and TEER 1 at a glance
The CRS awards points for years of skilled experience, language, and education — it grants no points for TEER tier alone [2]. What changed the calculus is the March 2025 removal of job-offer points, which erased the last CRS bonus tied to management codes: the 200-point senior management boost and the 50-point skilled worker boost. The asymmetry between TEER 0 and TEER 1 is now entirely evidentiary — how well an applicant can prove the duties listed in the NOC lead statement — not a scoring advantage. The table below surfaces the operational differences that still drive risk and eligibility.
| Aspect | TEER 0 (Management) | TEER 1 (University-degree occupations) |
|---|---|---|
| Typical tech/engineering occupations | Engineering managers (NOC 20010), computer and information systems managers (NOC 20012), telecommunications managers (NOC 10030) | Software engineers (NOC 21231), computer engineers (NOC 21311), data scientists (NOC 21211), electrical engineers (NOC 21310) |
| CRS points for the TEER tier itself | Zero — CRS does not allocate points by TEER category alone | Zero — same |
| Impact of 2025 job-offer points removal | Former 200-point boost for Major Group 00 senior management job offers eliminated [3]; no remaining TEER-based advantage | Former 50-point boost for skilled job offers eliminated; both tiers now level |
| Documentation difficulty | High — requires proof of managerial responsibilities: budgeting, staffing, strategic direction; reference letters must mirror lead statements of the NOC code precisely | Moderate — professional duties are easier to map to typical engineering job descriptions; less risk of officer reinterpretation |
| Express Entry program eligibility | Eligible for FSW, CEC, and FST (if trade-related management) | Eligible for FSW, CEC, and FST (if trade-related); same eligibility gate |
| Real risk of misclassification | High — applicants over-claiming TEER 0 by inflating seniority are the single largest cause of NOC refusals in tech streams | Lower — choosing a TEER 1 code that matches actual duties is straightforward for licensed engineers and degree-holding professionals |
Where TEER 0 and TEER 1 really differ
The asymmetry between the two tiers is not a CRS asymmetry — it’s an evidentiary one. IRCC officers assess NOC codes against the lead statement and main duties listed in the NOC 2021 database, not against job titles [1]. A software engineer who receives a “team lead” designation but doesn’t control budgets, hire or fire, or set strategic direction will not qualify as a TEER 0 manager, regardless of what their employer letter says. The more likely outcome for such a candidate is a rejection, not a few extra points.
What you'll see
No CRS points attach to TEER tier alone; after 2025, the real difference is documentation risk, not a points bonus.
- TEER 0 and TEER 1 both count as skilled work; neither adds CRS points directly.
- TEER 0 requires solid proof of managerial duties — budget, staff, strategy.
- TEER 1 suits most tech roles and aligns with STEM-targeted draws.
- Misclassifying a technical role as TEER 0 can lead to refusal or a ban.
- Choose the code that matches the duties you performed, not your job title.
Two trends are converging that make this evidentiary gap more consequential than the old points debate. First, the March 2025 removal of arranged employment points erased the largest TEER-tier bonus that ever existed: senior management job offers once added 200 CRS points, a category dominated by TEER 0 codes. With that gone, no plausible CRS pathway rewards the tier itself. The underlying mechanism now is entirely about eligibility classification — does the work experience fall under a qualifying TEER 0, 1, 2, or 3 code — rather than a tier premium. Second, IRCC’s draw pattern has shifted toward category-based rounds where occupation-specific NOC codes matter, not generic management breadth. A tech candidate holding a TEER 1 software engineer code may be selected in a STEM-focused draw; a candidate who forced a TEER 0 management code for the same set of duties may find themselves outside the targeted NOC list.
The trade-off here is between perceived status and documentary precision. TEER 0 codes demand evidence of decision-making authority and resource control that many mid-career tech professionals lack. In contrast, TEER 1 codes map cleanly to engineering disciplines recognized by provincial licensing bodies and to the occupation classifications IRCC uses for targeted STEM rounds. The policy direction implies that IRCC will continue to scrutinize management claims more aggressively, particularly in streams where the difference between supervising a project and managing an organizational unit is frequently contested.
Which NOC tier fits your tech or engineering profile
TEER 0 is the correct choice for applicants who genuinely hold senior management accountability. If your position includes setting department budgets, conducting performance reviews for professional staff, and making resource-allocation decisions, the code is appropriate. The evidence required is substantial: reference letters must detail the breadth of managerial duties, not merely list project supervision. This profile fits directors of engineering, CTOs at small-to-medium firms, or IT managers with formal control over budgets and hiring. The documentation burden is higher, but so is the clarity: IRCC expects lead-statement duties to match the NOC description without major reinterpretation. We covered the requirements for senior management roles in Express Entry in more detail separately.
TEER 1 is the default for most tech and engineering applicants, and it is the safer recommendation for anyone whose primary output is technical rather than administrative. Software engineers, data scientists, computer engineers, and electrical engineers all map to TEER 1 codes that IRCC draws frequently in STEM-specific rounds [1]. The evidence package is simpler: a degree in the field plus a letter confirming the technical duties listed in the NOC description. Because the 2025 CRS changes removed the last points incentive to inflate a job offer into management territory, there is no upside to choosing a TEER 0 code over a TEER 1 code when the actual role is technical — only the downside of a possible rejection for misrepresentation or ineligibility. For those in STEM occupations, the mechanism that will most likely lower the required CRS cutoff is the category-based selection system, not a TEER tier shift. This is similar to Working as a Data Scientist or Computer Engineer: How the STEM category can lower your Express Entry CRS target.
When forcing a TEER code is the wrong question
For a small but significant subset of applicants, the TEER 0 vs TEER 1 comparison masks a more fundamental problem: the duties performed simply do not match any TEER 0–3 code. Someone with an engineering degree working in a technical sales role that doesn’t require a degree may find themselves falling under TEER 2 or TEER 4 sales classifications, neither of which qualifies for Express Entry. The more relevant question in those cases is whether the Canadian experience can be reclassified through a different job offer or whether a Provincial Nominee Program stream with lower TEER thresholds fits better. Misrepresenting a TEER code to force Express Entry eligibility is the fastest route to a five-year misrepresentation ban, and the 2025 data trend from IRCC enforcement shows a heightened focus on NOC integrity checks in high-volume tech streams.
What this implies for applicants filing in 2026 is that TEER classification should be driven by a conservative reading of the NOC main duties, not by an ambition to look more senior. The policy direction inside IRCC’s processing network treats management-code claims as high-scrutiny items, particularly when the supporting letter comes from a small startup where titles are inflated. The more likely outcome for a borderline TEER 0 claim is a procedural fairness letter, not an invitation. The safer path for the vast majority of tech and engineering candidates is to file under the TEER 1 code that matches their degree and technical output, and to let the CRS score rise through language and education — not through a tier that the system no longer rewards and often penalizes.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
