Akinrinlola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1112 : Visitor Visa Refusal Maintained Where Non-Disclosure of Prior US Refusals Were Found to be Material Information

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Folajogun Bridget Akinrinlola’s TRV application and accompanying misrepresentation finding. Although she disclosed a prior Canadian visa refusal, she failed to disclose multiple previous US visa refusals. The Court upheld the officer’s decision as procedurally fair and reasonable.

Key Principle

Applicants have a continuing duty of candour to disclose complete immigration histories, including all previous visa refusals. An omission may constitute material misrepresentation even if unintentional or independently verifiable, and the innocent misrepresentation exception does not apply unless the underlying error was genuinely innocent.

Background

The applicant applied for a TRV to visit her brother. She answered “yes” to having prior visa refusals but disclosed only a Canadian refusal. After receiving a procedural fairness letter, she acknowledged one 2018 US refusal but still failed to disclose five additional US refusals.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Requirements Were Satisfied

The fairness letter specifically advised the applicant that the officer believed she had undisclosed visa refusals from another country and invited a response. This gave her a meaningful opportunity to correct her application and fulfill her continuing duty to provide complete, honest, and truthful immigration information.

• Innocent Misrepresentation Exception Did Not Apply

The applicant argued that she had mistakenly omitted the US refusals and had not intended to deceive immigration authorities. The officer reasonably rejected that explanation because the application question plainly required disclosure of refusals by Canada or any other country, and the Court could not reweigh that credibility assessment.

• Intent Was Not Required for Misrepresentation

The Court emphasized that deliberate dishonesty is not necessary for a misrepresentation finding. Even an accidental omission or lack of awareness may fall within the misrepresentation provisions where material information was not disclosed and the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied.

• Prior Visa Refusals Were Material Information

Previous refusals may prompt further investigation, verification, or questioning and are therefore relevant to immigration decision-making. The fact that US refusal information might have been independently accessible to the officer did not relieve the applicant of her personal duty to disclose it fully.

• Fairness Letter Was Sufficiently Clear

The applicant argued that she did not understand which refusals concerned the officer. The Court rejected this argument because the letter expressly stated that the officer believed she had been refused a visa by at least one country other than Canada, making the concern sufficiently clear.

• Minor GCMS Error Was Not Material

One GCMS entry incorrectly stated that the applicant had answered “no” to the visa-refusal question. The Court found this peripheral because the fairness letter and deciding officer’s notes correctly understood that she answered “yes” but failed to disclose all prior refusals.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, upheld the TRV refusal and misrepresentation finding, and awarded no costs. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Akinrinlola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1112 (CanLII)