Hammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 459 : Decision Set Aside After Officer Raised New Fraud Concerns About Employment Documents Without Giving Applicant a Chance to Respond

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Raahema Hammad’s Federal Skilled Worker permanent residence application and a finding of misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. Ms. Hammad claimed qualifying experience as a Property Manager with Sadiq Enterprises in Pakistan. After a verification visit raised doubts about her employment, she received a procedural fairness letter and submitted extensive responsive evidence. The Court found that the officer subsequently developed new concerns about those documents without giving her an opportunity to respond, rendering the decision procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

Key Principle

Where an applicant responds to a procedural fairness letter with new documents, and an officer develops new credibility, authenticity, or fraud concerns about those responsive documents, procedural fairness may require another opportunity to respond before an adverse decision is made. An officer cannot rely on unexplained perceived anomalies in documents, particularly in support of a serious misrepresentation finding, without fairly identifying those concerns and considering significant contradictory evidence.

Background

Ms. Hammad, a Pakistani citizen, applied for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker program in 2014, relying on employment as a Property Manager at Sadiq Enterprises.

A Risk Assessment Unit visited the employment address. Tenants did not recognize Ms. Hammad, and Mr. Qamar Khan Niazi stated that he managed the fourth floor and did not know her. The RAU concluded there were serious credibility concerns.

The fairness letter disclosed the verification results and warned of possible misrepresentation. Ms. Hammad responded that employees had been instructed to deny knowing her because of harassment involving two lawyer tenants. She submitted Mr. Niazi’s affidavit supporting that explanation, police complaint letters, leases, correspondence, and other documents identifying her as Property Manager. The officer nevertheless preferred the RAU report, rejected the claimed employment, and imposed the five-year misrepresentation consequence.

Court Findings

• New Concerns Required an Opportunity to Respond

The officer questioned the leases because Ms. Hammad signed only the final pages, lacked a CNIC number beside her signature, and was not named in certain portions. The Court found it unclear how these features suggested fraud. If the officer considered them anomalies based on local law or custom, fairness required explaining the concern and allowing Ms. Hammad to respond.

• Significant Evidence Was Overlooked

The officer described Ms. Hammad as merely appearing as a witness on the leases but failed to acknowledge official stamps identifying “R. Hammad” as “Property Manager.” The Court characterized this omission as a gross oversight of a significant fact.

• RAU Evidence Was Not Conclusive

The RAU report did not identify the tenant staff interviewed or establish how long they had worked there. Mr. Niazi, the only identified person, later swore that he had worked under Ms. Hammad and had denied knowing her because management instructed him to do so. Given these limitations, the Court found the RAU investigation neither conclusive nor particularly thorough. The officer also should have allowed Ms. Hammad to explain the absence of an official police FIR before relying on that omission.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, quashed the refusal and misrepresentation decision, and returned the application for reconsideration by a different officer. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Hammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 459 (CanLII)