Iqbal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 825 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Because Applicant’s Employment History Created a Misleading Impression

Ø  Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a permanent residence application under the Federal Skilled Worker Class and a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation concerning the applicant’s employment history.

The applicant argued that he had clarified his employment history after receiving a procedural fairness letter. The Court upheld the refusal, finding that the information originally provided could reasonably have led an officer to believe that he held a qualifying managerial position for a longer period than he actually did.

Ø  Key Principle

Under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA, a misrepresentation does not have to be intentional to result in inadmissibility.

Applicants have a duty to provide complete, accurate, and truthful information, and they are personally responsible for reviewing the information in applications they sign.

A misrepresentation is material where it is important enough to affect or potentially affect the administration of the IRPA. Correcting misleading information after a procedural fairness letter does not necessarily eliminate the original misrepresentation.

Ø  Background

The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker Class. He claimed employment as a PR and Communications Senior Assistant Manager with Banglalink from 2006 onward.

A site investigation revealed that he had held other positions with the company during part of that period and only became a PR and Communications Senior Assistant Manager in July 2013.

The officer sent a procedural fairness letter identifying concerns about the claimed employment history. The applicant responded with additional documents, including a revised employment letter explaining the different positions he had held. The officer nevertheless found that the original application contained misleading employment information that could have resulted in the applicant receiving points for experience he did not have.

Ø  Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the officer’s decision was reasonable.

The Court noted that the applicant’s Schedule A and Schedule 3 forms stated that he had worked as a PR and Communications Senior Assistant Manager from approximately 2006 to 2014. Those statements could reasonably lead an officer to conclude that he had held that position throughout the claimed period.

The Court emphasized that the applicant’s later clarification did not erase the misrepresentation. The purpose of the procedural fairness letter was to provide an opportunity to demonstrate that no misrepresentation had occurred, not to eliminate the consequences of misleading information already submitted.

The Court also confirmed that section 40 does not generally require proof that the applicant deliberately intended to mislead. Because the employment information could have affected the applicant’s eligibility and points under the Skilled Worker Class, the materiality requirement was satisfied.

Ø  Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the finding of misrepresentation and inadmissibility.

Case Citation:

Iqbal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 825 CanLII