Trivedi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 617 : Work Permit Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Where Verification Call Contradicted Claimed Employment

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Jatin Mahendrakumar Trivedi’s work permit application and his spouse’s related work permit application. IRCC found the principal applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation after a verification call to his claimed employer produced information that directly contradicted his employment documents. The Court upheld the decision because the officer reasonably preferred the spontaneous verification evidence over the applicant’s later response and provided a fair opportunity to address the concern.

Key Principle

An officer may reasonably prefer spontaneous evidence obtained during an employment verification call over documents submitted after a procedural fairness letter, particularly where the discrepancy concerns whether the applicant worked for the employer at all. Once IRCC clearly discloses the verification result and the possible misrepresentation finding, the burden rests on the applicant to provide strong and persuasive corroborating evidence. The officer is not required to conduct a second verification call, identify every possible explanation, or request better evidence where the response does not resolve the concern.

Background

The principal applicant relied partly on claimed work experience as a restaurant manager at Hello Heaven Café.

During a verification call, an individual who identified himself as the owner twice stated that no person by the applicant’s name worked at the business.

IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter identifying concerns that the employment documents were not genuine and that the applicant may have misrepresented his work experience.

The applicant responded with several documents, including a notarized statement from the café owner. The officer concluded that the response did not overcome the verification evidence and found the applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation. His spouse’s application was then refused because it depended on his eligibility.

Court Findings

• Verification Evidence Was Probative
The Court held that the officer reasonably gave greater weight to the verification call because it provided spontaneous, first-instance evidence about the applicant’s claimed employment. The officer was entitled to prefer this evidence over documents submitted only after concerns had been raised.

• Discrepancy Was Material
The Court found that the inconsistency went to the core of the application, namely whether the applicant had ever worked for the claimed employer. Unlike minor discrepancies, this contradiction directly affected the credibility of the claimed work experience and justified a careful assessment by the officer.

• PFL Response Was Considered
The Court rejected the argument that the officer ignored the applicant’s response to the procedural fairness letter. The officer reviewed the additional evidence but reasonably gave limited weight to documents that largely repeated information already contained in the original application.

• New Affidavit Did Not Resolve the Concern
The notarized statement from the café owner did not satisfactorily explain why a person identifying himself as the owner had twice denied that the applicant worked at the business. The Court agreed that the affidavit contained inconsistencies and failed to overcome the verification evidence.

• No Further Verification Was Required
The Court emphasized that the burden remained on the applicant to provide the strongest possible corroborating evidence once the concerns had been disclosed. The officer was not required to conduct another verification call or undertake additional investigation after receiving the PFL response.

• Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied
The Court held that the procedural fairness letter clearly informed the applicant of the verification results, questioned the authenticity of the employment documents, and warned that a finding of misrepresentation was being considered. This gave the applicant a fair opportunity to respond, satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness.

The call produced spontaneous, first-instance evidence directly concerning whether the applicant had worked at the business.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld both work permit refusals. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Trivedi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 617 (CanLII)