Agyemang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 30: Failure to Disclose Misrepresentation Concerns Leads to Unfair Study Permit Refusal

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit application based on a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation under subsection 40(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The visa officer concluded that the applicant had submitted fraudulent financial documents in support of her application. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the process leading to the misrepresentation finding was procedurally unfair because the applicant was not provided with the officer’s full concerns or the extrinsic evidence that formed the basis of the refusal. The Court also found that the decision was unreasonable because the officer relied on unclear evidence from a third party without conducting sufficient analysis.

Key Principle

Misrepresentation findings under subsection 40(1) of the IRPA require a high level of procedural fairness because of their serious consequences. Applicants must be provided with sufficient disclosure of the concerns against them, including relevant extrinsic evidence relied upon by the decision-maker. A procedural fairness letter must allow the applicant a meaningful opportunity to respond to the actual concerns leading to the potential inadmissibility finding.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of Ghana, applied for a study permit after being accepted to Niagara College in Welland, Ontario. To demonstrate financial support, she submitted a sponsorship letter from her father along with a bank statement from her father’s savings account at Prudential Bank.

During processing, the visa office issued a procedural fairness letter expressing concerns regarding the genuineness of the bank statement. The letter requested that the applicant explain how she obtained the document and why it was submitted with her application.

The applicant responded by explaining that her father had obtained the document and that it was provided as proof of financial support. She also submitted a letter from a bank representative confirming the existence of the account, the account opening date, and the account balance.

The application was later refused based on misrepresentation under subsection 40(1) of the IRPA. The officer’s notes stated that the applicant had submitted two fraudulent documents, including one provided in response to the procedural fairness letter. However, the applicant was not informed before the refusal that the bank had questioned the authenticity of the stamp on the original statement or that the bank was the source of the officer’s concerns.

Court Findings

· Failure to Disclose Full Misrepresentation Concerns

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to know the complete basis for the officer’s concerns before responding to the procedural fairness letter. The letter did not disclose that the bank had questioned the authenticity of the stamp on the statement, nor did it provide the applicant with the bank’s communications raising those concerns.

The Court found that this prevented the applicant from meaningfully addressing the allegation of misrepresentation.

· Extrinsic Evidence Was Not Properly Disclosed

The Court emphasized that high procedural fairness standards apply to subsection 40(1) findings because of the significant consequences, including a five-year inadmissibility period and the stigma associated with dishonesty. Where concerns arise from information obtained from an outside source, that evidence must generally be disclosed unless there is a valid justification for withholding it.

The bank’s communications were considered extrinsic evidence because they came from a source outside the applicant and were used against her in the decision-making process.

· Officer Improperly Relied on Ambiguous Evidence

The Court also found that the officer’s conclusion was unreasonable because the evidence did not clearly establish that the applicant submitted two fraudulent documents. The bank only indicated that one document was not genuine and did not clearly identify whether it was the original bank statement or the verification letter.

The officer relied on the bank’s unclear response without further inquiry, effectively relying on a third party’s conclusion rather than independently assessing the evidence.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, and returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination. The Court directed that any future concerns regarding subsection 40(1), including relevant extrinsic evidence, must be fully disclosed to the applicant with an opportunity to respond.

Case Citation: Agyemang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 30 (CanLII)