Asanova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1173 : Court Finds Work Permit Misrepresentation Decision Unfair After Officer Gave Only Vague Employment Letter Concerns

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Svetlana Asanova’s work permit application and the accompanying five-year inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. Ms. Asanova had submitted employment reference letters showing cooking experience in Russia and Thailand. Although IRCC sent a procedural fairness letter stating that the information in those letters did not appear genuine, the Court found that the letter failed to disclose the officer’s actual concerns. Judicial review was granted because Ms. Asanova did not receive a meaningful opportunity to answer the specific allegations underlying the misrepresentation finding.

Key Principle

A procedural fairness letter must identify an officer’s specific concerns with sufficient clarity and particularity to permit a meaningful response. A vague statement that employment information “does not appear to be genuine” is inadequate where the officer actually questions whether an employer exists, whether the applicant performed the claimed work, and whether reference letters were patterned on each other or the NOC. Misrepresentation allegations attract heightened procedural fairness because they can produce five years of inadmissibility.

Background

Ms. Asanova, a Russian citizen living with her family in Thailand, pursued immigration through the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Project and Prince Edward Island’s Provincial Nominee Program. For the AIPP, she obtained a New Brunswick cook job offer and applied for a work permit.

She submitted a Russian reference letter stating she had worked as a cook in her own canteen business from 2009 to 2013 and a Thai letter stating she had worked as a sous-chef at Lana’s Restaurant since August 2018.

The officer sent a procedural fairness letter saying only that information in her employment reference letters did not appear genuine. Ms. Asanova immediately asked what additional documents were required but received no clarification. She nevertheless submitted pension, income, employment contract, salary, and Thai tax documents.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Letter Was Too Vague

The officer’s GCMS notes revealed specific concerns that were never disclosed. The officer found little independent online evidence that the businesses existed, considered the two employment letters strikingly similar, and observed that their duties closely resembled or reproduced the NOC description for cooks. None of these matters appeared in the fairness letter.

• Applicant Did Not Know the Case to Meet

The additional evidence happened to address whether Lana’s Restaurant existed, particularly through tax remittances predating the fairness letter. However, the Court said this was essentially a matter of luck. Ms. Asanova was never told that the restaurant’s existence itself was questioned or that the officer doubted what work she actually performed.

• Misrepresentation Required Meaningful Notice

The Court recognized that procedural fairness in ordinary visa applications is generally limited, but misrepresentation carries much more serious consequences. The officer did not need to provide an elaborate explanation. A brief summary identifying the actual observations and concerns would have been sufficient. The generic allegation prevented a meaningful response and therefore failed to satisfy procedural fairness.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the June 5, 2019 refusal and misrepresentation decision, and remitted the matter to a different decision-maker for reconsideration. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Asanova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1173 (CanLII)