Asl v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1006 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Because Applicant Altered an Employment Reference Letter

Ø  Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed a permanent residence refusal under the Skilled Worker category where the applicant was found inadmissible for misrepresentation after submitting an employment reference letter that had been altered from the version originally issued by his employer.

The Court upheld the decision, finding that the employer’s confirmation that the submitted letter was not genuine provided clear and convincing evidence of misrepresentation.

Ø  Key Principle

A finding of misrepresentation under section 40 of the IRPA is serious and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Where an employer confirms that an employment reference submitted by an applicant is not genuine, the applicant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence to establish otherwise.

Providing additional documents confirming that the applicant actually worked for the employer does not necessarily resolve a concern that the specific reference letter submitted was altered or unauthorized.

Ø  Background

The applicant, an Iranian citizen, applied for permanent residence under the Skilled Worker category and claimed employment as a construction engineer with AWQAF.

The applicant submitted an employment reference letter describing his duties. During verification, an AWQAF representative confirmed to the visa officer that although the applicant worked there, the reference letter submitted to IRCC was not genuine and had not been issued by AWQAF.

The applicant explained that Iranian public organizations had restrictions on communicating with foreign authorities. He stated that his employment certificate had originally been addressed to a local Iranian company, Canpars, and that he had removed the addressee before submitting the document for immigration purposes.

He provided additional employment records, including salary slips, an employment contract, social insurance records, colleague affidavits, organizational documents, and another employment certificate.

Ø  Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the officer reasonably concluded that misrepresentation had occurred.

The Court accepted that the applicant had provided substantial evidence showing that he actually worked for AWQAF. However, the central concern was whether the reference letter submitted with the immigration application was genuine and issued by AWQAF.

The AWQAF representative had clearly told the officer that the letter was neither genuine nor issued by the organization. The Court found this evidence sufficiently clear and convincing to support the misrepresentation finding.

The Court also found that the applicant had been given procedural fairness. The fairness letter specifically identified the concern that AWQAF had denied issuing the reference letter and gave the applicant an opportunity to respond.

The applicant could have provided stronger evidence, such as sworn confirmation from the author of the reference letter, but did not do so. The Court therefore found that he had not discharged his burden of demonstrating that no misrepresentation had occurred.

The Court also rejected the argument that the officer improperly relied on extrinsic evidence. The officer’s knowledge of previous communications with Iranian organizations was considered general knowledge arising from the officer’s experience, and in any event the decisive evidence came directly from the officer’s successful communication with AWQAF.

Ø  Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the finding of misrepresentation and the resulting five-year inadmissibility period.

Case Citation:

Asl v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1006 CanLII