Case: Boit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 325: Prior Misrepresentation Finding Barred Spousal Sponsorship Approval Despite Marriage to Canadian Citizen

Introduction

The Federal Court considered an application for judicial review of IRCC’s refusal of a permanent residence application under the Spousal Sponsorship Class. The application was refused because the applicant had previously been found inadmissible for misrepresentation in connection with a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application and remained subject to a five-year period of inadmissibility. The applicant argued that the original finding of misrepresentation was incorrect because he was not required to disclose assistance received from an undisclosed representative. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was impermissibly attempting to challenge an earlier decision that was not before the Court.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that a judicial review of a subsequent immigration decision cannot be used as a collateral attack on an earlier finding of misrepresentation that was never challenged. Where a valid finding of inadmissibility remains in force, officers are entitled to rely upon it when assessing subsequent immigration applications.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of Kenya, married a Canadian citizen in December 2022. After obtaining a Temporary Resident Visa, IRCC later cancelled the visa and determined that the applicant had failed to disclose that his application had been facilitated by a paid representative. A finding of misrepresentation was made, resulting in a five-year period of inadmissibility.

The applicant subsequently applied for permanent residence under the Spousal Sponsorship Class. IRCC refused the application because the earlier finding of misrepresentation remained in effect. The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that he had no obligation to disclose assistance from what he described as a “ghost consultant” and that the officer should have reconsidered the earlier finding.

Court Findings

• Permanent Residence Officer Properly Relied on Existing Misrepresentation Finding

The Court held that the officer reasonably concluded the applicant remained inadmissible because of the earlier misrepresentation decision. The officer correctly applied the existing five-year inadmissibility period arising from the prior TRV application.

• Judicial Review Could Not Be Used as a Collateral Attack

Justice Blackhawk found that the applicant’s arguments were directed at the validity of the original misrepresentation finding rather than the permanent residence refusal itself. Since the applicant had not sought judicial review of the earlier decision, he could not indirectly challenge it through the subsequent sponsorship refusal.

• Applicants Bear Responsibility for Their Chosen Representatives

The Court rejected the argument that assistance from an undisclosed representative relieved the applicant of responsibility for the contents of his immigration application. Consistent with established jurisprudence, applicants are generally responsible for the consequences of the representatives they choose to assist them.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the officer reasonably refused the permanent residence application because the applicant remained inadmissible under the existing five-year misrepresentation finding. No costs were awarded, and no question was certified.

Case Citation: Boit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 325 (CanLII)