The Federal Court
considered an application for judicial review of IRCC’s refusal of a study
permit application and the accompanying finding of inadmissibility for
misrepresentation. The applicant challenged both the fairness of the process
and the reasonableness of the officer’s conclusion after IRCC determined that
the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) submitted with the application had not been
issued by the designated learning institution. The Court dismissed the
application, finding that the officer provided adequate procedural fairness and
that the misrepresentation finding was supported by the evidence before the
decision-maker.
Key Principle
The Federal Court
reaffirmed that a procedural fairness letter need only clearly identify the
officer’s concerns and provide an applicant with a meaningful opportunity to
respond. Where an applicant fails to submit a response, an officer is entitled
to decide the application based on the existing record. In addition, a finding
of misrepresentation is reasonable where it is supported by verified evidence
demonstrating that a material document is fraudulent.
Background
The applicant, a
citizen of Cameroon, applied for a study permit to pursue a bachelor’s degree
at the Université de l’Ontario français. As part of the application, he
submitted a Letter of Acceptance from the institution.
Following
verification with the designated learning institution, IRCC determined that the
Letter of Acceptance had not been issued by the university. A procedural
fairness letter was sent advising the applicant of the officer’s concerns and
warning that a finding of misrepresentation could result in a five-year period
of inadmissibility. Although the applicant prepared a response, he failed to
complete the electronic submission process, with the result that no response
was received by IRCC before the decision was made.
Court Findings
• Procedural
Fairness Was Satisfied
The Court
rejected the applicant’s argument that the procedural fairness letter lacked
sufficient detail. Justice Ngo held that the letter clearly identified the
document under scrutiny, explained that IRCC believed it to be fraudulent,
outlined the potential consequences of a misrepresentation finding, and
provided the applicant with an opportunity to respond. The applicant neither
sought clarification nor requested an extension of time.
• Officer
Reasonably Relied on the Record Before Them
The Court held
that the officer could not be faulted for deciding the application without
considering documents that had never been successfully submitted. Evidence
prepared after the decision-maker’s record closed could not be introduced on
judicial review to challenge the merits of the decision.
• Verification
Process Supported the Misrepresentation Finding
The Court
distinguished earlier cases involving unsupported allegations of document
fraud. Here, the record demonstrated that IRCC followed its established
verification process with the designated learning institution, which confirmed
that the Letter of Acceptance was “Verified – No Match.” This
constituted clear evidence supporting the conclusion that the document was
fraudulent and capable of inducing an error in the administration of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act.
Outcome
The Federal Court
dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the officer’s
decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible. The finding of
inadmissibility for misrepresentation and the resulting five-year period of
inadmissibility were upheld. No question was certified.
Case Citation: Ndigui
v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 281 (CanLII)
