Introduction
The Federal Court
reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a work permit application under the Temporary
Foreign Worker Program and the consequential refusal of related work and study
permit applications submitted by the applicant’s spouse and child. IRCC found
the principal applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation after concluding
that he falsely claimed to possess a university degree. The Court held that the
officer failed to consider contradictory evidence contained within the
application itself, rendering the misrepresentation finding unreasonable.
Key Principle
The Federal Court
reaffirmed that findings of misrepresentation, particularly those resulting in
a five-year period of inadmissibility, require careful consideration of the
entire evidentiary record. Where application materials contain contradictory
information, officers must acknowledge and assess that evidence before
concluding that an applicant intentionally misrepresented a material fact.
Background
The principal
applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, applied for permanent residence under the
Start-Up Visa Program and later sought a work permit under the Temporary
Foreign Worker Program. His spouse and child also submitted accompanying
applications for work and study permits.
During
processing, IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter expressing concern that
the applicant had misrepresented his educational qualifications by claiming to
hold a Bachelor of Computer Science degree from the University of Waikato. The
applicant responded by explaining that he had studied at the university for two
years but had never completed the degree. He acknowledged that one venture
report incorrectly stated that he had earned the degree, describing it as an
inadvertent drafting error, while noting that the remainder of his application
accurately reflected his actual educational history.
Court Findings
• Officer
Failed to Consider the Entire Application Record
The Court found
that although the venture report and commitment certificate incorrectly stated
that the applicant had earned a university degree, several other documents submitted
with the application directly contradicted that assertion. The application
form, curriculum vitae, and supporting explanation letter consistently
identified the applicant’s highest completed qualification as an automotive
engineering certificate and did not claim that he had obtained a university
degree.
•
Contradictory Evidence Was Ignored
Justice Brouwer
held that nothing in the officer’s reasons demonstrated any awareness of the
inconsistency within the application materials. Instead, the officer focused
exclusively on the incorrect statement contained in the venture report while
disregarding multiple documents that accurately described the applicant’s
educational background.
• Heightened
Consequences Required Careful Analysis
The Court
emphasized that a finding of misrepresentation results in a five-year period of
inadmissibility and therefore demands a higher level of justification. Before
rejecting the applicant’s explanation that the incorrect statement resulted
from an inadvertent error, the officer was required to meaningfully assess the
contradictory evidence and explain why it was insufficient. The failure to do
so rendered the decision unreasonable.
Outcome
The Federal Court
granted the application for judicial review, quashed the refusals of the
principal applicant’s work permit application and the related applications of
his spouse and child, and remitted all matters for redetermination by a
different officer. The applicants were also to be given a reasonable
opportunity to update their applications before a new decision was made. No
question was certified.
Case Citation: Nguyen
v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 155 (CanLII)
