This case concerns the
Judicial Review of IRCC.’s decision to find Applicant inadmissible for
misrepresentation under IRPA and refuse work and study permit
applications for him and his dependents. The Federal court ultimately found
the decision unreasonable and granted judicial review
Nguyen, his spouse and their
children are citizens of Vietnam. Mr. Nguyen is a co-founder of GIM Innovation
Homes Inc.. In June 2024, he applied for Permanent residency through start-up
Visa program and later applied for work permit under the Temporary Foreign
Worker Program (TFWP). His wife and children submitted related applications for
work permit and study permits. To support the applications, Mr. Nyguen provided
forms, curriculum vitae (CV), educational documents, a business explanation
letter and venture report outlining the company and the founders
qualifications.
IRCC latter issued
Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) expressing concerns that Mr. Nyguen had
misrepresented his educational credentials. Specifically. IRCC stated that
supporting documents suggested he had obtained a Bachelor of Computer
Science from University of Waikato in New Zealand, but no evidence of such
degree had been submitted with IRCC. The officer requested transcripts and
proof of graduation.
Applicant responded promptly
to officer’s request and clarified that he attended the University of Waikato
for two years but did not complete the degree. He further explained that his
highest level of education was L4 Automotive Engineering certificate. The
applicants stated that this information had been accurately reflected in his
immigration forms and reference that he earned computer science degree only
appeared in venture report prepared jointly with the designated entity
supporting the application. The applicant characterized the incorrect statement
as a clerical error or typo, noting that an updated version had been intended
but wrong document was accidentally submitted.
IRCC refused the application despite the explanation provided by the applicant and concluded that the applicant had directly or indirectly misrepresented a material fact. The officer reasoned that the inaccurate educational information could have affected how the application was assessed and may have influenced eligibility. As a result IRCC imposed five years inadmissibility ban and refused the spouse’s and child’s applications as well because their purpose depended on the applicant approval.
The Federal court found that
the officers decision was unreasonable. The court emphasized that the
inaccurate statement in the venture report was contradicted by multiple other
documents submitted with the application. The application form listed only the
automotive studied, and the supporting documents never claimed that the
applicant earned the degree. The court concluded that the officer focused
narrowly on one sentence while ignoring contradicting evidence
Given the seriousness of five-year inadmissibility finding, the court held that the officer was required to meaningfully consider the explanation and address conflicting evidence. Because this did not occur, the decision lacked justification and transparency. The court allowed the application. Quashed the refusal and returned the matter for reconsideration by different officer.
