Mehreen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 533 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Because Applicant Failed to Provide Strong Independent Evidence of Work Experience

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a permanent residence application under the Skilled Worker Program and a five-year inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation concerning the applicant’s claimed work experience.

The Court upheld the decision, finding that the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to concerns about potentially fraudulent employment documents but failed to provide sufficient independent evidence to establish the claimed employment history.

Key Principle

Where an officer raises concerns that employment documents may be fraudulent, the applicant must provide strong and reliable corroborating evidence to establish the claimed work experience.

Although applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to concerns leading to a misrepresentation finding, procedural fairness does not require an officer to conduct the investigation on the applicant’s behalf.

Evidence such as pay slips, employment records, or other independent documentation may be particularly important when the reliability of employer reference letters is questioned.

Background

The applicant, a Pakistani citizen, applied for permanent residence as a civil engineer and relied on employment experience with several employers.

Following a surprise investigation at her most recent employer, the Anti-Fraud Unit identified discrepancies between information provided during the investigation and the employment reference letters submitted with the application.

The officer issued a procedural fairness letter concerning the suspected fraudulent work experience and gave the applicant an opportunity to respond. The applicant provided additional letters and explanations, but the officer remained concerned and found that the reference letters were fraudulent and that the misrepresentation was material to the application.

Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the officer reasonably assessed the evidence.

The Court accepted that the officer could find the reference letters fraudulent while still accepting that the applicant had worked for a shorter period and awarding points for one year of experience.

The Court found significant discrepancies between the employer’s statements during the investigation and the subsequent documents submitted by the applicant. The additional employer letters did not independently establish the claimed period of employment.

The Court emphasized that once the applicant was specifically informed that her employment documents were suspected of being fraudulent, she had a responsibility to provide the best available independent evidence, such as pay slips or employment records. Instead, she mainly relied on personal explanations and documents from individuals whose evidence was itself in question.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness because the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to the main concerns. The officer was not required to conduct further investigation on her behalf.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Mehreen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 533 CanLII