Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 955 : MPNP Permanent Residence Refusal Overturned Because Applicant Was Not Given a Fair Chance to Address Misrepresentation Concerns

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a permanent residence application submitted through the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program (MPNP).

The Court overturned the refusal because the immigration officer failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to new concerns about the authenticity of his employment documents before finding him inadmissible for misrepresentation.

Key Principle

Under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), misrepresenting or withholding material information may result in inadmissibility and a five-year prohibition on applying for permanent residence.

When an immigration officer questions the credibility or authenticity of documents submitted in response to a procedural fairness letter, procedural fairness may require another opportunity to respond.

Although officers are not required to repeatedly inform applicants about weaknesses in their evidence, concerns involving suspected dishonesty or document authenticity require careful consideration.

Background

Jasvinder Singh Grewal received an MPNP nomination in 2013 under NOC 6212, Food Service Supervisor.

In his permanent residence application, he declared employment at Mohini Resort in India from January to November 2014.

During verification, an immigration officer contacted the resort. A receptionist reportedly stated that Mr. Grewal had worked as a cook rather than a food service supervisor.

In November 2016, immigration authorities issued a procedural fairness letter questioning his employment history.

Mr. Grewal responded with an explanation, a confirmation letter from the resort’s General Manager and monthly payslips.

Nevertheless, the officer preferred the receptionist’s statements, questioned the supporting documents and refused the application for misrepresentation.

Court Findings

The Federal Court distinguished between two procedural fairness issues.

First, the original procedural fairness letter was adequate. The officer had identified the employment concern sufficiently and was not required to disclose the source of the contradictory information.

Second, procedural fairness was breached when new concerns arose about the applicant’s response documents.

The officer suspected that the General Manager’s letter was unreliable and that the payslips might have been prepared together because they appeared to use the same ink.

However, Mr. Grewal was not given an opportunity to address those suspicions.

The Court also questioned the reliability of the receptionist’s statements, noting inconsistencies concerning his job duties and employment dates.

Because procedural fairness had been breached, the Court did not determine whether the misrepresentation finding was otherwise reasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed judicial review and directed that the permanent residence application be reconsidered by a different immigration officer.

Mr. Grewal was to receive an opportunity to address the concerns about his supporting documents.

Case Citation:

Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 955 CanLII