Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1218 : Work Permit Decision Overturned Where Officer Questioned University Degree Validity

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Chi Hong Chung’s open work permit application under the Hong Kong Special Measures. The officer concluded that his MBA had not been legitimately obtained because he allegedly plagiarized coursework and therefore found him inadmissible for misrepresentation. The Court granted judicial review because the officer lacked sufficient evidence and exceeded their role by effectively reassessing the university’s academic decision.

Key Principle

A visa officer may assess whether an applicant satisfies work permit eligibility requirements, but cannot independently invalidate a degree based on selected interview responses without considering the institution, program, credential, and broader academic context. Serious allegations that a degree was obtained through fraud or false pretences require an evidentiary foundation. Where the underlying credential finding is unreasonable, a resulting misrepresentation finding cannot stand.

Background

The applicant received an MBA from the University of Sunderland after completing its Hong Kong program. During an interview, he stated that he had copied and rewritten material from others and had not independently collected some research data.

The officer relied on these answers, his English ability and body language, and an article about students purchasing coursework. The officer concluded that the MBA was illegitimate and imposed five-year inadmissibility for misrepresentation.

Court Findings

• Interview Answers Required Broader Context

The applicant acknowledged copying, rewriting, and relying on research undertaken by others. However, the officer did not consider the program’s academic requirements, acceptable research methods, or whether language difficulties affected his ability to understand and answer the questions accurately.

• Degree Legitimacy Was Not Properly Assessed

The University of Sunderland was a functioning institution that offered MBA programs, enrolled the applicant, and formally awarded him the degree. The officer made no finding that the university was illegitimate, the credential was forged, or the institution had withdrawn or questioned the degree.

• Officer Improperly Assumed an Academic Role

Determining whether particular coursework satisfied university standards ordinarily belongs to the educational institution. By declaring the degree illegitimate without evidence from the university or knowledge of its academic requirements, the officer effectively acted as a university administrator.

• Plagiarism Allegation Lacked Supporting Evidence

The applicant’s statements raised legitimate concerns about how he completed some assignments. Nevertheless, there was no independent evidence confirming plagiarism, purchased coursework, academic misconduct findings, or fraudulent conferral of the MBA.

• External Article Did Not Establish Individual Misconduct

The officer referred to a newspaper article concerning students who paid others to complete coursework. The applicant denied hiring anyone, and the officer did not establish any connection between the general article and the applicant’s actual studies or conduct.

• Misrepresentation Finding Depended on the Flawed Degree Conclusion

The misrepresentation finding was not based on the applicant failing to disclose a known fact. It arose entirely from the officer’s own conclusion that the degree had been obtained under false pretences. Once that conclusion was found unreasonable, the resulting five-year inadmissibility finding also lacked a rational foundation.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the work permit refusal and misrepresentation finding, and returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1218 (CanLII)