Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1195 : Misrepresentation Finding Set Aside Where Officer Repeated Prior Errors About the Legitimacy of an MBA Degree

The Federal Court granted judicial review of a redetermination refusing an open work permit on the basis that the Applicant’s MBA degree had been fraudulently obtained and that he was therefore inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. Although IRCC verified that the degree itself was genuine, the redetermination officer continued to rely on the Applicant’s interview answers to conclude that the degree had been obtained through academic dishonesty. The Court found that the officer had failed to address the concerns identified in the Applicant’s earlier successful judicial review and had repeated the same unreasonable reasoning.

Key Principle

An officer conducting a redetermination must genuinely reconsider the matter in accordance with the Court’s prior reasons. Confirming the authenticity of an educational credential does not cure an unreasonable finding of misrepresentation where the officer continues to rely on ambiguous interview answers without adequately addressing contextual factors previously identified by the Court.

Background

The Applicant, a Hong Kong national, had previously applied for Canadian study and work permits, all of which were refused. During an interview concerning a subsequent work permit application, he made statements indicating that he had copied or rewritten portions of coursework and had falsified data for an assignment while completing his MBA at the University of Sunderland.

IRCC subsequently found him inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) and imposed a five-year bar. On judicial review, the Federal Court quashed that decision in Chung v Canada, 2024 FC 1218. The Court held that the officer had relied almost entirely on the Applicant’s interview answers without investigating the legitimacy of the university, the degree, or the MBA program. It also cautioned that the Applicant’s limited English proficiency could have affected his answers.

On redetermination, IRCC verified with the university that the MBA degree was genuine and gave the Applicant an opportunity to respond to concerns about academic dishonesty. The Applicant denied plagiarism and emphasized his limited English abilities and the findings from the previous judicial review. The officer nevertheless refused the application.

Court Findings

• The officer repeated the central error identified in the previous decision

Justice Brouwer found it unreasonable for the redetermination officer to reach essentially the same misrepresentation conclusion on the same evidentiary record after the earlier decision had been quashed because there was insufficient evidence supporting the allegation that the MBA had been obtained under false pretences.

• Verification of the degree did not cure the reasoning error

Although IRCC had now confirmed that the MBA was genuine, this did not address the fundamental problem. The officer still relied on the interview notes without properly addressing the previous Court’s concern that the Applicant may have misunderstood the questions because of his limited English proficiency.

• Redetermination must reflect prior judicial guidance

The Court emphasized that the new decision had to constitute a genuine, properly justified determination that accorded with both the 2024 judgment and the new reasons. A decision-maker cannot simply reproduce the reasoning previously found unreasonable while adding one additional evidentiary step.

• Potentially stronger remedy on another defective redetermination

The Court directed that the matter be redetermined by a different officer and noted that a third unreasonable or procedurally unfair decision on the same record, despite the Court’s guidance, could justify a more robust remedy in any subsequent judicial review.

Outcome

The judicial review application was granted. The January 27, 2025 decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different decision-maker for redetermination in accordance with both the 2026 judgment and the earlier 2024 judgment. No question was certified.

Case Citation:
Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1195 (CanLII)