Grobler v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 79 : Study Permit Refusal Overturned Due to Officer’s Failure to Properly Consider Evidence of Innocent Mistake

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Kelly Grobler’s study permit application and the accompanying finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation. The South African applicant had failed to disclose an alleged 2014 conviction and a 2019 United States visa refusal. In response to a procedural fairness letter, she explained that the conviction had been expunged by the High Court of South Africa and that she had understood the United States visa application to have been cancelled rather than refused. The Court granted judicial review because the officer made factual findings that contradicted the evidence and failed to adequately assess the applicant’s innocent-mistake explanation.

Key Principle

A misrepresentation finding must be justified in light of the applicant’s response to a procedural fairness letter and the supporting evidence submitted. Where an applicant explains that a conviction was judicially expunged or that a prior visa disposition was misunderstood, the officer must accurately assess that evidence and provide a sufficient rationale for rejecting an innocent-mistake explanation. A decision is unreasonable where the officer makes findings of arrest, charge, or continuing conviction that are contradicted by the record or appear to result from overlooking or misunderstanding the evidence.

Background

The applicant was a South African citizen who had held a Canadian multiple-entry visitor visa since 2019. In March 2023, she applied for a study permit.

IRCC sent her a procedural fairness letter alleging that she had failed to disclose a 2014 conviction and a 2019 United States visa refusal.

The applicant responded that the South African High Court had expunged the conviction, meaning that no conviction continued to exist. She submitted the supporting material available to her.

Regarding the United States visa, she explained that she believed the application had been cancelled because she was unable to provide requested information during the early COVID-19 period. She stated that she did not know it had been recorded as a refusal until receiving IRCC’s procedural fairness letter.

The Immigration Program Manager nevertheless found that she had misrepresented material information and declared her inadmissible.

Court Findings

• Findings Contradicted the Record

The officer concluded that the applicant had been charged and arrested in South Africa and that the conviction had not been expunged. These findings were inconsistent with the evidence submitted in response to the procedural fairness letter.

• Evidence Was Overlooked or Misunderstood

The Court found that the officer either failed to consider the applicant’s evidence or misunderstood its legal and factual significance.

• Innocent-Mistake Explanation Was Not Properly Assessed

The applicant provided explanations for both incorrect answers. The officer did not give sufficient reasons for rejecting her claim that the omissions resulted from genuine misunderstanding.

• Study Permit Refusal Could Not Stand

Because the inadmissibility finding was unreasonable, the resulting refusal of the study permit application was also unreasonable.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Grobler v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 79 (CanLII)