He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 112 : Work Permit Misrepresentation Finding Set Aside Where Officer Ignored Innocent-Mistake Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed a finding that Jiayan He was inadmissible for misrepresentation in an open work permit application after omitting prior United States visa refusals. She argued that the omission resulted from an innocent translation error. The Court found the decision unreasonable because key evidence was ignored and unsupported negative inferences were drawn.

Key Principle

A misrepresentation finding carries serious consequences and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence and reasons responsive to the applicant’s evidence. Where an applicant raises the innocent-mistake exception and provides third-party evidence explaining the omission, the officer must meaningfully engage with that evidence rather than rely on unsupported assumptions.

Background

The applicant applied for an open work permit as the spouse of a skilled worker. She disclosed a prior Canadian visitor visa refusal but omitted earlier United States refusals. After receiving a procedural fairness letter, she submitted a corrected application and a letter from her husband’s employer’s General Counsel explaining that he had translated the form for her but accidentally omitted the words “any other country or territory.”

Court Findings

• Third-Party Explanation Was Not Addressed

The General Counsel’s letter directly explained how the omission occurred and was the only supporting letter submitted with the procedural fairness response. The officer’s reasons did not mention it and incorrectly referred to the applicant as having used an agency. Because the letter independently supported her innocent-mistake explanation, the Court found it could have materially affected the assessment.

• Officer Could Not Simply Reject the Innocent-Mistake Explanation

The officer concluded that the omission was not a “simple error,” yet did not sufficiently explain why the applicant’s detailed account was rejected. The Court was not deciding whether the innocent-mistake exception ultimately applied. The problem was that the officer’s reasons were not responsive enough to permit meaningful review.

• Travel-History Omission Was Unreasonably Used Against Her

The officer drew a negative inference because the applicant did not list a 2016 United States removal on a bilingual travel-history form. However, the evidence showed she had been refused formal entry and therefore had not actually entered the United States. The Court found it unreasonable to treat the absence of a non-entry from her travel history as evidence undermining her explanation.

• Prior Visa Experience Did Not Justify the Adverse Inference

The officer relied on the applicant’s previous Canadian temporary visa applications to infer that she was familiar with the statutory questions and knew exactly what information had to be disclosed. The Court rejected that reasoning. A lengthy, multipart question could not reasonably be assumed to have been remembered in detail years later merely because she had filed earlier applications.

• Serious Consequences Required More Careful Reasons

A misrepresentation finding results in a five-year inadmissibility period and could separate the applicant and child from her husband while preventing the family from pursuing PR. Given those consequences, the officer’s reasons had to be particularly transparent and justified. The failure to address central evidence and reliance on unsupported inferences fell short of that standard.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the misrepresentation finding, and remitted the matter to a new officer for redetermination. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 112 (CanLII)