Himel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 23 : Study Permit Refusal Upheld Over Material Misrepresentation in Employment Reference Letter

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Mr. Himel’s LMIA-based work permit application and the accompanying five-year misrepresentation finding. The applicant had submitted an employment reference letter purportedly signed by his current employer in Singapore. After IRCC contacted the employer, the employer denied issuing or signing the letter. Although the applicant later submitted extensive evidence confirming that he had genuinely performed the stated work, the Court upheld the decision because the initial reference letter itself was not authentic and was material to the work permit assessment.

Key Principle

A misrepresentation may arise even where the underlying employment information is substantially accurate if the applicant submits a document falsely presented as having been issued or signed by an employer. Authenticity and truthfulness are distinct requirements. A fraudulent employment reference letter is material where it could influence an officer’s assessment of whether the applicant has the qualifications and experience necessary to perform the proposed Canadian employment. Subsequent evidence confirming the underlying work experience does not necessarily eliminate the original misrepresentation.

Background

The applicant, a Bangladeshi citizen working in Singapore, applied for a Canadian work permit supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment for employment as a metal fabricator.

He submitted a reference letter dated August 2022 that purported to be issued and signed by the managing director of his current employer. The letter described approximately five years of employment, duties, and salary.

After noticing similarities between reference letters from different employers, the officer contacted the applicant’s employer. The employer stated that the company had not issued the letter and that the signature was not genuine.

IRCC sent the applicant a procedural fairness letter. He admitted that he had not requested the original letter from his employer because he feared losing his employment and immigration status in Singapore if the employer learned he was seeking work elsewhere.

He then submitted a genuine employer letter, government employment records, work authorization documents, a supervisor’s statutory declaration, tax records, payslips, and bank statements confirming his employment.

Court Findings

• Submission of the False Letter Was a Misrepresentation

The applicant admitted that he had not obtained the original letter from the employer, despite submitting it as an employer-issued and signed document. The officer reasonably found that this constituted misrepresentation.

• Accuracy of Employment Details Did Not Cure the False Document

The later documents may have confirmed that the applicant worked as a metal fabricator, but they did not change the fact that the initial reference letter was fraudulent.

• Misrepresentation Was Material

The letter was relevant to determining whether the applicant had the experience and qualifications necessary to perform the proposed work. It therefore could have induced an error in administering the legislation.

• Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied

The procedural fairness letter clearly identified the concern. The officer considered the applicant’s response and supporting documents but remained unconvinced regarding the fraudulent letter. The applicant knew the case he had to meet and had a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the work permit refusal and five-year inadmissibility finding. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Himel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 23 (CanLII)