Karunaratna v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 421 : Permanent Residence Refusal Overturned Because Omissions Were Not Material Misrepresentations

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a family class permanent residence application after the applicants were found inadmissible for misrepresentation.

The Court overturned the refusal because the officer failed to properly consider that the applicants had previously disclosed their visa refusal and failed to explain how the omission of a short period of employment could have materially affected the assessment of their application.

Key Principle

A finding of misrepresentation under section 40 of the IRPA requires more than an omission or inaccurate statement. The information must be material, meaning that it induced or could have induced an error in the administration of the Act.

Honest and reasonable mistakes or misunderstandings may fall outside the scope of section 40. Where the information was already available to the officer elsewhere in the immigration record, the officer must consider whether the applicant actually attempted to conceal the information.

Background

The applicants were citizens of Sri Lanka who applied for permanent residence as members of the family class.

They had previously applied for Temporary Resident Visas, including an application in July 2008 that was refused. However, their later permanent residence application stated that they had never been refused a Canadian visa.

The applicants also stated that Mr. Karunaratne had been a pensioner since 2003. However, a 2009 TRV application disclosed that he had worked as an assistant manager from March to December 2009.

When an updated Background/Declaration form was submitted in 2012, these two matters were again omitted. The officer sent a procedural fairness letter concerning the discrepancies, but was not satisfied with the explanation and found the applicants inadmissible for misrepresentation.

Court Findings

The Court found that the omission of the previous TRV refusal did not reasonably support a finding of material misrepresentation.

The applicants had already disclosed the July 2008 refusal in their 2009 TRV application, and that information was available to the officer in the immigration record. This suggested that the applicants were not attempting to conceal the refusal.

The Court also considered the omission of Mr. Karunaratne’s 2009 employment. Even if this omission amounted to a misrepresentation, the officer still had to establish that it was material.

The employment lasted only nine months, was temporary, was not with the government or a government-related organization and occurred shortly before the end of Sri Lanka’s civil war. The officer did not adequately explain how this employment could have induced an error in assessing the applicants’ family class permanent residence application.

The Court therefore found that the officer’s conclusion that the applicants had made material misrepresentations was unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and sent the permanent residence application back to a different officer for redetermination.

Case Citation:

Karunaratna v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 421 CanLII