This case concerned a
judicial review of a decision refusing applicant’s permanent residence
application under the skilled worker category and finding him inadmissible
for misrepresentation under section 40 of the IRPA for filing false work
history.
Facts
Applicant, a citizen of
Bangladesh, applied for permanent residence claiming qualifying work experience
as both a user support technician and later as a computer programmer.
His application was prepared and submitted through an immigration consultant.
During the immigration interview, the visa officer requested employment records
to verify the claimed work experience. While answering questions about his
recent employment history, Applicant ultimately admitted that he had never
worked as a computer programmer during the period stated in his application.
The visa officer refused the
application and found applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation. The officer
concluded that the false work history was material because it could have
resulted in the applicant receiving immigration points for work experience he
did not actually possess.
Before the Court, applicant
argued that although the application contained incorrect information, he
corrected the error before a final decision was made and therefore should not
be found inadmissible. He also argued that the mistake originated with his
consultant, not with him personally, and that he only realized the error during
the interview because he had never been given a copy of the application.
The Minister responded that
applicants remain responsible for the truthfulness of information submitted on
their behalf. The Minister argued that applicant did not voluntarily correct
the error at the first opportunity; instead, he initially continued with the
false employment claim during the interview and admitted the truth only after
the officer’s questioning exposed the inconsistency.
Court Findings
The Federal Court dismissed
the application. Justice O’Keefe held that section 40(1)(a) is intentionally
broad and captures both direct and indirect misrepresentations that induce or
could induce an error in the administration of the Act. The Court
emphasized that nothing in the wording of section 40 suggests that a
misrepresentation becomes immune simply because it is corrected before a final
decision is rendered.
The Court stated that
section 40 must receive a broad interpretation and that the provision applies
even where a person adopts a false statement and later attempts to correct it.
The Court also stressed that accepting applicants’ argument would encourage other applicants to test false claims and withdraw them only if discovered, undermining the integrity of the immigration system. Because in this case applicant had continued the false employment claim during the interview before admitting the truth, the officer’s finding of misrepresentation was reasonable. The judicial review was dismissed.
