Lah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1753 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Where Sponsor Failed to Disclose Child in Family Sponsorship Application

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Sovanna Lah’s permanent residence application under the family sponsorship program. The application was refused after IRCC found that her brother, Rokrofi Lah, had misrepresented his family circumstances by stating that he had no children when he had a daughter in Cambodia. The Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the officer reasonably concluded the omission was material and did not qualify as an innocent mistake.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that misrepresentation under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) does not require an intention to deceive. An omission or inaccurate statement may result in inadmissibility if it could affect the administration of the Act. Applicants and sponsors have a duty to provide complete and truthful information, even where they misunderstand immigration rules or rely on advice from others.

Background

Rokrofi Lah became a Canadian citizen in 2023 after obtaining permanent residence through spousal sponsorship. He later applied to sponsor his sister, Sovanna Lah, under the “lonely Canadian” sponsorship category, which allows sponsorship of certain relatives when the sponsor has no other eligible family members.

Mr. Lah had a daughter from a previous relationship in Cambodia. During his own permanent residence application, he had declared his daughter, but she was not able to immigrate because her mother did not permit the required medical examination.

When sponsoring his sister, Mr. Lah stated on multiple forms that he had no children. IRCC later discovered the existence of his daughter and issued a procedural fairness letter, raising concerns that the omission was a misrepresentation because the daughter’s existence could affect eligibility under the sponsorship category.

Mr. Lah responded that he believed his daughter was no longer considered his child for immigration purposes because of the custody arrangement and previous advice from his representative.

Court Findings

• Misrepresentation Was Material

The Court held that the officer reasonably found the omission material. Even if Mr. Lah could not directly sponsor his daughter because she had not been examined during his own immigration process, IRCC needed the opportunity to assess whether other options or public policies applied.

The Court emphasized that it was not for the applicant to decide whether the daughter’s existence was relevant. By stating that he had no children, Mr. Lah prevented IRCC from conducting the required assessment.

• Innocent Mistake Argument Rejected

The Court found that the officer properly considered whether the omission was an innocent mistake. However, the officer reasonably concluded that multiple explicit statements denying the existence of children, combined with the fact that disclosure could affect eligibility, made intentional omission more likely than misunderstanding.

• Court Did Not Reweigh Evidence

Justice Grant acknowledged that Mr. Lah may have genuinely misunderstood his reporting obligations but held that this possibility did not make the officer’s decision unreasonable. Judicial review does not permit the Court to substitute its own assessment of the evidence.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the misrepresentation finding was reasonable and that the five-year inadmissibility consequence under IRPA remained valid. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Lah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1753 (CanLII)