Nanikova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1094 : Five-Year Misrepresentation Findings Set Aside Where Procedural Fairness Letter Did Not Identify the Specific Concern With Financial Documents

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Kseniia Nanikova and Razmik Gevorgian’s temporary resident visa applications and the accompanying five-year findings of inadmissibility for misrepresentation. The Russian applicants submitted bank statements downloaded through a mobile application affiliated with Alfa-Bank. IRCC alleged that the documents were fraudulent or altered but did not clearly disclose that its specific concern related to the accuracy of the stated balances. The Court granted judicial review because the procedural fairness letter lacked sufficient precision and the officer failed to meaningfully assess corroborative banking evidence submitted in response.

Key Principle

Where IRCC alleges that a financial document is fraudulent, altered, or counterfeit, the procedural fairness letter must identify the concern with sufficient clarity and particularity to permit a meaningful response. If the concern relates specifically to inaccurate account balances rather than document formatting, translation markings, compression, or authenticity, that distinction should be disclosed. When applicants submit new corroborative evidence in response, the officer must genuinely assess whether it undermines the initial verification result rather than simply adopting third-party information without analysis.

Background

The applicants applied for TRVs to visit a family member in Canada. Their financial evidence included PDF bank statements obtained through the Dengi mobile application, which was affiliated with Alfa-Bank.

IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter stating that verification had raised concerns that the banking documents were fraudulent, altered, or counterfeit. The letter did not explain that the specific concern involved the account balances.

The applicants’ representative explained that she had added red boxes to identify translated portions and compressed or reformatted the documents to comply with IRCC’s portal requirements. The applicants denied altering the financial information.

They also submitted affidavits and new signed and sealed bank statements obtained directly from Alfa-Bank. These documents showed balances identical to those in the original mobile-app statements.

The officer nevertheless found that direct bank verification confirmed that the original balances were fraudulent or altered and imposed five-year inadmissibility findings.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Letter Was Insufficiently Specific
The Court held that the procedural fairness letter did not clearly identify the real concern with the applicants’ financial documents. By referring only to fraudulent or altered documents without specifying that the concern related to the reported account balances, the applicants were denied a meaningful opportunity to respond.

• Applicants Responded to the Concern They Understood
The Court found that the applicants reasonably believed IRCC’s concerns related to the formatting, translation markings, and compression of the bank statements. Their response directly addressed those issues because the procedural fairness letter did not disclose that the officer was questioning the account balances themselves.

• New Evidence Was Corroborative, Not Merely Repetitive
The applicants submitted new signed and sealed bank statements obtained directly from Alfa-Bank together with affidavits confirming the authenticity of the documents. The Court held that this was fresh corroborative evidence, not simply a repetition of the original material, and it required meaningful consideration.

• Officer Failed to Reassess the Initial Verification
The Court found that the officer failed to demonstrate any genuine reassessment of the initial verification after receiving the applicants’ new evidence. The reasons did not explain why the corroborative documents failed to undermine the concerns raised by the Risk Assessment Unit.

• Third-Party Verification Lacked Transparency
The Court held that the verification information relied upon by IRCC was neither adequately disclosed to the applicants nor meaningfully analyzed in the decision. An officer cannot simply adopt third-party verification results without assessing them against the complete evidentiary record.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the TRV refusals and misrepresentation findings, and returned the applications to a different decision-maker for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Nanikova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1094 (CanLII)