N’Grouma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 287 : Misrepresentation Decision Set Aside Where IRCC Did Not Address Applicant’s Good-Faith Explanation Regarding Paternity

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Quebec Skilled Worker PR application and the related five-year inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation. The principal applicant had consistently identified himself as the biological father of his eldest child in immigration forms and official civil-status documents. DNA testing later showed that he was not the biological father. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer did not explain why the applicant’s evidence that he genuinely believed he was the father amounted to dishonesty or misrepresentation.

Key Principle

A negative DNA result does not automatically establish that an applicant knowingly or indirectly misrepresented a child’s parentage. Where the evidence indicates that the applicant genuinely believed they were the biological parent when the application was submitted, the officer must meaningfully assess that explanation and provide a rational connection between the evidence and the finding of misrepresentation. Because misrepresentation carries serious consequences, the reasons must clearly explain why the applicant’s account was rejected or considered insufficient.

Background

The principal applicant, his spouse, and their children applied for PR. The eldest child’s birth had been registered approximately three years after birth, prompting IRCC to request DNA testing.

The first test showed a zero-percent probability that the applicant was the biological father. He requested another test because he remained convinced that the child was his son. The second test produced the same result.

In response to a procedural fairness letter, the applicant explained the late birth registration, submitted the court decision supporting the birth certificate, and maintained that he had always believed he was the father and had cared for the child since birth.

The officer nevertheless concluded that he had misrepresented the child’s parentage and lacked truthfulness.

Court Findings

• Genuine Belief Was Not Assessed

The officer listed the applicant’s explanations but did not determine whether he knew or should have known that he was not the biological father.

• Biological Father’s Identity Was Not Determinative

The applicant’s inability to identify another biological father did not itself establish dishonesty in the original application.

• Official Documents Supported His Position

The birth certificate had been lawfully obtained through a court process and consistently identified the applicant as the father.

• Reasons Lacked a Rational Chain of Analysis

The officer moved directly from the DNA result to misrepresentation without connecting the conclusion to the applicant’s knowledge or conduct.

• More Detailed Reasons Were Required

Given the serious consequences of misrepresentation, the officer was required to explain why the applicant’s account was rejected.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the PR refusal and misrepresentation finding, and returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

N’Grouma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 287 (CanLII)