Odobo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 49: Failure to Disclose Full Misrepresentation Concerns Leads to Work Permit Refusal Being Unfair and Unreasonable

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of an employer-specific work permit application based on a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The visa officer concluded that the applicant’s job offer was fraudulent or improperly obtained after conducting independent investigations into the employer’s business operations. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the procedural fairness process was inadequate because the applicant was not provided with the full details of the officer’s concerns or the extrinsic evidence relied upon. The Court also found that the decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to consider contradictory evidence, including a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) confirming the genuineness of the job offer.

Key Principle

Misrepresentation findings under section 40 of the IRPA require a high level of procedural fairness due to their serious consequences. Applicants must be provided with full disclosure of the concerns and evidence relied upon by the decision-maker, including relevant extrinsic evidence, unless there is a justified reason for limited disclosure. A procedural fairness letter must provide a meaningful opportunity for an applicant to respond to the actual concerns leading to the potential inadmissibility finding.

Background

The applicant applied for a work permit supported by a positive LMIA issued by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). One of the requirements considered by ESDC in issuing the LMIA was whether the job offer was genuine.

Despite the positive LMIA, the visa officer conducted additional investigations into the employer, Rogami Services Ltd. The officer conducted internet searches, reviewed the company’s online presence, investigated the employer’s representative, and performed a reverse lookup of the company’s phone number.

Based on these investigations, the officer developed concerns regarding the genuineness of the employer and issued a procedural fairness letter. The letter stated that the applicant may have submitted a fraudulent or improperly obtained employment offer and raised possible concerns under sections 16(1) and 40(1) of the IRPA.

The applicant responded by explaining how she obtained the job offer, highlighting that ESDC had already reviewed and approved the employer through the LMIA process, and inviting the officer to contact the employer directly to address any concerns.

The officer remained unsatisfied and refused the application on the basis of misrepresentation.

Court Findings

· Procedural Fairness Breach Due to Inadequate Disclosure

The Court found that the procedural fairness letter did not properly communicate the officer’s actual concerns. The officer’s internal notes contained detailed concerns about the employer’s address, website, phone numbers, and online presence. However, the procedural fairness letter only provided a general statement that the employment offer may have been fraudulent.

The Court held that there was a significant gap between the concerns recorded by the officer and the concerns disclosed to the applicant. This prevented the applicant from meaningfully responding to the allegations.

· Full Disclosure Required for Misrepresentation Findings

The Court emphasized that misrepresentation findings require a high level of procedural fairness because they carry serious consequences, including a five-year inadmissibility period and reputational consequences.

The purpose of a procedural fairness letter is to allow applicants to address concerns and correct misunderstandings. It cannot operate as an opportunity for an applicant to respond to undisclosed allegations.

· Failure to Consider Positive LMIA Evidence

The Court also found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to acknowledge the positive LMIA issued by ESDC. Although the officer was not required to accept the LMIA as determinative, it represented the assessment of another federal decision-maker that the employment offer was genuine.

The officer was required to address this contradictory evidence and explain why the concerns outweighed the LMIA findings.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, and returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination. The new decision-maker was directed to consider the validity of the LMIA as it existed when the work permit application was submitted and provide full disclosure of any future section 40 concerns and supporting evidence.

Case Citation: Odobo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 49 (CanLII)