Oyekola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1970 : Misrepresentation Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Respond to PFL and Later Could Not Challenge Resulting Inadmissibility

The Federal Court dismissed two applications for judicial review arising from a fraudulent letter of acceptance submitted in a study permit application. The Applicant argued that technical problems with the IRCC portal prevented her from seeing the procedural fairness letter (PFL) and responding to the misrepresentation concern. She also argued that IRCC should have provided another PFL before refusing her subsequent permanent residence application. The Court rejected both arguments. Pasted text

Key Principle

An applicant cannot establish a procedural fairness breach merely by asserting that technical problems prevented access to a PFL where IRCC provided adequate notice and the applicant failed to take reasonable steps to address the alleged access problem. Once a PFL identifies the misrepresentation concern with sufficient detail and provides an opportunity to respond, an officer may proceed with the decision if no response is received. Pasted text

Further, where a previous s 40 misrepresentation finding automatically renders an applicant inadmissible for a prescribed period, a subsequent officer is not required to issue another PFL merely to advise the applicant of the statutory consequence or provide an opportunity to make H&C submissions. Pasted text

Background

The Applicant submitted a study permit application in October 2021 containing a letter of acceptance from Mohawk College. IRCC subsequently became concerned that the letter was fraudulent and issued a PFL on September 28, 2022. The PFL specifically identified the alleged fraudulent letter of acceptance, explained its potential materiality, warned of possible inadmissibility under s 40(1)(a), and provided 15 days to respond. The Applicant did not respond. Pasted text

The Applicant later argued that technical problems with the IRCC portal prevented her from seeing the PFL. However, she acknowledged receiving emails from IRCC directing her to sign into the portal. She did not provide evidence that she contacted IRCC for technical assistance or otherwise attempted to resolve the alleged access problem. Pasted text

IRCC subsequently refused the study permit and made the s 40 misrepresentation finding. When the Applicant’s later permanent residence application was refused because of that inadmissibility, she argued that she should have received another PFL and an opportunity to make H&C submissions. Pasted text

Court Findings

• PFL satisfied procedural fairness: The Court found that the PFL provided sufficient information to understand the concern and gave the Applicant a meaningful opportunity to respond. Since no response was received, the Officer was entitled to proceed. Pasted text

• Applicant’s inaction was determinative: The Applicant received IRCC emails indicating that messages were waiting in her account but took no meaningful steps to resolve the alleged technical problem. Her reliance on Mohawk College’s withdrawal correspondence did not reasonably establish that the college would withdraw her study permit application on her behalf. Pasted text

• No second PFL required for PR application: The subsequent Officer was not required to provide another fairness letter concerning the existing s 40 inadmissibility. The previous inadmissibility finding triggered a statutory five-year prohibition, leaving the Officer without discretion to disregard it. Pasted text

Outcome

Both applications for judicial review were dismissed. The Court found no breach of procedural fairness in either the study permit refusal or the subsequent permanent residence refusal. No questions were certified.

Case Citation:

Oyekola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1970 (CanLII)