Purohit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1598 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Relied on Verification Calls Over Supporting Documents

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Khyati Jigar Purohit’s work permit application and the accompanying five-year finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation. The Indian applicant applied to work in Canada as a cook based on a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment. Following telephone verification calls with the applicant and her restaurant manager, the officer concluded that her employment documents were not genuine. The Court granted judicial review because the officer relied almost exclusively on the telephone calls and failed to meaningfully assess extensive sworn, financial, medical, and workplace evidence submitted in response to the procedural fairness letter.

Key Principle

A finding of misrepresentation, particularly one carrying five years of inadmissibility, must be based on clear, compelling, and convincing evidence assessed on the totality of the record. Where an applicant responds to a procedural fairness letter with sworn affidavits, payroll records, matching bank deposits, business registration documents, menus, photographs, and medical evidence, the officer must explain why that evidence does not resolve the identified concerns. An officer cannot give decisive weight to initial telephone verification calls while dismissing extensive corroborative evidence without a rational explanation.

Background

The applicant claimed employment as a cook at William John’s Pizza. During telephone verification, the restaurant manager described her as assisting the head cook, while the applicant described herself as the head chef.

The manager stated that the restaurant served Italian food, while the applicant explained that it also served Indian dishes. There were also differences in the names provided for other kitchen employees.

In response to the procedural fairness letter, the applicant and manager submitted affidavits clarifying the discrepancies. The manager confirmed that the restaurant served both Italian and Indian dishes.

The applicant also submitted the restaurant menu, food photographs, Google customer photographs, pay slips, bank statements showing matching salary deposits, business registration documents, and medical records showing that she was at the hospital with her husband during the verification call.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Response Was Not Meaningfully Assessed
Although the officer acknowledged receiving a “voluminous submission” in response to the procedural fairness letter, the Court found that the reasons failed to meaningfully engage with most of the applicant’s documentary evidence before maintaining the finding of misrepresentation.

• Menu and Food Evidence Was Ignored
The applicant submitted the restaurant’s menu, photographs, and other evidence demonstrating that the restaurant served both Italian and Indian dishes. The Court held that the officer failed to explain why this evidence did not resolve the concern arising from the verification call about the restaurant’s menu.

• Employment Evidence Was Not Properly Evaluated
The officer did not meaningfully consider the applicant’s pay slips, bank statements showing matching salary deposits, business registration documents, or sworn affidavits from both the applicant and the restaurant manager confirming her employment. Ignoring this corroborative evidence rendered the analysis unreasonable.

• Medical Explanation Was Overlooked
The applicant explained that she was attending her husband’s hospital appointment during the verification call and supported this explanation with medical records. The Court found that the officer failed to explain why this evidence did not satisfactorily account for any inconsistencies during the telephone interview.

• Preferential Reliance on Telephone Verification Calls Was Unjustified
The Court held that the officer gave decisive weight to the initial telephone verification calls while rejecting extensive corroborative evidence submitted in response to the procedural fairness letter, without providing any rational explanation. Given the serious consequence of a five-year finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation, the officer was required to assess the totality of the evidence rather than rely almost exclusively on the verification calls.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Purohit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1598 (CanLII)