In Rafiee v. Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1287, the Federal Court dismissed an
application for judicial review challenging a finding of inadmissibility for
misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (IRPA). The Applicant argued that Immigration, Refugees and
Citizenship Canada (IRCC) breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose
the correspondence used to verify that a bank statement submitted with the
visitor visa application was fraudulent. The Court concluded that, given the
particular evidence and allegations concerning the immigration consultant, the
Applicant had not demonstrated that additional disclosure could have affected
the response.
Key Principle
A finding of
misrepresentation carries serious immigration consequences and attracts a
heightened duty of procedural fairness. However, where an applicant alleges
that an officer failed to disclose evidence underlying a misrepresentation
concern, the applicant must establish a meaningful basis for finding that the
alleged disclosure deficiency affected the opportunity to respond. The Court
may assess the fairness issue in light of the specific record before it without
deciding broader disclosure questions that would not determine the outcome of
the judicial review.
Background
The Applicant applied for a
visitor visa to visit her husband, who was living in Canada on a work permit.
The application included a bank statement from Maskan Bank in Iran, dated May
8, 2024, showing funds equivalent to approximately CAD $31,957. IRCC contacted
the bank to verify the document, and a bank representative replied that it was
“NOT GENUINE.” The officer then issued a procedural fairness letter advising
the Applicant that the bank statement had been verified and confirmed as
fraudulent.
The Applicant responded that
she had not submitted a fraudulent statement and would never falsify documents.
She provided a newer bank statement and transaction records. The Minister’s
Delegate nevertheless refused the application and found the Applicant
inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of IRPA. After the
refusal, the Applicant retained a lawyer and sought reconsideration. She
alleged that an immigration consultant, who had assisted with the application
but was not identified as the representative, had altered the original bank
document without her knowledge and may not have informed her of the procedural
fairness letter. She argued that IRCC should have provided the bank
verification correspondence so she could meaningfully respond.
Court Findings
– Serious consequences of
misrepresentation: The Court
recognized that a misrepresentation finding can result in five years of
inadmissibility, including restrictions on applying for permanent residence and
entering Canada without ministerial permission. Such findings require clear and
convincing evidence, heightened procedural fairness, and reasons that reflect
the seriousness of the consequences.
– Scope of the judicial
review: The Applicant abandoned her
arguments concerning the reasonableness and materiality of the
misrepresentation finding. The only issue before the Court was whether IRCC
breached procedural fairness by failing to provide additional information about
the allegation.
– Additional disclosure
was not shown to matter: The
Applicant alleged that the bank document supplied to the consultant differed
from the document ultimately submitted to IRCC. The Court noted that the
documents had the same date and file number but significantly different closing
balances. However, the Applicant did not establish how disclosure of the bank
correspondence would have changed or improved the response.
– Consultant conduct was
not the issue before the Court: The
Court considered the allegations that the consultant altered the document and
controlled access to the IRCC portal. It found that the central concern raised
by those allegations related to the consultant’s conduct, not IRCC’s disclosure
obligations. No incompetence-of-counsel claim was advanced in this judicial
review, and the Court did not determine whether the consultant had acted
improperly.
– No need to certify a
question: The Respondent proposed a
question concerning whether disclosure of the general substance of a
misrepresentation concern is sufficient to satisfy procedural fairness. The
Court declined to certify it because an answer would not determine the outcome
given the unique facts of the case.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed
the application for judicial review and declined to certify a question for
appeal.
Case Citation: Rafiee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1287 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
