Rafiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 160 : Judicial Review Granted for TRV Refusals Where Officer Did Not Address Evidence on Innocent Mistake

The Federal Court reviewed two identical decisions refusing the temporary resident visa applications of Yasfoon Rafiq and Muhammad Rafiq Jetpurwala. The officer found both applicants inadmissible for five years under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because they answered “no” when asked whether they had ever been refused a visa, denied entry, or ordered to leave another country. IRCC records indicated that they had overstayed in the United States, departed under a voluntary departure order, and later received United States visa refusals. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to address their detailed submissions that the omissions were innocent mistakes.

Key Principle

Where an applicant expressly relies on the innocent-mistake exception in response to a procedural fairness letter, the officer must meaningfully assess the explanation and provide reasons for rejecting it. A bare conclusion that the applicant failed to disabuse the officer’s concerns is insufficient, particularly where the decision results in a five-year finding of inadmissibility. The seriousness of a misrepresentation finding requires clear, responsive, and justified reasons addressing the applicant’s central evidence and submissions.

Background

The applicants answered “no” to a question asking whether they had ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry, or ordered to leave any country.

IRCC information indicated that the applicants had overstayed United States visas until departing under a voluntary departure order in 2008 and had subsequently been refused United States visas in 2012 and 2014.

The officer sent procedural fairness letters identifying concerns that the applicants had failed to disclose their United States immigration history. Through counsel, the applicants submitted detailed legal arguments and statutory declarations. They specifically argued that the innocent-mistake exception applied to their circumstances.

The officer nevertheless found them inadmissible for misrepresentation, stating only that their responses had not disabused the concerns.

Court Findings

• Central Legal Argument Was Not Addressed

The officer did not analyze the applicants’ claim that their answers resulted from an innocent mistake. The reasons contained no explanation for why the exception did not apply.

• Bare Conclusion Was Insufficient

Simply stating that the applicants had not disabused the officer’s concerns did not demonstrate meaningful engagement with their declarations and counsel’s submissions.

• Serious Consequences Required Greater Justification

The findings made the applicants inadmissible to Canada for five years. Given those significant consequences, the officer was required to provide intelligible and responsive reasons.

• Corrected United States Information Raised Additional Concern

A later GCMS entry stated that information received from the United States had been corrected, that the initial derogatory match should be disregarded, and that the correction could affect the decision. Although the Court could not determine whether the incorrect information influenced the original decisions, it directed that the new officer should not rely on it during redetermination.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted both applications, set aside the November 1, 2023 decisions, and returned the TRV applications to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Rafiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 160 (CanLII)