The
Federal Court reviewed the refusal of an electronic Travel Authorization (eTA)
application after an immigration officer found the applicant inadmissible for
misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act. The applicant argued that he was unaware of his previous
work permit refusals, sought to withdraw his eTA application before
redetermination, and alleged procedural unfairness. The Court dismissed the
application, finding that the process was fair and that the officer reasonably
concluded the applicant knowingly failed to disclose material immigration
history.
Key
Principle
An
applicant cannot avoid a misrepresentation finding by withdrawing or correcting
an application after IRCC has already detected the omission. Where prior permit
refusals are omitted from an application, officers may reasonably find material
misrepresentation if the evidence demonstrates the applicant knew or ought to
have known of those refusals.
Background
The
applicant answered “No” when asked in his eTA application whether he
had ever been refused a visa or permit, despite having been refused three work
permit applications at Canadian ports of entry in 2017. After an earlier
refusal was set aside because the applicant had not received a procedural
fairness letter, IRCC reopened the application and invited further submissions.
The applicant later disclosed some of the refusals, claimed he believed he had
applied for permanent residence rather than work permits, and sought to
withdraw his eTA application. The officer nevertheless proceeded with the
redetermination and again found the applicant inadmissible for
misrepresentation.
Court
Findings
- Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied
The Court held that the procedural fairness letter
clearly identified the alleged misrepresentation and gave the applicant a full
opportunity to respond. The officer’s rejection of the applicant’s explanation
did not create a new credibility issue requiring an additional procedural
fairness letter or interview.
- Withdrawal Request Properly Refused
The Court found that IRCC reasonably refused to allow
the applicant to withdraw the eTA application after the misrepresentation had
already been detected. Allowing withdrawal in such circumstances would
undermine the integrity of Canada’s immigration system by permitting applicants
to avoid the consequences of material misrepresentations once discovered.
- Misrepresentation Finding Was Reasonable
The officer reasonably concluded that the applicant
knew about the prior work permit refusals based on his repeated attendance at
ports of entry, his participation in the work permit applications, and the
contemporaneous CBSA records. The applicant’s later disclosure did not cure the
original omission because it occurred only after IRCC had already identified
the misrepresentation. The undisclosed refusals were material because they were
directly relevant to assessing the applicant’s immigration history and
admissibility.
Outcome
The
Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upheld the finding
of inadmissibility for misrepresentation, and declined to award costs.
Case Citation: Righetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 830 (CanLII)
