Salu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 69 : Misrepresentation Based on Failure to Disclose Criminal Charges in Study Permit Extension

In Salu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 69, the Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Division decision finding the Applicant inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of IRPA. The Applicant had answered “No” when asked whether she had ever been charged with a criminal offence, despite having been charged with fraud over $5,000 and theft over $5,000 several months earlier. The Court upheld the finding that the omission was material and that the Applicant had not established an innocent mistake.

Key Principle

Under paragraph 40(1)(a) of IRPA, a misrepresentation is material where it is sufficiently important to affect the immigration process, even if it would not necessarily have changed the ultimate outcome. A misrepresentation need not be intentional to result in inadmissibility. The fact that immigration authorities might have discovered the undisclosed information independently does not make the misrepresentation immaterial.

The innocent mistake exception may apply where an applicant genuinely misunderstood a question or made an honest error, but the asserted mistake must be assessed against the evidence and must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

Background

The Applicant, Omodolamu Fatimoh Salu, was charged in December 2021 with fraud over $5,000 and theft over $5,000 arising from transactions at her workplace. The charges subsequently proceeded through diversion and ultimately resulted in a joint submission for a conditional discharge after restitution, expressly taking into account the potential immigration consequences of a conviction.

In June 2022, while applying to extend her study permit, Ms. Salu answered “No” to the question asking whether she had ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with, or been convicted of a criminal offence. The Immigration Division later found that this answer constituted a material misrepresentation.

The Applicant argued that she honestly believed she had not been charged and relied on the innocent mistake exception. She also relied on evidence concerning her ADHD and difficulties understanding the criminal proceedings.

Court Findings

• The misrepresentation was material: The Court upheld the ID’s finding that the undisclosed charges could have affected the processing and assessment of the study permit extension. It was irrelevant that the charges might have been discovered through Canadian law-enforcement channels or that the application might ultimately have received the same result. The statutory test asks whether the misrepresentation “could induce an error” in the administration of IRPA.

• Intent was not required: The Court confirmed that paragraph 40(1)(a) does not require proof that the Applicant deliberately intended to mislead immigration authorities. A non-intentional misrepresentation may still result in inadmissibility.

• Innocent mistake was not objectively reasonable: Although the ID considered evidence that the Applicant was nervous and had difficulty understanding the proceedings, it also considered that she had appeared in court, understood that the matter concerned theft, and had been told by the arresting officer multiple times that she faced criminal charges. The ID was therefore entitled to conclude that she was aware, or should reasonably have understood, that she had been charged.

• ADHD evidence did not establish the exception: The ID considered the Applicant’s ADHD diagnosis and medication but found insufficient medical evidence demonstrating that the condition prevented her from understanding the criminal charges. The Federal Court found this reasoning reasonable and declined to reweigh the evidence.

Outcome

The Federal Court found that the ID’s decision was transparent, intelligible, justified and reasonable. The judicial review application was therefore dismissed, and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Salu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 69 (CanLII)