The
Federal Court reviewed a decision finding an applicant inadmissible for
misrepresentation after a fraudulent transcript and completion letter from a
college the applicant never attended were submitted in support of a
Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) application. The applicant argued that the
fraudulent documents had been submitted by his immigration consultant without
his knowledge and that the officer failed to consider the innocent
misrepresentation exception. The Court dismissed the application, holding that
the officer reasonably concluded the applicant failed to exercise due diligence
over his application.
Key
Principle
The innocent misrepresentation exception under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is narrowly applied. Where an applicant fails to exercise reasonable due diligence by reviewing or verifying documents submitted on their behalf, an officer is not required to consider the innocent mistake exception, even if the fraudulent documents were submitted by an immigration consultant.
Background
The
applicant entered Canada on a study permit to attend Conestoga College and
later applied for a PGWP. His application included a transcript and completion
letter purportedly issued by Canadore College, despite the fact that he had
never attended that institution. After IRCC verified that the documents were
fraudulent, a procedural fairness letter was issued. The applicant responded
that an immigration consultant had prepared and submitted the application
without disclosing its contents to him. He maintained that he never provided the
fraudulent documents and had no knowledge they were included in his
application.
Court
Findings
- Officer Reasonably Found Lack of Due Diligence
The Court held that the officer reasonably concluded the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. The applicant retained a consultant without adequately verifying the consultant’s integrity or reviewing the application submitted on his behalf. The officer was entitled to find that the applicant bore responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of documents submitted to IRCC.
- Innocent Misrepresentation Exception Did Not Apply
Justice Fuhrer reaffirmed that the innocent
misrepresentation exception is available only in truly extraordinary
circumstances where the applicant both honestly and reasonably believed no
misrepresentation had occurred. Because the applicant failed to exercise
reasonable diligence over his own application, the officer was not required to
consider the exception.
- No Intent to Misrepresent Required
The Court reiterated that section 40 of the IRPA does
not require proof that an applicant intended to misrepresent or even knew of
the false information. A material misrepresentation that could induce an error
in the administration of the Act is sufficient to support inadmissibility.
- Officer’s Reasons Were Responsive and Reasonable
The Court rejected the argument that the officer
merely summarized the applicant’s response to the procedural fairness letter.
The Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes demonstrated that the officer
considered the applicant’s explanation but reasonably concluded that his lack
of diligence prevented reliance on the innocent mistake exception.
Outcome
The
Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the
officer reasonably found the applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation under
section 40(1)(a) of the IRPA and imposed the resulting five-year
inadmissibility period.
Case Citation:
Shivanshu v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2026 FC 879 (CanLII)
