Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1243 : Court Finds Work Permit Misrepresentation Reasonable After Applicant Failed to Disclose Unauthorized Work in Canada

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Malkiat Singh’s work permit application and the accompanying finding that he was inadmissible to Canada for five years for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of IRPA. The officer found that Mr. Singh failed to disclose previous unauthorized work in Canada. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding that the omission was material and that the officer’s reasons, read together with the record, were sufficient.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that applicants have a continuing duty of candour and must provide complete, accurate, and truthful information in immigration applications. A misrepresentation is material where it is important enough to affect the immigration process or could induce an error. An applicant cannot avoid a misrepresentation finding merely because immigration authorities discover the omitted information independently.

Background

Mr. Singh had been in Canada on work and visitor visas since 2016. After his last work authorization expired in January 2020, he held visitor status that prohibited employment.

In February 2020, while seeking entry to Canada as a visitor, CBSA officers questioned him about possible unauthorized work. A search of his mobile phone revealed messages and photographs suggesting that he had driven loads and moved trailers for transport companies. After initially denying unauthorized work, he admitted performing some of those activities. He was allowed to leave Canada without being found inadmissible and was told not to apply for a work permit for six months.

In a later work permit application, Mr. Singh answered “no” when asked whether he had ever worked without authorization in Canada. He disclosed a previous work permit refusal but gave no details. IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter, and Mr. Singh maintained that he had not worked illegally.

Court Findings

• Disclosure of a Previous Refusal Did Not Cure the Omission

The Court rejected Mr. Singh’s argument that disclosing a prior work permit refusal was enough to alert IRCC to the unauthorized work. The application gave no date, country, or reason for that refusal. The Court held that providing a limited clue did not satisfy the applicant’s obligation to directly and truthfully disclose his immigration history.

• Unauthorized Work Was Material to the Work Permit Application

Whether an applicant previously worked without authorization is directly relevant to a work permit application. Under the IRPR, previous unauthorized work or non-compliance can prevent issuance of a work permit for a specified period. The officer could therefore reasonably find that answering “no” could have affected the processing and assessment of the application.

• Officer’s Reasons Were Sufficient When Read With the Record

Although the final reasons were brief, the Court considered them together with the GCMS notes, the port-of-entry interview, the procedural fairness letter, and Mr. Singh’s response. Those materials showed why the officer rejected his explanation and concluded that he had withheld material information. The decision was therefore transparent, intelligible, and justified.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the work permit refusal and five-year inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1243 (CanLII)