Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1135 : Work Permit Refusal Upheld Due to Fraudulent Bank Document Submission

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Navtej Singh’s open work permit application and the accompanying misrepresentation finding. The officer discovered that bank documents submitted with the application related to a different person with the same name. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding the process fair and the misrepresentation conclusion reasonable.

Key Principle

Applicants are responsible for the truthfulness and completeness of their immigration applications, including documents submitted on their behalf. The innocent misrepresentation exception is narrow and does not apply where knowledge of the false information was not genuinely beyond the applicant’s control, particularly where the applicant failed to review the application or disclose an acting representative.

Background

Bank verification showed that the account relied upon to establish the applicant’s financial ties belonged to another individual named Navtej Singh with a different date of birth and father. A procedural fairness letter specifically raised concerns about the authenticity of the documents, but the response did not explain how the applicant obtained or submitted them.

Court Findings

• Consultant Affidavit Was Inadmissible New Evidence

On judicial review, a consultant claimed he had acted without the applicant’s knowledge and had received and answered the fairness letter. The Court excluded this evidence because it had not been before the officer and did not fall within an exception permitting new evidence on judicial review, particularly where the information could have been presented during the original application process.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Occurred

The applicant had not filed a Use of Representative form and had expressly stated that he applied on his own. The fairness letter was sent to his declared personal email address, which had also been used for prior communications with IRCC, giving him a sufficient opportunity to know and answer the officer’s concerns.

• Ghost Consultant Argument Did Not Assist the Applicant

The Court declined to excuse the application based on an undisclosed consultant allegedly acting behind the scenes. The record before the officer showed no authorized or declared representation, and the applicant had represented himself as self-represented, making the later assertion inconsistent with the information originally provided to IRCC.

• Innocent Misrepresentation Exception Did Not Apply

The exception applies only in extraordinary circumstances where the applicant honestly and reasonably believed there was no misrepresentation and knowledge of it was beyond their control. The Court found that threshold was not met because the applicant remained capable of reviewing the documents and information submitted in his name.

• Applicant Remained Responsible for Submitted Documents

An applicant is responsible for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of an application before submission. Even if a consultant was involved, failing to review the documents did not make the misrepresentation reasonably beyond the applicant’s control or relieve him of his continuing duty of candour throughout the immigration process.

• Materiality Finding Was Reasonable

The fraudulent bank documents were submitted to establish financial ties and available funds. The officer reasonably concluded that they constituted a material misrepresentation capable of inducing error in the administration of the immigration process because the documents directly supported an important aspect of the applicant’s work permit application.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1135 (CanLII)