Thummar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 429 : Federal Court Sets Aside Misrepresentation Finding for Failing to Properly Assess Employment Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Ankit Veljibhai Thummar’s LMIA-based work permit application and his spouse’s accompanying open work permit application. The principal applicant was found inadmissible for misrepresentation after an employment verification call allegedly contradicted his claim that he worked as a cook in India. The officer preferred the phone call over an employer affidavit, salary cheques, deposit receipts, and bank records submitted in response to a procedural fairness letter. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to meaningfully assess the contradictory evidence as a whole.

Key Principle

A finding of misrepresentation carries serious consequences, including a five-year period of inadmissibility, and must be supported by clear, compelling, and convincing evidence assessed on a balance of probabilities. When an applicant responds to a procedural fairness letter with sworn and documentary evidence, the officer must consider the totality of that evidence and explain why it does not resolve the concern. An officer cannot prefer a verification call without addressing its limitations or dismiss corroborating documents through unsupported suspicion.

Background

The principal applicant stated that he had worked full-time as a cook at Shree Harikrushna Restaurant in India since December 2022. He received a Manitoba job offer as a cook and a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment.

After he applied for a work permit, IRCC sent him a procedural fairness letter stating that the person contacted at the restaurant had said he had never worked there.

The applicant responded with a sworn affidavit from the restaurant owner, Vijaykumar Vadadoriya, confirming his employment and denying that the restaurant had received an employment verification call. He also submitted additional bank records, photographs of monthly salary cheques, and corresponding deposit receipts.

The officer nevertheless preferred the verification call. The officer stated that the bank statement could be modified, that the cheques covered only a limited period, and that the evidence did not overcome the call. The applicant was found inadmissible under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Court Findings

• Contradictory Evidence Was Not Meaningfully Addressed

The officer focused on negative concerns without balancing the employer’s affidavit and the consistency among the cheques, deposit receipts, and bank deposits.

• Suspicion About Bank Records Was Unsupported

The officer stated that the bank statement could be altered because it lacked security features but did not find that it had actually been modified. The officer also failed to reconcile the statement with the matching salary cheques and deposit receipts.

• Cheque-Coverage Criticism Was Unintelligible

The applicant began working in December 2022, applied in July 2023, and submitted cheques covering January through October 2023. The Court found no explanation for describing this as a limited period.

• Verification Call Had Important Limitations

The call relied solely on the recipient’s verbal identification, without independent confirmation that the person was truly the employer. The officer did not weigh this limitation against the documentary evidence.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the February 3, 2024 decision, and returned the applications to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Thummar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 429 (CanLII)