Tuiran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 324 : Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Disclose U.S. Visa Cancellation and Removal Order

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Ana Milena Devia Tuiran’s temporary resident visa application and her inadmissibility for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. Ms. Tuiran disclosed two previous Canadian TRV refusals but did not disclose that she had been refused entry to the United States, ordered removed, and barred for five years. The Court upheld the decision, finding that she received a meaningful opportunity to respond and that the officer reasonably rejected her innocent-mistake explanation.

Key Principle

An applicant has a continuing duty to provide complete, accurate, and truthful information in an immigration application. Misrepresentation under section 40 does not require an intention to mislead and can arise from information supplied by another person, including a spouse. The innocent-mistake exception is narrow and generally applies where knowledge of the material fact was beyond the applicant’s control. Willful ignorance of documents and events known to the applicant does not satisfy that exception.

Background

Ms. Tuiran, a Colombian citizen, was married to a Canadian citizen and had a sponsored permanent residence application in process. She had previously travelled to the United States while awaiting her Canadian application.

In September 2016, U.S. authorities refused her entry, found her inadmissible, and had her sign an order indicating that she was barred from the United States for five years. In February 2017, she applied for another Canadian TRV. She answered “Yes” to the question about previous visa refusals, denied entry, or removal orders, but listed only her two previous Canadian TRV refusals.

Canadian immigration officials later learned that her U.S. visa had been cancelled and contacted her. She and her husband later submitted documents explaining that her husband had intentionally omitted the U.S. incident because he believed her return to Colombia had been voluntary.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied

The telephone interview informed Ms. Tuiran of concerns regarding her failure to disclose being denied entry to another country and misrepresentation consequences. She and her husband were subsequently permitted to provide further written explanations and U.S. documents. The officer considered those materials. The Court therefore found that she had adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

• Misrepresentation Did Not Require Intent

The Court emphasized that paragraph 40(1)(a) is interpreted broadly to protect the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. An applicant has a duty of candour, and a misrepresentation may be established even without an intention to deceive or where another person provided the incorrect information.

• Innocent-Mistake Exception Was Unavailable

The Court found it implausible that Ms. Tuiran did not know the U.S. incident had serious consequences. She had been detained and interviewed, signed documents, and retained those documents. Although she claimed she avoided reading them because of traumatic memories, she could have asked her husband to review or translate them. The Court characterized her claimed lack of knowledge as willful ignorance rather than an innocent mistake.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. It was reasonably open to the officer to find that the undisclosed U.S. visa cancellation and removal consequences were not the result of a simple error and that Ms. Tuiran was inadmissible for misrepresentation. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Tuiran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 324 (CanLII)