Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 262 : Misrepresentation Finding Quashed Where False Document Was Submitted to a University, Not to IRCC

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Yangming Wang’s study permit extension and the accompanying finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. Mr. Wang had retained an educational consultant to apply to Canadian universities on his behalf. The consultant apparently submitted a false secondary-school transcript to York University, but Mr. Wang himself submitted genuine documents to IRCC.

The visa officer held Mr. Wang responsible for the consultant’s actions and concluded that he had indirectly misrepresented material facts. The Court found that this interpretation went too far. Because the false document was not submitted to IRCC and there was no evidence that anyone made a misrepresentation to the Minister on Mr. Wang’s behalf, the statutory requirements of section 40(1)(a) were not met.

Key Principle

Section 40(1)(a) of the IRPA is broad and can capture direct or indirect misrepresentations made by third parties on an applicant’s behalf. However, there must still be a misrepresentation or withholding of a material fact that is made in the administration of the IRPA and that induces or could induce an error in that administration. A false document submitted by a third party to a university, without being submitted to IRCC and without evidence that it affected the immigration process, does not automatically constitute immigration misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a).

Background

Mr. Wang, a Chinese citizen, studied at Humber College from 2015 to 2018. In 2018, he retained an educational consultant, CVP, to apply to three Canadian universities. He provided CVP with his genuine Canadian high-school transcript, Humber College transcript, passport, and study permit.

York University later issued him an acceptance letter. Mr. Wang used that acceptance letter to apply for an extension of his study permit.

IRCC subsequently discovered that York University had received a transcript showing attendance at Everest International School from 2016 to 2018, which conflicted with the genuine records Mr. Wang had submitted to IRCC showing attendance at Humber College.

Mr. Wang responded with a sworn affidavit and supporting evidence stating that he had no knowledge of the false transcript and had never authorized its creation or submission.

The officer nevertheless found that because Mr. Wang had retained CVP, he was responsible for the consultant’s conduct and therefore inadmissible for misrepresentation.

Court Findings

• Third-Party Misrepresentation Can Normally Be Attributed to an Applicant

The Court accepted the established principle that applicants are generally responsible for misrepresentations made by consultants or other representatives acting on their behalf.

Section 40 is interpreted broadly, and applicants have a duty of candour to ensure the completeness and accuracy of information submitted in immigration matters.

• But No False Document Was Submitted to IRCC

The crucial distinction was that the false Everest transcript was submitted to York University, not to IRCC.

The documents Mr. Wang personally submitted to IRCC were genuine. There was no evidence that CVP had submitted false information to the Minister on his behalf.

• No Evidence the False Transcript Induced an Immigration Error

The record also did not show that the false transcript played any role in York University’s decision to admit Mr. Wang. Nor was it clear why CVP had submitted it.

The Court therefore found no basis to conclude that the false document had induced or could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA.

• Study Permit Could Still Be Refused on Other Grounds

The Court emphasized that the officer retained discretion to refuse the study permit if not satisfied that Mr. Wang was genuinely enrolled at York University or otherwise met the requirements of the IRPR.

The problem was specifically the use of section 40(1)(a). On the evidence before the officer, the statutory misrepresentation provision could not reasonably apply.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and quashed the misrepresentation finding outright rather than remitting that issue for reconsideration. The Court held that on the existing record, no other officer could reasonably make the same section 40(1)(a) finding.

Case Citation:

Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 262 (CanLII)