Yousufzai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1187 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Disclose Use of an Immigration Representative

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a permanent residence refusal under the Start-Up Business Class where the Applicant was found inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Applicant argued that the procedural fairness letter did not provide sufficient particulars concerning the alleged use of an undeclared representative and that the officer failed to properly consider his denial. The Court found both the process and the officer’s decision reasonable.

Key Principle

A procedural fairness letter concerning an alleged undeclared representative must provide enough information to allow the applicant to understand and respond to the concern. However, where the alleged use of a representative is a matter within the applicant’s own knowledge, the officer may satisfy procedural fairness without disclosing protected information from other applicants or the extrinsic evidence underlying the concern. A clear denial may be considered but rejected where the officer identifies documentary evidence supporting the misrepresentation finding.

Background

The Applicant applied for permanent residence under the Start-Up Business Class in February 2021. In December 2024, the officer raised concerns about his business plan, including the lack of clarity concerning revenue generation and the apparent lack of progress or seriousness of the proposed business. The Applicant subsequently retained Atlantic 724, an immigration and business consultancy, to respond to the concerns.

The officer later issued a second procedural fairness letter alleging that the Applicant had used an undeclared representative to facilitate the submission of his application, contrary to the applicable regulatory requirements. The letter referred to evidence that the application had been facilitated by the same person or entity as many other applications received by the office.

The Applicant responded with an affidavit denying that he had used a representative before receiving the procedural fairness letter. The officer nevertheless refused the application and found him inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of IRPA.

Court Findings

• Procedural fairness was satisfied: The Court recognized that misrepresentation findings attract a higher level of procedural fairness because of the five-year bar on reapplying. However, the procedural fairness letter gave the Applicant sufficient information to understand the concern and provide a meaningful response.

• No obligation to disclose protected information: The Court relied on Brefo, where similarly worded concerns about an undeclared representative were found sufficient. Information from other applications was protected and did not have to be disclosed where it was unnecessary for the Applicant to understand the case he had to meet.

• The affidavit was considered: The GCMS notes demonstrated that the officer was aware of the Applicant’s denial and his assertion that he had not knowingly participated in misrepresentation. The officer ultimately found the affidavit unconvincing.

• Documentary evidence supported the finding: The officer relied on a payment receipt, contact information, metadata showing that documents signed by the Applicant had been prepared by others, open-source research concerning the consultancy, and comparisons with applications prepared by the same firm. The Court found the reasons transparent and the conclusion within the range of acceptable outcomes.

Outcome

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court found that the procedural process was fair and that the misrepresentation finding was reasonable. No question was certified for appeal.

Case Citation:

Yousufzai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1187 (CanLII)