Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 661 : Work Permit Refusal Upheld Where Employment Letters Were Found Likely Fraudulent

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Shu Zhang’s work permit application after an officer found that employment letters submitted to prove his work experience were likely fraudulent. The Court upheld the decision because the main concerns supporting the fraud finding were reasonable and sufficiently connected to the evidence before the officer.

Key Principle

An officer may reasonably find misrepresentation where employment documents contain serious unexplained discrepancies and verification attempts fail. Once authenticity concerns are raised through a procedural fairness letter, the applicant must meaningfully address those concerns and provide evidence supporting the documents’ genuineness rather than relying on explanations first advanced during judicial review.

Background

The applicant relied on employment as General Manager of a renovation company from 2013 to 2017. Two employment letters issued in 2020 supported this experience. IRCC discovered that the company’s business license had been revoked in 2016 and that the telephone number on the letters connected to someone who denied being the purported author or knowing the company. The applicant was then given an opportunity to respond to the authenticity concerns.

Court Findings

• Applicant Did Not Adequately Address Authenticity

The applicant responded to the procedural fairness letter with corporate documents confirming his connection to the company. However, he did not explain how the business continued after losing its license, how his employment continued until 2017, or how the company issued letters years later. The additional documents therefore did not resolve the officer’s central concern.

• Failed Verification Supported the Fraud Finding

IRCC called the number listed on the employment letters, but the person answering denied being the named author and denied knowledge of the company. The applicant provided no evidence from the purported author or other material authenticating the letters, despite having been specifically alerted to concerns about their genuineness.

• Revoked Business License Was a Significant Concern

The Court found it reasonable to question employment claimed after the company’s license had been revoked. The applicant’s later suggestion that the company may have continued operating had not been raised in his response to the officer and was unsupported by evidence before the decision-maker.

• One Reasoning Error Was Not Determinative

The officer also relied on a disparity between the company’s registered capital and the applicant’s reported salary. The Court found this reasoning unclear, but the error did not undermine the decision because the revoked license and failed verification independently supported the fraud finding.

• New Explanations Were Speculative

The applicant later suggested that someone else may have answered the verification call or refused to cooperate. The Court found these explanations speculative because they were not supported by evidence or presented to the officer when the applicant had the opportunity to respond.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the misrepresentation determination reasonable on the evidence before the officer. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 661 (CanLII)