Zolfagharian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1455 : Court Addresses TRV Misrepresentation Finding After Travel Agent Submitted Fraudulent Bank Statements

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Arezou Zolfagharian’s temporary resident visa application and the accompanying five-year inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation under section 40 of IRPA. Fraudulent bank statements had been submitted with her application, although she maintained that she was unaware of the fraud and blamed the representative who prepared the application. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding that the officer reasonably concluded that Ms. Zolfagharian had failed to adequately address the fraudulent documents despite receiving a procedural fairness letter and an opportunity to explain them.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that misrepresentation under section 40 does not generally require proof that an applicant intended to deceive immigration authorities. Applicants remain responsible for ensuring that information and documents submitted on their behalf are truthful and complete, even when they rely on consultants or agents. The innocent-misrepresentation exception is narrow and requires an applicant to honestly and reasonably believe that material information was not being misrepresented or withheld.

Background

Ms. Zolfagharian, an Iranian citizen with an extensive travel history, applied for a TRV in October 2019 with assistance from a travel agent. Her application included bank statements that IRCC suspected were fraudulent. The bank subsequently confirmed the fraud in writing.

IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter identifying the concern, explaining section 40 and warning that a misrepresentation finding could result in five years of inadmissibility.

Ms. Zolfagharian responded that she had been unaware of the problem and described the impugned statement as relating to a subsidiary bank account. She blamed the person who prepared her application but did not clearly explain how the fraudulent documents had been submitted. The officer found her response insufficient and refused the TRV.

Court Findings

• Intent Was Not Required for Misrepresentation

The Court rejected the argument that IRCC had to establish mens rea or a motive to deceive. Section 40 captures both direct and indirect misrepresentation. Even innocent failures involving material information can result in inadmissibility unless the circumstances fall within the narrow innocent-misrepresentation exception.

• Applicants Remain Responsible for Representative Submissions

The Court found the case comparable to decisions where fraudulent documents were submitted by immigration consultants without the applicants allegedly knowing. An applicant cannot avoid section 40 simply by blindly entrusting an application to a representative. The duty of candour requires applicants to carefully review their applications and supporting documents for accuracy.

• Response to the Procedural Fairness Letter Was Inadequate

The explanation given to the officer differed materially from Ms. Zolfagharian’s later affidavit on judicial review. Before the officer, she suggested the statement concerned a legitimate subsidiary account. In her later affidavit, she blamed a travel agent for replacing legitimate documents without her knowledge. The later explanation was not before the officer and could not be used to establish that the original decision was unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. The officer had identified the fraudulent-document concern, provided a meaningful opportunity to respond, and reasonably found that Ms. Zolfagharian failed to adequately explain the misrepresentation. Her otherwise positive travel, professional, and financial history did not require a different result. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Zolfagharian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1455 (CanLII)