Zubair v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1772 : Misrepresentation Finding Quashed After IRCC Failed to Determine Whether the Employment Information Was Actually False

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) and a subsequent Start-Up work permit application submitted by a Pakistani citizen, Zubair. The TRV was refused on the basis of misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The work permit application was denied solely because of the TRV refusal. The Court found the misrepresentation finding unreasonable, as the officer failed to properly consider evidence submitted in response to the procedural fairness letter (PFL) demonstrating that the employment information was accurate despite minor digital alterations.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that misrepresentation requires evidence of false or materially misleading information. Alterations in formatting or digital presentation of a document do not, by themselves, constitute misrepresentation if the underlying facts are true. Officers must assess whether the information conveyed is materially false and consider all evidence provided in response to procedural fairness notices.

Background

The applicant submitted a February 14, 2024, employment letter from YODO PVT. LTD. as part of his TRV application. The officer identified digital alterations, including changes in font, bolding, and minor formatting, and issued a PFL on April 5, 2024, questioning the authenticity of the employment details. The applicant responded with:

• A letter from YODO explaining the changes were clerical errors and affirming the accuracy of the employment information.
• Two updated employment letters dated April 17, 2024, confirming employment history, position, and salary.
• Supporting salary slips, bank payment records, and LinkedIn profile evidence.

Despite this, the officer concluded the response was insufficient and found the applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation, triggering a five-year inadmissibility period. The work permit was refused as a direct consequence of this finding.

Court Findings

• Officer Failed to Assess Material Accuracy

The Court held that the officer did not engage with the evidence demonstrating that the applicant’s employment information, salary, and position were accurate. Minor digital alterations did not materially misrepresent the applicant’s employment history.

• Response to PFL Not Considered

Evidence submitted in response to the PFL, including YODO’s explanation and supporting documentation, contradicted the officer’s finding. The officer failed to explain why this evidence did not resolve concerns regarding misrepresentation.

• Work Permit Refusal Relied Solely on TRV Finding

Because the work permit refusal was based entirely on the TRV misrepresentation finding, it was also unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the TRV and work permit refusals, and remitted both matters to a different officer for redetermination. No costs were awarded, and no question for certification was proposed or arose.

Case Citation:

Zubair v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1772 (CanLII)