Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2008-02-07
Neutral citation
2008 FC 166
File numbers
IMM-1981-07
Decision Content
Date: 20080207
Docket: IMM-1981-07
Citation: 2008 FC 166
Toronto, Ontario, February 7, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
ANWAR ALI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The present Application concerns a decision of a Visa Officer in which a dependent of a Convention Refugee from Bangladesh is ruled to be inadmissible for landing in Canada due to misrepresentation under s.40(1)a of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA).
[2] The Visa Officer’s CAIPS notes disclose that, prior to the misrepresentation being detected, there was no outstanding issue with respect to the Applicant’s age or his family relationships. The misrepresentation issue arising thereafter was due to the fact that the Applicant submitted a fraudulent school record. The Applicant subsequently filed a further school record and stated that the misrepresentation was made without his knowledge.
[3] In order for an applicant to be inadmissible due to misrepresentation, s.40(1)a of IRPA requires that the misrepresented facts be material to the application. Therefore, by Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s policy guidelines with respect to evaluating whether a misrepresentation will render an applicant inadmissible, the materiality of the misrepresentation must first be determined (see ENF 2, Evaluating Admissibility, s. 9.3, Applicant’s Application Record, p. 97). The CAIPS notes do not reflect any analysis by the Visa Officer on the issue of the materiality of the misrepresentation under consideration. However, the rejection letter sent to the Applicant gives the following reason for finding that the Applicant is inadmissible:
Because such documents are used as evidence of age, identity, and relationship to the family member in Canada, the submission of fraudulent school documents could induce an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
(Tribunal Record, p.14)
[4] As mentioned above, in the evaluation of the Applicant’s admissibility, his age, identity, and family relationships were not in doubt prior to the detection of the misrepresentation. As a result, I find that the reasons given in the rejection letter do not constitute an analysis of materiality warranting the Applicant’s rejection. On this basis I find that the Visa Officer’s decision is not in accordance with s. 40(1)a of IRPA, and further, is factually erroneous.
[5] As a result, I find that the Visa Officer’s decision was rendered in reviewable error.
ORDER
Accordingly, I set aside the Visa Officer’s decision and refer the matter back for re-determination before a differently visa officer.
“Douglas R. Campbell”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1981-07
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANWAR ALI v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 7, 2008
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: CAMPBELL J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 7, 2008
APPEARANCES:
RICHARD WAZANA FOR THE APPLICANT
BERNARD ASSAN FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
RICHARD WAZANA
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT