Docket: IMM-8109-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2063
Ottawa, Ontario, December 18, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
BETWEEN: |
ROHIT CHAMDAL |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Rohit Chamdal, is challenging the Immigration Division’s decision finding him inadmissible on the basis of misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, C 27 [IRPA]. A misrepresentation finding has serious consequences for Mr. Chamdal. It leads to a five-year period of inadmissibility during which he cannot apply for permanent residence and must obtain Ministerial permission to be able to enter Canada (IRPA, ss 40(2), 40(3)).
[2] On judicial review, Mr. Chamdal argues that the Immigration Division’s analysis of the materiality of the misrepresentation is flawed. As this issue relates to the merits of the inadmissibility decision, I will review it on a reasonableness standard.
[3] I will be dismissing the judicial review because Mr. Chamdal has not raised any sufficiently serious shortcomings with the Immigration Division’s assessment of the materiality of the misrepresentation.
II. Procedural History
[4] Mr. Chamdal has been in Canada for almost nine years. During that time, he has made a number of applications and has had a number of interactions with immigration authorities. It is not necessary to recount this history in detail for the purposes of this judicial review.
[5] Briefly, Mr. Chamdal first arrived to Canada as a visitor in 2015. He later obtained a work permit to work as a farm worker for a one-year period. He was able to extend the work permit for another two years. In November 2017, Mr. Chamdal obtained a work permit for another employer, Azure Foods, as a farm supervisor. He then applied in July 2018 for a visitor visa (temporary resident visa) (“TRV”
). In his 2018 TRV application, Mr. Chamdal indicated he was employed as a farm supervisor at Azure Foods from November 2017 until July 2018.
[6] The Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”
) later learned that Mr. Chamdal had never worked at Azure Foods. The CBSA initiated inadmissibility proceedings on the basis of a number of misrepresentation allegations. The matter was referred to the Immigration Division and a hearing was held on January 11, 2023 and June 6, 2023. At the close of the June 6, 2023 hearing, the Member gave an oral decision. The Member found Mr. Chamdal inadmissible because he had misrepresented his employment at Azure Foods on his 2018 TRV application.
III. Analysis
[7] Two components are required in order to find a person inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. First, there has to be a misrepresentation; and second, the misrepresentation has to be material in that it could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA. Mr. Chamdal conceded that there was a misrepresentation and is only challenging the materiality finding on judicial review. In other words, Mr. Chamdal is arguing the Immigration Division’s determination that his misrepresentation could “induce an error in the administration of the IRPA”
was unreasonable.
[8] Mr. Chamdal argues that, because he did not end up obtaining a visitor visa, the misrepresentation could not have been material. This argument does not address the Member’s reasons. The Member explained that there would have been other relevant avenues of investigation that were foreclosed to the officer because of the misrepresentation.
[9] The Member explained that Mr. Chamdal’s employment history in Canada was relevant to the processing of his visitor visa application because it related to his employment conditions, and his ability to support himself in Canada. The Member stated that it was relevant because “if he is not working then what is he doing here?”
The Member further explained that his employment history could have led to further inadmissibility questions under section 41 (non-compliance) or section 39 (ability to support oneself) of the IRPA.
[10] Due to the severity of the consequences of a misrepresentation finding, the reasons provided must reflect the profound consequence to the affected individual (Gill v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1441 at para 7; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 133). In my view, the Immigration Division’s reasons cogently explain to Mr. Chamdal, in an intelligible and transparent way, why the misrepresentation at issue could cause an error in the administration of the IRPA. I see no reason to disturb the Immigration Division’s decision and therefore dismiss this application for judicial review.
JUDGMENT in IMM-8109-23
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
The style of cause is amended to name the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as the proper Respondent;
The application for judicial review is dismissed; and
No serious question of general importance is certified.
"Lobat Sadrehashemi"
Email this Content