JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Kei Wah Carah Law, a citizen of Hong Kong, seeks judicial review of the Decision dated August 29, 2023 of a Visa Officer refusing her application for an open work permit under the Hong Kong Special Measures program. The Officer found that she submitted illegitimate educational credentials and, therefore, was not eligible.

[2] For the reasons that follow, this judicial review is dismissed as the finding of the Officer is reasonable and procedurally fair.

I. Background

[3] The Applicant completed an online Level 7 Diploma program in Strategic Management in Leadership offered by Qualifi (Q7). In support of her work permit application, she provided documentation showing that she completed the Q7 program through the Chestnut Education Group. The program is a 12-month diploma program consisting of 120 credits, 1200 hours, and 8 modules. Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) recognized the Q7 credits, granting the Applicant 120 credits toward its 180-credit Master of Business Administration (MBA) program.

[4] The Applicant provided an Educational Credential Assessment (ECA) from World Education Services (WES), which assessed her Q7 credential as equivalent to a one-year postgraduate diploma in Canada and her ARU MBA as equivalent to a Canadian Master’s degree.

[5] The Officer scheduled an interview for August 28, 2024 and, in advance of the interview, requested that the Applicant produce documents including: coursework completed towards the Q7 credential and the ARU MBA credential; academic records as part of ECA application process; proof of exemption for course work for Q7 and ARU credentials; proof of registration for Q7 and ARU credentials; and invoices for enrollment and proof of all payments, including tuition fees, for Q7 and ARU credentials.

[6] At the interview, the Officer expressed concerns that the Applicant had not obtained her degrees legitimately, noting inconsistencies in enrollment and completion dates for the Q7 program. The Officer also accused the Applicant of plagiarizing her academic paper that was provided for consideration.

II. Decision under review

[7] On August 29, 2023, an Officer sent a refusal letter to the Applicant, stating that her work permit application was refused because the Applicant was found inadmissible under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA. As a result, the Applicant remains inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 40(2)(a) of IRPA for five years from the date of the Decision.

[8] The Officer’s Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes, which form part of the Decision, include a lengthy assessment. The relevant portions are below:

During the interview, the applicant was unable to explain why she stated she was attending the Qualifi program from April 2021 to April 2022, when in fact she had only begun to enquire about the program in March 2022. Additionally, she was unable to answer how she was able to complete the entirety of the course in 2 weekends, and not 1 year as she had claimed in her CV. The applicant was unable to explain how the assignment she submitted can be found online through open source searches.

I note the applicant is responsible for ensuring all of the information on their application is accurate and correct. Based on the information on file, I am satisfied, on balance, that the applicant submitted a diploma certification for which was not legitimately obtained/earned.

I am an officer designated under the Act to make a determination under A40. Based on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the applicant presented an education credential which was not legitimately earned in order to obtain a work permit to Canada. As such, I am satisfied that the applicant has misrepresented a material fact that, if accepted, would have led to an error in the administration of IRPA. Therefore, the applicant is found inadmissible under A40 for misrepresentation and remains inadmissible for a period of five years.

[…]

I noted that PA submitted a WES ECA indicating that she was awarded a Qualifi Level 7 Diploma equivalent to a postgraduate diploma (one year), as well as an MBA from ARU. PA was asked to submit the academic request form which she had submitted to WES as part of her WES ECA application. On the form, it states PA had attended Qualifi 2021/04-2022/04. However, per information provided at interview, PA states she had only contacted UK education to enquire about the course on 2022/03/05, and completed all assignments for the Q7 over 2 weekends. As such, the information provided to WES was not truthful. PA was questioned how assignments she had completed over 2 weekends is equivalent to a 1 year postgraduate diploma, and also why the “dates attended” on the form submitted to WES did not represent the actual facts. PA was informed that I have concerns that she did not provide truthful information to WES in order to obtain her ECA, and concerns the ECA was not legitimately obtained. I find PA’s responses were unable to address my concerns.

While PA states that ARU did not rely on the WES ECA as part of the ARU MBA, I find that PA’s submission of a Q7 WES ECA that appears was not legitimately obtained, to be a material fact in relation to the HK special measures OWP application. I note that PA had submitted the WES ECA at the time she applied, in support of her HKSMOWP application. I also find that PA had intended to suggest to WES, and by extension to IRCC by submitting the ECA on her application, that she had attended Q7 for 1 year, when the fact is that PA only spent 2 weekends to complete the assignments. While there were some exemptions involved, I note that if further documents were not requested and PA was not interviewed, the manner in which PA obtained the WES ECA would not have come to light.

In addition, PA was asked whether she had plagiarised her papers, to which she confirmed no. However, we were able to identify lines from her paper that was exactly the same as that of a paper found online. I was not satisfied with PA explanations which included stating it was just a coincidence, or that it is just a common phrasing. While I note the number of lines identified that were copied to be relatively few, I find the plagiarism to be a material fact. Using the same exact word for word wording in sentences is unlikely to be a coincidence. Furthermore, it is not a situation of PA admitting that she copied a line from a source but just failed to cite the source appropriately. Rather, PA refused suggestion it was copied, but that she came up with the same words on her own. I am concerned PA plagiarised on her Q7 paper and as such, did not obtain the Q7 qualification legitimately.

I further note that per the ARU MBA transcript submitted, the Q7 forms 120 of the 180 credits total of PA’s ARU MBA, which PA then used to meet the HK special measures OWP education requirement. As such, should PA’s Q7 not be obtained legitimately, I am concerned it would render PA not eligible to meet the education requirement for the HK special measures OWP.

PA was presented with my concerns and given procedural fairness and a chance to respond. PA’s responses were unable to allay my concerns. Having considered the concerns raised, it appears that PA had misrepresented material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Act by presenting qualifications not legitimately obtained. Eligibility failed. Referred to delegated authority for review of misrepresentation per A40.

III. Issues and standard of review

[9] The Applicant raises two issues:

A. Was the Applicant denied a fair opportunity to respond to the Officer’s questions regarding WES?

B. Is the finding that the Applicant presented “illegitimately obtained” educational credentials reasonable?

[10] The first issue is subject to the correctness standard of review (Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). In assessing procedural fairness, the Court asks if the procedure was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).

[11] On the second issue, reasonableness is the standard of review. The Court takes a “reasons first” approach in determining whether the Decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified (Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 8, 59). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85).

IV. Analysis

A. Was the Applicant denied a fair opportunity to respond to the Officer’s questions regarding WES?

[12] The Applicant argues that she was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns in relation to whether WES would issue an ECA if WES was aware that her Q7 credential was completed in weeks and not over the course of a year. She argues that the line of questioning by the officer was unfair because she could not answer on behalf of the third-party, namely WES.

[13] The GCMS notes indicate the Officer asking the following:

So it looks like you had deliberately given inaccurate information to WES to facilitate obtaining this ECA from WES. Do you think WES would issue this ECA and say it is equivalent to a 1 year postgraduate diploma if you declared you actually only studied 2 weeks?
[Answer:] I don’t know

[14] The Applicant submits that it was not fair for the Officer to expect her to answer that question, as it would require her to speculate on how WES would respond. She argues that the fair approach would have been to allow her to follow up with WES and report back to the Officer.

[15] I understand the Applicant’s position, however, that does not mean that the question was unfair or that the interview process itself was unfair. In advance of the interview, the Officer requested documentation concerning her education credentials, thus putting the Applicant on notice that she would be asked questions on these credentials. Further, I do not interpret the Officer’s questions as requiring speculation on what WES would or would not have done. Rather, the Officer was asking questions directly related to the accuracy of the information she provided to WES to obtain the ECA. In my view, the Officer was seeking clarification regarding inconsistencies in the Applicant’s documentation. These were fair questions.

[16] In the circumstances and considering that the Applicant was on notice that her education credentials were the focus of the interview, I do not regard the questions as unfair. In my view the Applicant had a fair process.

B. Is the finding that the Applicant presented “illegitimately obtained” educational credentials reasonable?

[17] The Applicant argues that the Officer’s finding that her paper was plagiarized is unreasonable, as it was based on a single line in her submitted paper that was copied verbatim from open-source materials. She argues that it was unreasonable for the Officer to conclude that one copied line renders an entire essay and educational credit fraudulent.

[18] In support of her arguments, the Applicant relies upon my decision in Chung v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1218 [Chung], arguing that, as in Chung, the Officer acted outside his expertise in assessing the validity of her submitted work by finding it was plagiarized.

[19] However, this case is distinguishable from Chung because the plagiarism finding was not the Officer’s sole concern. Here, the Officer also found that the Applicant obtained the ECA from WES without disclosing that she completed the Q7 credential (the master’s degree) in two weeks as opposed to the time frame noted in her application. Specifically, in her work permit application, under the Education section, the Applicant indicates that she attended the MBA program at ARU in England from April 2021 to October 2022. However, during her interview, the Applicant confirmed that she did not contact ARU until March 2022, and completed all of the coursework over two weekends. This discrepancy reasonably raised concerns for the Officer.

[20] The circumstances in this case are more closely aligned with those in Kwong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1727 [Kwong], where Justice Southcott held that determining whether education credentials have been genuinely obtained falls within the officer’s purview (Kwong at para 27). Similarly, here, the Officer identified inconsistencies in the Applicant’s record and concluded that the credential was illegitimately obtained. While there may be explanations for these inconsistencies, the Officer’s Decision was based solely on the evidence. I am satisfied that the conclusion is justified, intelligible, and, therefore, reasonable.

[21] In my view, the Officer’s Decision is reasonable and there are no grounds for this Court to intervene.

V. Conclusion

[22] This application for judicial review is dismissed.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-11721-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is dismissed.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: