Docket: IMM-19440-25
Citation: 2026 FC 1216
Toronto, Ontario, October 1, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
KULDEEP KAUR
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
(delivered orally from the bench on October 1, 2026)
[1] The Applicant’s temporary resident visa was cancelled, and she was subsequently found inadmissible for misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[2] After the cancellation of the visa, a procedural fairness letter asked the Applicant to respond to the following statement: “The property valuation report that you submitted in support of your application was verified and confirmed to be fraudulent.”
[3] This statement represents a conclusion rather than an expression of concern or an explanation of reasons for the Officer’s concern.
[4] By contrast, the Officer’s notes in the Global Case Management System describe the facts underlying the conclusion in more detail. The notes indicate that the property valuation report was determined fraudulent based on its similarity to reports submitted in other applications.
[5] The Applicant was denied the opportunity to become aware of the Officer’s concern, and to fairly respond to that concern, based on the general conclusion stated in the procedural fairness letter. Accordingly, the procedural fairness letter breached the high procedural fairness standards required for misrepresentation findings (Nguyen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1894 at para 2; Agyemang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 30 at paras 47, 62-63; Odobo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 49 at para 17). The application for judicial review is therefore granted.
Email this Content