Case Summary – Federal Court Overturns Misrepresentation Finding in Canadian Work Permit Application

An immigration misrepresentation finding in Canada can lead to a refused immigration application, as well as a period during which one is not admissible to Canada. Nonetheless, such a finding should be made based on the evidence, and the reasons supporting the finding should be explained in the immigration decision.

In the case of Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1195, the Federal Court granted judicial review of an IRCC decision pertaining to a misrepresentation finding against an open work permit applicant. In this case, the Court deemed the decision to be unreasonable and ordered a re-decision of the case by another decision-maker. The above case provides an excellent example of how the Federal Court handles IRCC decisions concerning immigration misrepresentation cases, especially in situations where the previous immigration decision has already been overturned by the Court.

Background to the Case

The applicant was a 50-year-old citizen of Hong Kong who applied for an open work permit pursuant to the International Mobility Program.

The application was refused by IRCC following its determination that the applicant's graduate degree was obtained improperly. The determination of inadmissibility for misrepresentation pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA was made on the basis of this determination. The issue came up as a result of statements made during an interview concerning how the applicant had obtained his MBA degree. This is not the first time that the issue has come before the Federal Court.

The First Federal Court Case

The applicant was denied a work permit in December 2022 with regard to misrepresentation and had been declared inadmissible for five years. The applicant appealed against that decision via an application for judicial review.

In Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1218, the Federal Court quashed the initial decision. One of the issues highlighted in this case is the conclusion made by the immigration officer regarding the ways in which the MBA degree was obtained without properly reviewing the overall situation connected to the degree.

For example, no proper investigation had been done concerning the educational institution itself, the genuineness of the degree, and the requirements of the MBA program. The Court is also concerned with the possibility of misinterpretation of the answers given by the applicant during the interview due to limited knowledge of the English language. Therefore, the application was remitted to IRCC for redetermination.

What Occurred during the Redetermination?

In the course of the second redetermination, IRCC verified with the University of Sunderland that the applicant's MBA is real.IRCC also gave the applicant a chance to address its doubts about the way he completed his academic study.

The applicant, through his lawyer, denied any plagiarism and misrepresentation and explained his case as per the concerns raised by IRCC. However, the second refusal occurred in January 2025. Therefore, the applicant again approached the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision.

Why Was the Second Decision Deemed Unreasonable by the Federal Court?

The Federal Court ruled that the second decision was still unreasonable. A crucial issue here was the fact that the second decision-maker essentially came to the same conclusion regarding the misrepresentation despite the fact that the Court found certain flaws in this reasoning in the previous decision. Clarification regarding the authenticity of the MBA degree did not address the concerns raised in the previous judicial review by the Court in any way.

The second officer also failed to take into account the possible misinterpretation of the interview questions by the applicant in his assessment of the situation. The case is a good example of an important role in administrative decision-making – once the matter is remitted back for reconsideration after judicial review, the new decision should address the Court's findings.

Findings of Misrepresentation Need Adequate Evidence

Under the law relating to Canadian immigration, findings of misrepresentation could entail severe implications. Since this is the case, the evidentiary basis for a finding like this could acquire special significance in cases of judicial review.

An immigration official could have doubts about certain documents, representations, educational background, work experience, previous applications, and any other information furnished by an applicant. Nonetheless, the decision should remain justified in the context of the available evidence and the law.

In this case, the Federal Court stressed that the prior decision had clearly shown that there was insufficient evidence for the serious finding of a misrepresentation concerning the candidate's MBA program. The subsequent decision failed to remedy that defect.

What Are the Functions of a Procedural Fairness Letter?

Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) may be delivered if there are concerns from IRCC regarding an immigration application that might have negative effects on the application process.

The PFL might allow an applicant to:

·         address the issues raised by IRCC;

·         submit supporting documents and evidence;

·         clear up misunderstandings;

·         provide explanations for discrepancies in the application; and

·         react to the allegations before the negative final decision is made.

Therefore, a reaction to a PFL that implies misrepresentation must be prepared properly. The very allegation and evidence used by IRCC will play an important role in addressing the issue.

What Did the Federal Court Order?

The application for judicial review was granted by the Federal Court, and the refusal decision was set aside. The work permit application was remitted for further redetermination, but now before a new decision-maker.

The court went on to make an interesting comment regarding how the matter would be treated in the future. Another unreasonable and procedurally unfair decision based on the same record, despite the previous instructions from the court, could be considered justification for more serious action in a future judicial review proceeding. No question was certified.

Is There an Opportunity to Challenge IRCC Misrepresentation Decision?

There are cases in which an applicant who is faced with an immigration refusal on the ground of misrepresentation can file a judicial review application in the Federal Court of Canada.

A judicial review is not about the Court replacing the administrative decision with another one. The Court looks into the lawfulness of the administrative decision-making process and questions the sufficiency of the justification of the decision based on the evidence and legal limits, as well as the procedural fairness to the applicant. In case of a reviewable error, the decision can be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Why This Case Is Important for Immigration Applicants

Chung v. Canada, 2026 FC 1195 proves that even when the genuineness of a document is proved, it might not always be enough to address all problems associated with the alleged misrepresentation. In particular, where there were problems with the immigration decision identified by the Federal Court, the person reconsidering the application needs to take care of them when making a new decision. With respect to the applicants who have found themselves on the wrong end of a misrepresentation determination, the particular circumstances can make judicial review necessary.

Refusal on the Basis of Misrepresentation?

A misrepresentation ruling may have implications that go far beyond a refusal of one immigration application alone.If you have had a refusal of your Canadian immigration application due to alleged misrepresentation, then having a legal review conducted can help clarify if there were any grounds for a challenge to this decision and process.

At Visa Appeal, our legal professionals conduct a review of Canadian immigration refusals and advise applicants on ways to challenge eligible decisions in the Federal Court of Canada.

Your appeal. Our expertise. Your success.