Removal Order for Misrepresentation Overturned by the Federal Court

In February 2024, we won an important immigration case at the Federal Court of Canada. This case involved a removal order issued to our client by the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, on the basis of Misrepresentation, which carries with it a 5-year ban to Canada.

Case Overview

Our client entered Canada in late 2018 as a visitor to visit his sister and help look after his sister’s mother-in-law during her recovery from a stroke. He applied to extend his stay as a visitor on the same basis and around the same time, he attended a job interview and received an informal verbal confirmation that the employer may be willing to extend him an offer of employment, provided that they, and he, obtain all the necessary authorizations first.

It is important to keep in mind that while a visitor may be entitled to explore Canada as a possible place to move and work, they require a work permit to actually work in Canada. And depending on the situation, an employer intending to hire a foreign national in Canada may also need to obtain additional authorizations, such as an LMIA from Service Canada. In our client’s case, both were required.

A few months after our client submitted the extension application, the potential employer extended him a formal offer of employment after they received a positive LMIA decision. With the support of the formal offer of employment and the LMIA, our client then sought to obtain a work permit that will finally allow him to work for this employer. But when he went to apply for the work permit, a Canada Border Service Agency officer believed that our client had misrepresented his purpose of extending his stay in his previous extension application, because he had not also indicated that he attended a job interview and therefore had the intention to work. The officer forwarded our client’s matter to the Immigration Division for a formal determination of inadmissibility.

Jain Immigration Representation

Our client then retained us to represent him at the Immigration Division. We presented all the surrounding circumstances along with the law and argued that our client had been truthful in his extension application and was not required to disclose the existence of a possible job offer. Rightfully so, the Immigration Division agreed. The ID issued a lengthy decision in favour of our client, refusing to find him inadmissible for misrepresentation. Unfortunately for our client however, that was not the end of the saga. The Minister was unhappy with this decision and appealed it to the Immigration Appeal Division. At the IAD, we made detailed arguments on the facts and the law, which the IAD did not engage with before allowing the Minister’s appeal, finding our client inadmissible for misrepresentation and issuing him a removal order.

Ultimately, the Federal Court judge agreed with us that the IAD’s decision was seriously flawed. The IAD decision-maker had failed to engage with the required legal test and conflated different legal concepts before dismissing our arguments and finding in favour of the Minister.

Inadmissibility Case Win

This win at the Federal Court means that the IAD’s decision issuing a removal order is overturned, our client is no longer inadmissible, and a new IAD decision-maker will have to re-assess the case based on the Court’s guidance. We will get another opportunity to present our client’s case before the IAD and convince them to dismiss the Minister’s case. You can read the full decision and reasons on the Federal Court of Canada’s website here.

Lawyers for Immigration Refusals & Appeals

If you are looking for an experienced lawyer for immigration refusals, we can assist. Contact us to book a consultation.