Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014) 453 F.T.R. 297 (FC)

• Judge: Annis, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 23, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 453 F.T.R. 297 (FC);2014 FC 419

Sidhu v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2014), 453 F.T.R. 297 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.007

Charan Preet Singh Sidhu (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-6868-13; 2014 FC 419; 2014 CF 419)

Indexed As: Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Annis, J.

May 2, 2014.

Summary:

The applicant's application for a work permit was rejected because the officer was not satisfied that the information he provided concerning his employment history was truthful, rendering him inadmissible to Canada pursuant to s. 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for misrepresenting material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could induce an error in the administration of the Act. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1217

Admission - Immigrants - General - Bars - Misrepresentation of material facts - The applicant's application for a work permit was rejected because the officer was not satisfied that the information he provided concerning his employment history was truthful, rendering him inadmissible to Canada pursuant to s. 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for misrepresenting material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could induce an error in the administration of the Act - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - There were numerous serious inconsistencies in the information provided by the applicant and the employees of the Khizrabad Hamara Pump (a gas station) sufficient to raise serious doubts that the applicant was the manager of that establishment as he claimed in his application - The respondent's officers carefully reviewed the applicant's attempt to explain away the inconsistencies - Overall they were not convinced that the applicant had not misrepresented his employment status with the Khizrabad Hamara Pump - It was within the officer's discretion to prefer the information provided by the workers interviewed at the station to that supplied after the fact by the applicant and others - The decision was reasonable - See paragraphs 17 to 21.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision refusing the applicant a work permit on the basis that he misrepresented his employment status - One issue was whether there was a breach of procedural fairness - The Federal Court stated that "The irony underlying this issue is acknowledged by the respondent's admission that had the applicant not exercised due diligence by obtaining the GCMS [Global Case Management System] notes via an access to information request to unearth the basis for the PFL [Procedural Fairness Letter], the decision would likely have been overturned for a failure to provide procedural fairness. The PFL, not containing any explanation for the concerns about a misrepresentation, did not provide sufficient grounds to allow the applicant to know and defend on what basis he was being accused of having misrepresented his employment status. Having demonstrated the initiative to learn of the basis for the PFL, I agree with the respondent that the pleading of a failure of procedural fairness must be rejected. ... by having obtained the basic facts on the case for misrepresentation and submitting fulsome rejoinders thereto, the applicant cannot claim that had the information been provided him in the first place, the outcome would have been any different" - See paragraphs 13 to 14.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision refusing the applicant a work permit on the basis that he misrepresented his employment status -As part of the application form, the applicant had claimed that he was the manager at the Khizrabad Hamara Pump (a gas station) - The applicant argued that he was not treated fairly because he was not provided with a copy of the statutory declaration upon which the Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) was based - The Federal Court did not agree - The summary of issues contained in the Global Case Management System notes (which were obtained by the applicant) reflected the nature of the issues described in the statutory declaration - Moreover, the applicant did not point to any information in the statutory declaration that, had it been disclosed, would have affected his submissions - Further, the applicant was in a position to obtain a full accounting of the information that the employees at the Khizrabad Hamara Pump provided the field investigators, such that he was in a position to know and understand the evidence that was being relied upon by the respondent that raised concerns about his having misrepresented his employment status at the Khizrabad Hamara Pump - The applicant was provided a reasonable opportunity to respond, and dealt extensively with the issues raised - No failure of procedural fairness occurred - See paragraphs 15 to 16.

Aliens - Topic 1239

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Reasons for decision - The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision refusing the applicant a work permit on the basis that he misrepresented his employment status - The Federal Court held, inter alia, that the reasons provided were adequate - A decision maker was not required to make an explicit finding on each constituent element, however subordinate leading to its final decision - Visa officers were accorded a considerable degree of latitude in the requirement to provide detailed reasons - The court stated that "I am satisfied that many of the inconsistencies noted by the respondent, indeed most, are irreconcilable requiring a choice by the respondent as to which source should be accorded the greatest weight. In a situation where irreconcilable inconsistencies exist based on the source of the information, the reasons are sufficient if stated in a conclusory fashion where it is apparent that the applicant would be aware that his explanations were insufficient to overcome the respondent's conclusions that a material misrepresentation occurred" - See paragraphs 22 to 25.

Aliens - Topic 4502

Evidence - General - Duty to disclose - [See both Aliens - Topic 1230 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bhamra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 89; 2014 FC 239, refd to. [para. 12].

Bellido v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 284; 2005 FC 452, refd to. [para. 17].

He v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 403 F.T.R. 207; 2012 FC 33, refd to. [para. 19].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

Jasdeep S. Mattoo, for the applicant;

Edward Burnett, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Kang & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 23, 2014, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Annis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on May 2, 2014.