Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Challenge to IRCC Decision on Permanent Residence Application

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260616 Docket: IMM-7128-24 Citation: 2026 FC 808 Ottawa, Ontario, June 16, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Background Facts [ 1 ] [APPELLANT] [Applicant] is a [NAME] who seeks judicial review of a decision of an [RESPONDENT], [NAME] [[NAME]] officer [Officer] refusing her application for permanent residence under the [NAME] [Decision], on the grounds that she did not answer the questions of her application truthfully, pursuant to subsection 16(1) of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act (SC 2001, c. 27) [ IRPA ]. [ 2 ] On November 1, 2013, the Applicant applied for a Temporary Resident Visa [TRV] through a [COMPANY] and retained the services of an [RESPONDENT] consultant to assist with her application. Her TRV application falsely stated that she was the mother of two children, was married to a person named [NAME], had a mother named [NAME], and had studied child psychology at [COMPANY]. [ 3 ] In 2014, the Applicant was informed that her TRV application contained false information, but she did not take steps to correct or notify [NAME]. [ 4 ] That same year, while still residing in Canada, the Applicant met [APPELLANT], a Canadian permanent resident, whom she married on August 28, 2018. On February 7, 2019, the Applicant applied for permanent residence under the [NAME]. The Applicant’s application for permanent residence contained the correct information and, for obvious reasons, that information was different than the one contained in her 2013 TRV application. Amongst other things, her new application identified Mr. [NAME] as her husband and stated that she has no children, aside from a stepchild. [ 5 ] In light of the discrepancies between the new application for permanent residence and the previous TRV of 2013, the [NAME] sent the Applicant a procedural fairness letter [PFL], informing her that the previous TRV application had been reopened. In her response to the PFL, the Applicant stated that the TRV application had been filed by her former [RESPONDENT] consultant who is responsible for the fraudulent information, and that the information in her new application for permanent residence was accurate. Her TRV application of 2013 was subsequently refused in 2022. [ 6 ] On March 11, 2024, [NAME] sent the Applicant a [NAME] asking her to address the inconsistencies between her TRV application of 2013 and her new application for permanent residence. On April 11, 2024, after receiving the Applicant’s response to the [NAME], the [NAME] concluded that “[d]espite the use of an agent, [the Applicant] is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all information eventually submitted is complete and accurate. Given the inconsistencies on file, on a balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the [NAME] has truthfully answered all questions in this application.” (Certified Tribunal Record 2 at p 3).

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 7 ] The sole issue in the present matter is whether the Decision is reasonable. The applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 SCC 21; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2025 SCC 21).

III. Analysis [ 8 ] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable because the Officer failed to grapple with her explanation and instead blamed her for the fraudulent information in the TRV application of 2013, rather than her previous [RESPONDENT] consultant. According to the Applicant, the inconsistencies in the TRV of 2013 are irrelevant to the fact-finding analysis the Officer was required to conduct. The only relevant consideration was the veracity of the information in her new application for permanent residence. She also contends that the decision is barred by issue estoppel because her TRV application of 2013 was previously refused on the basis that she failed to answer the questions truthfully; consequently, the Officer was not allowed to refuse her application for permanent residence on the same grounds. [ 9 ] I disagree with the Applicant. [ 10 ] [ADDRESS] has repeatedly recognized the principle that even when an applicant is represented by an [RESPONDENT] consultant, the applicant ultimately bears the responsibility for ensuring that the information provided to the [NAME] is complete and truthful ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 FC 62 at para 53 citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2018 FC 368 at para 15 citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2012 FC 428 at para 23; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2011 FC 942 at para 35, and [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2005 FC 1059 at paras 55-56; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 1638 at para 38; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2008 FC 848 at para 41; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2019 FC 1219 at para 21). [ 11 ] Moreover, the Applicant was informed in 2014 that the information in her TRV of 2013 was inaccurate yet took no steps to inform [NAME]. Subsection 16(1) of the IRPA provides for a duty of candour that required the Applicant to be proactive and disclose any discrepancies between her TRV application of 2013 and her new application for permanent residence within that second application. The Federal Court of Appeal has recognized that the duty of candour is “an overriding principle of the [IRPA]” ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2019 FCA 169 at para 70; [RESPONDENT] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2019 FC 1238 at para 16 [ [NAME] ]). By virtue of its overriding nature, the duty of candour is ongoing and must be respected by an applicant in all their dealings with the [NAME], including in any new application. The duty of candour is fundamental to the [RESPONDENT] system and requires an applicant to “disclose all material facts relevant to entry or admission, including material changes in circumstances even if no question is specifically asked by [RESPONDENT] authorities” ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2021 FC 959 at para 28). [ 12 ] In this matter, the Applicant was aware that false information had been provided by her [RESPONDENT] consultant, yet chose to not disclose or correct the information until she received a PFL ( [NAME] at para 23). It was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that they were not satisfied that the Applicant had truthfully answered all questions in her application for permanent residence, since she failed to come forward and disclose all material facts relevant to entry or admission including the material changes in her 2013 TRV application. [ 13 ] There was also no breach of procedural fairness. The Applicant was issued two PFLs, was made aware of the Officer’s specific concerns regarding her application for permanent residence and was given an opportunity to respond. Unfortunately, her response only confirmed that she had not been truthful and had taken no measures to notify [NAME] of the material changes to her 2013 TRV application after 2014 when she became aware of the incorrect information. [ 14 ] With respect to the Applicant’s issue estoppel argument, although similar issues were at play in relation to the reopening of her TRV, these issues pertain to distinct applications that resulted in different decisions. The Applicant’s lack of candour was not limited to having provided false information in her TRV application in 2013; instead, after knowing that the 2013 TRV application contained false information, she omitted to inform [NAME] and simply submitted a new application for permanent residence containing different information. It is her failure to provide truthful information in that second application, to be proactive and notify [NAME] of the material changes to her 2013 TRV, that persisted and carried through to her application for permanent residence.

IV. Conclusion [ 15 ] Consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, I conclude that the Officer’s decision is reasonable. The application for judicial review is dismissed; there is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-7128-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7128-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: TORONTO (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 15, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 16, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The APPLICANT [APPELLANT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL] [NAME]) For The APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT