Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Challenge to Visa Officer's Fraudulent Bank Statement Finding

Date: 20260603 Docket: IMM-8935-24 Citation: 2026 FC 727 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 3, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] [NAME] seeks judicial review of a finding of misrepresentation arising in the context of a work permit application. I am dismissing her application, as the decision was reasonable and the process leading to it was fair.

I. Background [ 2 ] [NAME], a citizen of Nigeria, applied for a work permit. The visa officer sent [NAME] a procedural fairness letter [PFL] expressing concerns about the authenticity of a bank statement she provided. In response, [NAME] stated that there might have been a discrepancy because she downloaded the statement herself from the bank’s self-service mobile app. She provided a new statement, a new letter from the bank, as well as an affidavit explaining her understanding of the situation. The officer nevertheless found her inadmissible for misrepresentation pursuant to section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27.

II. Analysis [ 3 ] [NAME] now argues that this finding was unreasonable and, if I understand correctly, there was a breach of procedural fairness because the PFL did not disclose precisely what the concerns were. I will address these issues in reverse order. A. Procedural Fairness [ 4 ] Visa applications typically give rise to a minimal degree of procedural fairness. Where a finding of misrepresentation is contemplated, however, “the visa officer has a duty to inform the applicant of the concerns that may give rise to such a finding and provide the applicant with a meaningful opportunity to respond” : [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 256 at paragraph 15. It is sufficient to inform the applicant of the “gist” of the officer’s concerns: El [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 524 at paragraph 4 [ El [NAME] ]. [ 5 ] The visa officer must then consider the applicant’s response with a mind willing to understand the explanation offered and be prepared to contemplate the possibility that the initial finding was made in error: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 66 at paragraph 29. It should be emphasized that the purpose of the exercise is to give the applicant an opportunity to show that the initial document was genuine, rather than an opportunity to substitute a genuine new document for a fraudulent one. [ 6 ] Based on these principles, I find that the PFL in this case was sufficient for [NAME] to understand the case to meet. A PFL stating that a bank document is likely fraudulent is usually sufficient to disclose the “case to meet” : El [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 524 at paragraph 3. The officer was not required to disclose the precise issue that prompted him to seek the bank’s advice. There was no breach of procedural fairness. B. Reasonableness [ 7 ] In response to the PFL, [NAME] provided a convoluted explanation premised on the existence of a discrepancy between the initial bank statement and the reality regarding two transfers of large amounts of money made by her husband immediately before the statement was printed. As I understand it, the two large transfers would show on one statement but not on the other. However, this is incorrect. The transfers appear both on the initial statement filed with the application and on the new statement appended to the response to the PFL. There was simply no discrepancy. [NAME] must have been aware of this—it must be presumed that she kept a copy of her initial application. This cannot be the issue that led the bank to find the initial statement fraudulent. Hence, [NAME]’s submissions regarding a discrepancy did not tend to show that the initial bank statement was genuine. [ 8 ] Moreover, [NAME] submitted a new letter from the bank attaching a new statement, highlighting the transfers made by her husband and declaring that this statement was genuine. Even assuming that this new letter is genuine, it does not address the authenticity of the initial statement. It was therefore irrelevant to the issue the officer had to decide. In these circumstances, there was no need for the officer to ask the bank whether this new letter was genuine or fraudulent. It was reasonable for the officer to find that the “explanation provided does not address issues with the fraudulent document submitted.” [ 9 ] [NAME] also submits that the officer’s reasons are insufficient to show why the initial statement was found to be fraudulent. However, the GCMS notes include a copy of an email exchange between the visa officer and the bank, in which the bank denies that it is the author of the statement and adds that it does not reflect [NAME]’s account. In my view, this is sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the statement was fraudulent. There is little that the officer could add. [ 10 ] Lastly, [NAME] argues that the decision is unreasonable because it lacks any analysis of the materiality of the bank information. However, this issue was not raised in the response to the PFL, and the officer cannot be faulted for not having addressed it at length. The GCMS notes indicate that the officer was aware of the test and was satisfied that it was met.

III. Disposition [ 11 ] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. No question is certified.

JUDGMENT in IMM-8935-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-8935-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 3, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 3, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], British Columbia For The APPLICANT [NAME] of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent