Federal Court Upholds Decision to Revoke Citizenship for Misrepresentation

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260527 Docket: T-705-25 Citation: 2026 FC 687 Ottawa, Ontario, May 27, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the officer [Officer] of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] dated January 23, 2025, revoking his [NAME] because of fraud or false representation, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances [Decision]. The Applicant misrepresented his criminal history on his oath of citizenship, falsely declaring he was not subject to criminal proceedings. [ 2 ] The Applicant argues the Officer made several errors rendering the Decision unreasonable and alleges the process breached his right to procedural fairness. The Respondent submits the Applicant has not established any unfairness or substantive error justifying this Court’s intervention, and the application for judicial review should be dismissed. [ 3 ] For the following reasons, this judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background Facts A. Personal History [ 4 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], is a citizen of Vietnam and currently resides in Canada as a [NAME]. He was born in [DATE]. His two children were born in 1984 and 1989. The Applicant became a [NAME] when he arrived in Canada as a dependent child in a family class application in October 1989. The Applicant did not disclose his marriage or children and was listed as a single dependent son on his father’s application. No action was taken against the Applicant at the time for this first misrepresentation. [ 5 ] In 1994, the Applicant was convicted of assault and received one year probation and a suspended sentence. [ 6 ] In October 2002, the Applicant applied for citizenship. As his application was pending and in March 2004, the Applicant was charged with assault and assault with a weapon against his [NAME] partner. These charges were withdrawn, and the Applicant was placed on a peace bond for one year. [ 7 ] In December 2004, the Applicant, while subject to the peace bond, was charged with breaking and entering with intent, possession of burglary tools, and two counts of assault, again involving the Applicant’s [NAME] partner. [ 8 ] In January 2006, the Applicant’s citizenship application was approved. He did not disclose his recent criminal charges to IRCC. The Applicant’s second misrepresentation occurred when he signed the oath of citizenship form in February 2006 while his criminal charges were pending, declaring he had not been subject to criminal or immigration proceedings since filing his application for citizenship. [ 9 ] The Applicant pled not guilty to all charges resulting from the December 2004 arrest. In April 2006, the Applicant was found guilty on all counts and received a suspended sentence and two years probation. B. Citizenship Revocation Procedural History [ 10 ] IRCC’s Case Management Branch was notified on December 19, 2006, that the Applicant was charged with an indictable offence while his citizenship application was being processed. [ 11 ] In November 2011, a Notice in Respect of Revocation of Citizenship was signed and sent to the Applicant, though the Applicant could not be located at the time. As a result, he did not request to refer the matter to the Federal Court. [ 12 ] A second Notice of Intent to Revoke Citizenship was issued on July 14, 2015, for which the Applicant provided submissions in response with the assistance of a paralegal. The Applicant explained in his submissions that he had limited English proficiency and education. IRCC rejected the Applicant’s submissions and issued their decision to revoke the Applicant’s citizenship on November 27, 2015 [First Decision]. [ 13 ] The Applicant filed an Application for Leave and Judicial Review on January 5, 2016, challenging the First Decision. The First Decision was quashed after [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 473 [ [NAME] ] was released. [ 14 ] On January 24, 2018, new revocation of citizenship procedures came into force under An Act to amend the [NAME] and to make consequential amendments to another Act , SC 2017, c 14. The [NAME] notes show an initial review of the file was completed in December 2018. [ 15 ] The Applicant received an email from IRCC, including a Request for Information Letter on September 18, 2024, stating IRCC would conduct an assessment to determine whether they would reopen citizenship revocation proceedings against him. The Applicant was in Vietnam at the time and returned to Canada. In October 2024, he provided IRCC with written submissions, prepared without assistance from a legal professional. [ 16 ] On October 28, 2024, IRCC issued a Notification Letter outlining IRCC’s intention to continue with revocation proceedings and A Request to Have your Case Decided by the Minister of IRCC. The Notification Letter outlined the reasons relied on to conclude the Applicant engaged in misrepresentation. The Applicant was invited to provide further submissions before the expiry of the 60-day deadline. [ 17 ] On December 25, 2024, without the assistance of a legal professional, the Applicant provided the following documents to IRCC: A three-page letter from the Applicant addressed to IRCC and to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister]; A letter from his orthopaedic surgeon confirming his recent treatment for a shoulder injury (injury occurred in October 2024); A certificate of business registration for a household business; A decision from the People’s Committee of Dong Committee of Loc Ninh Rural District; A certificate of land use rights; A receipt from the [NAME] for notarial services; An Ontario Master of Business License; and A Mastercard statement. [ 18 ] The Applicant also provided the contents of an unopened envelope addressed to him from [COMPANY] that he previously attempted to provide to IRCC. Additionally, he provided his bank statement from [COMPANY] to IRCC on January 21, 2025. IRCC confirmed receipt of these documents on December 31, 2024, and requested the Applicant provided a signed copy of the request form by January 14, 2025, if he elected to have a decision made by the Minister. The Applicant provided the signed request form on January 14, 2025. [ 19 ] On January 23, 2025, an IRCC Officer found the Applicant’s citizenship had been obtained by false representation, fraud, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. The judicial review is about this decision.

III. Decision Under Review [ 20 ] The Officer was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant had obtained [NAME] by false representation, fraud, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances and decided to revoke the Applicant’s citizenship. [ 21 ] The Applicant’s first misrepresentation occurred when he arrived in Canada, when he was listed as a dependent child on his father’s application, who in turn was sponsored by the Applicant’s brother under the [NAME]. The Applicant failed to disclose he had a wife and two children. Had this information been known, the Applicant may have been excluded from his father’s application. Despite a report written against the Applicant dated January 22, 1991, under subsection 27(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, 1976, no action was taken against the Applicant. [ 22 ] The Applicant’s second misrepresentation occurred when he declared on his oath of citizenship that he had not been subject to any criminal or immigration proceedings since he had filed his application for [NAME]. Shortly after his application, the Applicant was arrested on December 12, 2004, and was charged with one count of break and enter with intent, one count of possession of burglary tools, and two counts of assault. The Applicant pled not guilty but was found guilty on all counts by a judge on April 20, 2006. He received a suspended sentence and two years probation. However, the Applicant did not declare he had been charged with indictable offences during his citizenship application process. By failing to disclose these charges, the Applicant prevented [NAME] from accurately assessing his eligibility and performing critical checks for the protection, health, and safety of Canadians. The Officer found, had [NAME] known this information, the Applicant would have been prohibited from being granted citizenship. [ 23 ] The Officer noted the Applicant acknowledged his misrepresentation, admitting to the offences listed in the Notification Letter and expressed remorse for his actions. However, the Officer determined the Applicant had multiple opportunities to inform [NAME] about his criminal proceedings, before and after becoming a Canadian citizen and after his sentencing. The Officer further noted, as a 39-year-old adult, the Applicant was responsible for disclosing all material facts and for truthfully completing every question. If the Applicant did not understand, as he claims he did not know the words “affirm,” “be bound,” “proceed,” or “have submitted,” it was his responsibility to ask. The same is true if he was unaware of the affirmations and prohibitions he was making prior to signing the form. [ 24 ] The Officer found the Applicant has demonstrated a pattern of disregard for Canada’s immigration, citizenship, and criminal law by not declaring his marital status or his children on his permanent residence application and by violating his peace bond. The Officer did not find the Applicant’s submissions compelling and accordingly afforded them little weight. [ 25 ] With regards to the impact of revocation on the Applicant’s personal circumstances and his business ventures, the Officer was not satisfied revocation of the Applicant’s citizenship would lead to complications travelling, or selling or transferring his assets in Vietnam as he submitted. As a [NAME], which he becomes after his citizenship is revoked, the Applicant is entitled to enter, work, and remain in Canada. The Officer found there was insufficient evidence to establish how this status would create difficulties travelling. There was no evidence to suggest the Applicant does not have Vietnamese citizenship or could not acquire a Vietnamese passport. Similarly, there was insufficient evidence to establish he would face difficulty selling or transferring his assets in Vietnam due to his loss of [NAME]. [ 26 ] The Officer considered the Applicant’s submissions on the impact of the revocation on the Applicant’s health, noting the Applicant has severe joint pain in his left shoulder, end range restriction of the left shoulder, bursitis, and tendonitis. The Applicant’s caregiving responsibilities for his 90-year-old father in Canada were also considered. The Applicant brought his 86-year-old mother back to Vietnam so his family could look after her. The Officer found, as a [NAME], the Applicant would be entitled to enter and remain in Canada, have access to [NAME] coverage, have continued access to healthcare services, and would be able to continue providing care for his father in Canada. Again, there was no evidence before the Officer that the Applicant could not obtain a Vietnamese passport to visit his mother. The Officer gave these submissions little weight. [ 27 ] The Officer determined the Applicant’s submissions were insufficient to grant him special relief and was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, the Applicant obtained a [NAME] by false representation, fraud, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 28 ] The issues to be decided by this Court are whether the Decision was unreasonable, the process breached the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness, and whether resuming revocation proceedings was an abuse of process. [ 29 ] The parties concur, and I agree, the standard of review of the merits of the Decision is reasonableness. In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 85-86 [ [NAME] ] ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). A decision will be reasonable if, when read as a whole and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility ( [NAME] at paras 91-95, 99-100). [ 30 ] Procedural fairness arguments are to be reviewed on a standard of correctness or akin to correctness for which “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” ( [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General),  2018 FCA 69 at para 46-47, 56; [NAME] v Attorney General of Canada , 2025 FC 50 at para 15; see also Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FCA 196 at para 35).

V. Relevant Legislative Dispositions [ 31 ] Paragraph 22(1)(b) of the [NAME], RSC 1985, c C-29 [ [NAME] ] addresses the prohibition against granting citizenship to an individual undergoing criminal proceeding in Canada: Prohibition Interdiction 22 (1) Despite anything in this Act, a person shall not be granted citizenship under subsection 5(1), (2) or (4) or 11(1) or take the oath of citizenship 22 (1) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, nul ne peut recevoir la citoyenneté au titre des para graphes 5(1), (2) ou (4) ou 11(1) ni prêter le serment de citoyenneté : … … (b) while the person is charged with, on trial for, subject to or a party to an appeal relating to an offence under subsection 21.1(1) or 29.2(1) or (2), or an indictable offence under subsection 29(2) or (3) or any other Act of Parliament, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act ; b) tant qu’il est inculpé pour une infraction prévue aux paragraphes 21.1(1) ou 29.2(1) ou (2) ou pour un acte criminel prévu par les paragraphes 29(2) ou (3) ou par une autre loi fédérale, autre qu’une infraction qualifiée de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions, et ce, jusqu’à la date d’épuisement des voies de recours; [ 32 ] Subsection 10(1) of the [NAME] outlines the threshold for the Minister to revoke a person’s citizenship where it has been obtained by fraud, false representation, or by knowingly concealing material information: Revocation by Minister — fraud, false representation, etc. Révocation par le ministre — fraude, fausse déclaration, etc. 10 (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. 10 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe 10.1(1), le ministre peut révoquer la citoyenneté d’une [NAME] ou sa répudiation lorsqu’il est convaincu, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, que l’acquisition, la conservation ou la répudiation de la citoyenneté de la [NAME] ou sa réintégration dans celle-ci est intervenue par fraude ou au moyen d’une fausse déclaration ou de la dissimulation intentionnelle de faits essentiels. [ 33 ] Subsection 10(3.2) of the [NAME] requires the Minister to assess whether there are circumstances militating against revocation from representations provided by the person: Consideration of representations Obligation de tenir compte des observations (3.2) The Minister shall consider any representations received from the person pursuant to paragraph (3.1)(a) before making a decision. (3.2) Le ministre tient compte de toute observation reçue au titre de l’alinéa (3.1)a) avant de rendre sa décision. [ 34 ] Subsection 10(4) of the [NAME] grants the Minister the power to convoke a hearing where they are of the opinion one is required: Hearing Audience (4) A hearing may be held if the Minister, on the basis of prescribed factors, is of the opinion that a hearing is required. (4) Une audience peut être tenue si le ministre l’estime nécessaire compte tenu des facteurs réglementaires. [ 35 ] Section 7.2 of the Citizenship Regulations , SOR/93-246 [ Citizenship Regulations ] outlines the factors to be considered when deciding whether to hold a hearing: Revocation of Citizenship Révocation de la citoyenneté 7.2 A hearing may be held under subsection 10(4) of the Act on the basis of any of the following factors: 7.2 Une audience peut être tenue en vertu du para graphe 10(4) de la Loi compte tenu de l’un ou l’autre des facteurs suivants : (a) the existence of evidence that raises a serious issue of the person’s credibility; a) l’existence d’éléments de preuve qui soulèvent une question importante en ce qui concerne la crédibilité de la [NAME]; (b) the person’s inability to provide written submissions. b) l’incapacité pour la [NAME] de présenter des observations écrites.

VI. Analysis A. The Applicant’s Argument on Abuse of Process Will Not Be Entertained [ 36 ] For the first time, the Applicant claims the unexplained and unreasonable six-year delay in reopening the citizenship revocation proceedings is an abuse of process and warrants a stay of proceedings. He alleges the recommencement of these proceedings has and will [NAME] physical, psychological, and financial harm to himself and his father. [ 37 ] The Applicant did not argue an abuse of process before the Officer who was in the best position to assess this claim. Had he done so, the decision maker could have properly assessed the reasons for the delay, the alleged prejudice and its severity, any benefits arising from the delay, and whether the delay could justify a stay of proceedings. [ADDRESS] is now deprived of a proper evidentiary record to decide this issue. [ 38 ] Reviewing courts generally refuse to consider a new argument raised on judicial review when it could have been raised before the decision maker, including arguments on abuse of process ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 211 at paras 59-62; Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’ Association , 2011 SCC 61 at paras 22-23; [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 843 at paras 17-23; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1990 at para 45). [ 39 ] As Justice Gascon recently reminded us in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 657 at paragraph 42: [42] It is well established that absent exceptional circumstances, new arguments not presented in a party’s memorandum shall not be entertained. To do otherwise would risk prejudicing the other party and could leave the Court unable to fully assess the merits of the new argument ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026 FC 624 at paras 95‒96; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1846 at paras 31‒32; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1123 at para 19; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 78 at paras 26–28; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 318 at para 81; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 754 at paras 12–14; see also [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2002 FCA 153 at para 39). [ 40 ] In this case, I find there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant departing from this general principle and decline to consider this new argument raised by the Applicant. B. The Decision is Reasonable [ 41 ] The Applicant claims the Decision lacks intelligibility and transparency because he cannot understand how his circumstances, notably his limited English skills, confusion, and remorse, were balanced against the misrepresentation. [ 42 ] The Applicant submits blameworthiness or culpability may warrant special relief. Similarly, it is insufficient for the Officer to address mitigating circumstances in passing; simply observing the Applicant is remorseful for his actions is an inadequate explanation that “falls well short of what is required in the circumstances” for the Decision to be reasonable ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1102 at para 77 [ [NAME] ]). The Applicant submits the Officer was required to meaningfully grapple with the mitigating circumstances relied on by the Applicant and determine whether the usual consequences of misrepresentation were warranted. Asserting only that the misconduct was serious without meaningful consideration of why it happened is inadequate ( [APPELLANT] at para 77). [ 43 ] The Applicant raised four categories of personal circumstances in his submissions: 1) his limited English proficiency and confusion; 2) his remorse; 3) the impact of the revocation on his health and elderly parents; and 4) the impact of the revocation on his business ventures. The Applicant claims the Officer’s analysis was limited to the latter two considerations; they did not refer to the first two considerations. [ 44 ] Firstly, the Applicant’s submissions on his limited English proficiency outline his grade 9-level education, his never having attended school in Canada, his study methods for his citizenship test, his understanding of what was required of him, and his confusion through the citizenship application and revocation process. According to the Applicant, the Officer should also have reviewed his submissions as evidence of his limited English proficiency. The Applicant states “I had left school for approximately 18 years, and I have never attended school in Canada” , but in fact meant he completed his schooling at 18 years old. [ 45 ] Similarly, the Applicant claims his submissions being factually inaccurate is evidence of his confusion. The Applicant writes about the December 2004 criminal charges as occurring while he was a citizen, despite being a [NAME] at the time. Even in his written submissions to IRCC, the Applicant refers to his lack of understanding of Canadian law and his guilt. The Applicant argues, while the Officer may have considered the Applicant’s confusion, the reasons do not reflect this decision-making as the Officer simply recounts the Applicant’s own submissions without further assessment. [ 46 ] According to the Applicant, the Officer makes several conclusory statements, including one describing the Applicant’s pattern of disregard for Canada’s immigration, citizenship, and criminal laws. It is unclear to the Applicant how the Officer comes to this conclusion instead of finding a pattern of confusion. [ 47 ] A second conclusory statement the Applicant takes issue with is the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant did not undertake to understand or ask questions about points of confusion. Instead, the Applicant claims the evidence supports his diligence and his persistent confusion despite seeking assistance. The Applicant characterizes this conclusion as “infantilizing” and unfair, given the Applicant often remains confused despite accessing legal or interpretation services: I have accepted guilt on several occasions, often due to my lawyer and interpreter not clearly explaining things to me. [ 48 ] The Applicant further submits the Respondent’s claims that he had multiple opportunities to disclose the criminal charges is unfounded. Unlike in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 600 [ [NAME]] where the Applicant denied all allegations of misrepresentation during her original revocation proceedings, the Applicant here has been forthcoming about the criminal charges ( [NAME] at para 11). The Applicant has demonstrated he did not know there was anything to report to IRCC at any time during his citizenship proceedings. [ 49 ] It is also argued, as in [NAME], the Officer focused almost exclusively on certain evidence without considering the other circumstances raised by the Applicant ( [APPELLANT] at para 74). [ 50 ] The Applicant must be able to trace the decision maker’s reasoning and be satisfied there is a line of analysis which could lead the decision maker to their conclusion ( [APPELLANT] at para 102). The Applicant alleges no such line of analysis exists here. [ 51 ] Secondly, with regard to the Applicant’s remorse, the Applicant argues the Officer’s analysis was deficient. While the Applicant had expressed his remorse in his submissions at length, including explicitly apologizing and accepting responsibility, the Officer improperly found the several other considerations outweighed the Applicant’s remorse. The Applicant claims there is no way for him to understand how his expression of remorse was considered and weighed against other factors. [ 52 ] The Applicant further argues reliance on past errors to undermine his expressions of remorse is unreasonable. While the Applicant concedes he should have made further inquiries into the oath of citizenship prior to signing, this has no bearing on his present-day remorse. The Officer used circular reasoning, relying on the existence of the second misrepresentation as evidence undermining his remorse for the same misrepresentation. Thus, the Decision lacks a rational and logical chain of reasoning detailing how the Applicant’s limited English skills, confusion, and blameworthiness were weighed against his misrepresentation. [ 53 ] The Respondent submits the assessment of personal circumstances by the Officer was reasonable. Accepting the Applicant was not fluent in English, he was indisputably aware that he was taking an important legal step by applying for citizenship. It was incumbent on him to take reasonable steps to ensure he complied with the law. [ 54 ] The Respondent contends the Officer considered the Applicant’s circumstances and found his expression of remorse insufficient. The Officer reasonably weighed the evidence before them, finding the Applicant’s concerns regarding his business ventures, health issues, and family circumstances not compelling. Concerns about his ability to travel and entitlement to Canadian healthcare attributed little weight, particularly as he would be a [NAME] and remain a citizen of Vietnam. [ 55 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s submission, I find the Officer sufficiently addressed the Applicant’s limited English skills, confusion, and his remorse, as well as his personal circumstances. [ 56 ] Despite the Applicant’s assertions he cannot be held responsible for his misrepresentation and the consequences which follow, this Court in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME], 2025 FC 62 [ [NAME] ] has found self-imposed ignorance is not a bar to responsibility: [73] Similarly, I find no authority for the Defendant’s assertions that he cannot be indifferent to consequences because he was not aware of the consequences; nor can he satisfy the definition of fraud because he was not allegedly aware of his obligation for disclosure. I agree with the Minister, self‑imposed ignorance cannot act as a shield. [ 57 ] Additionally, the Applicant’s wilful blindness arises from his not making the necessary inquiries on the oath of citizenship to understand his responsibilities. Wilful blindness arises where “a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth. He would prefer to remain ignorant. The culpability in recklessness is justified by consciousness of the risk and by proceeding in the face of it, while in wilful blindness it is justified by the accused's fault in deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is reason for inquiry” ( [NAME] v The Queen , 1985 CanLII 79 (SCC) at para 22 ; [APPELLANT] at para 56). The Minister must establish the Applicant’s suspicions were raised over the contents of the documents, but he chose not to inform himself. [ 58 ] [ADDRESS] in [NAME] notes specifically it “cannot ignore the fact that the Defendant, who was an adult at the time, signed at least two forms (his citizenship application and his Oath of Citizenship) without making inquiries as to the content of the affirmations he was signing” ( [NAME] at para 57). Not inquiring further about the contents of the prohibitions and affirmations on his oath of citizenship, despite recognizing their importance and his own lack of understanding, is deliberate ignorance and sufficient to establish wilful blindness ( [NAME] at paras 61-62). [ 59 ] As rightly observed by the Respondent, there is no dispute as to the facts of this case. The Applicant had pending criminal charges during his application for citizenship and not only failed to disclose these charges but concealed them from [NAME]. When he signed the oath of citizenship form and took the oath in February 2006, he was legally prohibited to do so. This is a reasonable basis for the Officer to find a misrepresentation. [ 60 ] The significance of the oath of citizenship and the seriousness of its consequences are reflected in the language of the [NAME] ; Parliament did not intend for the explicit prohibitions to obtaining citizenship to only apply to individuals who read the forms. Signing these forms without attempting to understand the oath would undermine Parliament’s intention and allow anyone to sidestep these prohibitions. [ 61 ] Notably, there are exceptions to the requirement to take the oath of citizenship. Stateless persons, minors under 14, and individuals with a mental disability who are otherwise unable to understand the significance of the oath may all request a waiver or be exempt from the requirement (ss 5(3)(b), 5(3)(c), 5(6) of the [NAME] ). However, none of these exceptions apply to the Applicant. In line with general principles, a person who has signed an agreement is bound by it, whether he chose to read its contents or not. The Applicant cannot now request special relief to prevent revocation because he either chose not to read the oath or did not request assistance understanding it. [ 62 ] Subsection 10(3.2) of the [NAME] requires the Minister to consider any written representations made by an applicant pursuant to subsection 10(3.1) before deciding whether to revoke the applicant’s citizenship. In [APPELLANT], the Court is required to consider all circumstances of a case including the personal interests of the affected individual to protect against arbitrariness ( [NAME] at paras 116-, 124). [ 63 ] In [NAME] , the Court outlined a non-exhaustive set of factors to be considered by the Minister when assessing an applicant’s personal circumstances: [62] There is no issue that paragraph 10(3.1)(a) of the [NAME] serves the same sort of equitable underlying purpose as paragraph 67(1)(c) of the IRPA   serves or that the authority the provisions confer on decision makers is very similar. Both provisions capture a wide range of circumstances that bear on what a reasonable and fair-minded person would judge to warrant special relief in all of the circumstances of a given case. Indeed, many of the same circumstances will be relevant whether the determination is being made under the [NAME]  or under the IRPA, including the best interests of any child directly affected by the determination, establishment in Canada, and the impact of an adverse decision on one’s physical and mental health and general well-being. Equally, in cases of misrepresentation, both decision makers must consider, among other things, the seriousness of the misrepresentation, the person’s complicity in it, evidence that it was out of character, any mitigating circumstances, and any expressions of remorse in exercising the equitable discretion conferred on them to relieve a person of the usual consequences of the law. [Emphasis added] [ 64 ] In this case, the Applicant has been living in Canada for some 17 years when he took the oath. The Applicant has a history of criminality and was therefore familiar with legal proceedings in Canada. Over his almost two decades in Canada, he had numerous exchanges with the IRCC regarding his legal status in Canada. The Officer considered his age and his sufficient ability to write and pass the citizenship test, though recognizing he had some difficulty. The Officer found the Applicant did not make the necessary inquiries despite knowing his English was limited and there were terms he did not know. Despite not being fluent in English, the Applicant undoubtedly was aware he was taking an important legal step applying for [NAME]. He bore the burden to ensure he complied with the law; the failure to make inquiries or exercise diligence weighs against him. [ 65 ] I find the Officer considered the Applicant’s circumstances and reasonably found his expression of remorse and explanations regarding his professed confusion or lack of language skill not compelling. [ 66 ] Not only did the Officer consider the Applicant’s failure to make inquiries or exercise diligence, but they also considered, and found unpersuasive, the Applicant’s family circumstances, business ventures, and health issues. [ 67 ] The Applicant has not established the Decision to revoke his [NAME] for misrepresentation is unreasonable. C. The Officer Did Not Breach Procedural Fairness [ 68 ] Applicants are entitled to oral hearings where the Minister is of the opinion one is required, where there is evidence raising a serious issue as to the individual’s credibility, or where the individual is unable to provide written submissions. The Applicant argues, because there were several credibility findings, the failure to hold an oral hearing breached procedural fairness. [ 69 ] The Applicant first argues the Officer made veiled credibility findings when rejecting his submissions on his limited English skills, including the misrepresentation being the result of a genuine misunderstanding. These credibility findings are not meant to be limited to findings made in respect of the underlying misrepresentation, though the Applicant cites no authority to this effect. [ 70 ] The Officer noted the Applicant had multiple opportunities to inform [NAME] of his criminal proceedings but chose not to. This is the first alleged veiled credibility finding as the Officer does not believe the Applicant’s submissions regarding his confusion and a lack of understanding of Canadian law. [ 71 ] The Officer further concluded the Applicant had demonstrated a pattern of disregard for Canada’s immigration, citizenship, and criminal laws. For the applicant, this second alleged veiled credibility finding is a rejection of his explanations of his limited English skills and confusion. Both veiled credibility findings were made despite the Applicant’s repeated statements of his honesty. The Applicant suggests these findings reject the Applicant’s truth and honesty without explanation. According to the Applicant, the failure to hold an oral hearing despite these veiled credibility findings is a breach of procedural fairness. [ 72 ] The Applicant also claims the Officer’s failure to hold a hearing pursuant to subsection 7.2(b) of the Citizenship Regulations was procedurally unfair in light of the evidence of the Applicant’s limited English proficiency and “clearly deficient” written submissions. He claims he was unable to adequately express himself in his submissions which were written without the assistance of a legal professional or professional interpretive service. He claims he did not know the case to be met, nor did he have an opportunity to reasonably state his case. He believes an oral hearing would have allowed him to put forward his views and evidence to be considered by the decision maker. Specifically, had an oral hearing been held, IRCC would have learned about his shoulder condition resulting from excessive alcohol use due to his anxiety about the recommencement of revocation proceedings. [ 73 ] Respectfully, I am not convinced by the Applicant’s arguments. While a high level of procedural fairness is owed in citizenship revocation proceedings, I am not convinced it has been breached by the failure to hold an oral hearing ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FCA 36 at para 74 citing [APPELLANT] at para 85). The Applicant argues he is owed an even greater level of procedural fairness, without further analysis, explanation, or appropriate reference to authorities. I do not agree, considering the level of procedural fairness owed is already quite high. [ 74 ] Meaningful participation can occur in a number of ways; it is not always necessary to hold an oral hearing to satisfy the duty of fairness ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at para 33). [ 75 ] I agree with the Respondent. There was no serious issue of credibility or disputed fact requiring a hearing in the present case. As such, there was no obligation to conduct an oral hearing. [ 76 ] In September 2024, the Applicant received an email from IRCC informing him of an assessment to determine whether the citizenship revocation proceedings against him will be reopened and Request for Information Letter to which the Applicant responded and provided written submissions. In October 2024, he received a Notification Letter outlining IRCC’s intention to continue with revocation proceedings and A Request to Have your Case Decided by the Minister. The Applicant was informed of the reasons relied on to find he had engaged in misrepresentation and was invited to provide further submissions. The Applicant made detailed submissions on several occasions, reviewed by the Officer, wherein he conceded to the underlying misrepresentation. [ 77 ] With regard to the pain the Applicant experiences in his shoulder, it is unclear why it would have been insufficient for the letter from an orthopaedic surgeon confirming the injury or the Applicant’s own written submissions to refer to this information. It is certainly not clear to this Court why IRCC would have only learned this fact if a hearing had been held. [ 78 ] It is also unclear why the Applicant did not engage [COMPANY] to assist him in preparing his submissions and evidence when communicating with IRCC, given he was aware of and admits his own limited proficiency in English. It was the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure all relevant evidence and submissions were before the Minister. [ 79 ] Furthermore, the Applicant exercised no diligence, made no inquiries, and swore an oath without taking care to ensure he understood it. While he admitted his confusion, he made no attempt to clarify his concerns. According to [NAME], this is wilful blindness. The Officer’s findings in that regard were reasonable. [ 80 ] The decision to not hold an oral hearing was based on facts not in dispute and the assessment of relevant considerations under section 10 of the [NAME] ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1744 at para 45). [ 81 ] I find the evidence demonstrates the Applicant knew the case to be met and had a full and fair opportunity to present his case. I conclude the Applicant has not established a breach of procedural fairness.

VII. Conclusion [ 82 ] This application for judicial review is dismissed because the Applicant has not met his burden of establishing the Decision was unreasonable either in its outcome or in the reasons provided, or that there was a breach of procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT in T-705-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "L. Saint-Fleur" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-705-25 STYLE OF [NAME]: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: [NAME] (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 30, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: SAINT-FLEUR J. DATED: May 27, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] and Solicitors Toronto (Ontario) For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT