Five Years of Progress, Threatened by a Single Allegation
Our client came to Canada as a student, transitioned to a work permit, built a career in the tech sector, and was selected through Express Entry — one of the most competitive immigration streams in the world. His permanent residency application was almost complete.
Then IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter: they alleged he had misrepresented his employment history on his application. A two-year ban for misrepresentation, on top of the underlying refusal, would have erased everything.
Misrepresentation Carries a Two-Year Inadmissibility Bar
Under section 40(1)(a) of IRPA, a finding of misrepresentation renders a person inadmissible to Canada for two years. For an Express Entry applicant who has lived in Canada for five years, built a life, and made a contribution to the Canadian economy, this is not a bureaucratic setback — it is a deportation trajectory.
Our client had done nothing wrong. The alleged discrepancy related to a brief employment gap that had been disclosed, just in a different section of the application than the officer expected.
We Responded to the PFL and Filed Immediately
When the procedural fairness letter arrived, we acted on two tracks simultaneously. First, we prepared a detailed response to IRCC's procedural fairness letter, providing a complete explanation of the employment history with documentary corroboration — pay stubs, reference letters, tax filings, and a sworn affidavit.
Second, we prepared a judicial review application in anticipation of a refusal. When IRCC rejected the PFL response and issued a refusal with a misrepresentation finding, we filed at Federal Court the same day and sought an immediate stay of the inadmissibility finding.
Disclosure Is Not Misrepresentation
Our primary argument was simple: our client had not misrepresented anything. He had disclosed the employment period — it appeared in a supporting document attached to his application. The officer's allegation was based on a failure to cross-reference application sections, not on any actual concealment.
We further argued that even if there had been a technical omission, misrepresentation under section 40 requires materiality — the omitted information must have been capable of affecting the outcome. An employment gap that the officer could have easily found in the record was not material. We also challenged the procedural fairness of the PFL process, arguing our client had been given insufficient time and inadequate disclosure to mount a meaningful response.
IRCC Withdrew the Finding. PR Pathway Restored.
Following the filing of our judicial review and the stay motion, IRCC's litigation counsel reviewed the record and agreed the misrepresentation finding could not be sustained. On consent, IRCC withdrew the misrepresentation finding and agreed to a redetermination of the PR application by a different officer.
The inadmissibility bar was lifted. Our client's Express Entry application is now being processed by a fresh officer under the correct legal standard.