In an utility to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) the burden is on the applicant to place ahead an entire, convincing and unambiguous utility which offers adequate proof to ascertain that the necessities of Canadian immigration laws are met.
Visa officers are usually not underneath an obligation to ask for added data the place the submitted materials is inadequate. As properly, as demonstrated by the choice in Omitogun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 719, visa officers are underneath no obligation to overview an applicant’s beforehand submitted functions.
Nevertheless, the place there’s a concern relating to the credibility or the genuineness of the proof submitted, versus the sufficiency of, or weight to be given, to that data, then the obligation of equity usually requires that the applicant be given the chance to handle the priority. The Federal Court docket succintently set out the take a look at in Fard v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1403, writing:
The place an officer means that the applicant’s supporting paperwork serve a “demonstrative goal” amounting to a “misleading façade” (Taeb v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2023 FC 576 at para 6) or the place, as right here, the officer states that the applicant’s monetary knowledge has been “inflated” for functions of advancing a visa utility, an obligation of equity arises. The officer should give the applicant a possibility to reply. There’s a distinction between discovering that the supply of the applicant’s funds is unclear (a query of the sufficiency of the proof) and a conclusion that the applicant has misrepresented their monetary means (an opinion concerning the applicant’s honesty).
Examples from Jurisprudence
Farooq v. Canada, 2013 FC 164 (“Farooq“) is a helpful instance of the way to distinguish a refusal based mostly on credibility issues vs. one in all inadequate proof. There, IRCC’s refusal letter said:
He claims he labored from January 2005 to August 2006 as software program developer and from 2006 to current as supervisor (software program improvement) for Tricastmedia PVT Ltd in Lahore Pakistan. Such fast promotion will not be credible as laptop and knowledge methods managers usually require a number of years of expertise in methods evaluation, knowledge administration software program engineering, community design or laptop programming, together with supervisory expertise. Among the duties in his employment letter repeat verbatim the duties of NOC 0213 which raises the query of the credibility of that employment letter. The opposite duties are much like these of knowledge methods analysts and consultants (NOC Code 2171).
…
Though the NOC Code 0213 corresponds to an occupation specified within the directions, the data submitted to assist this utility is inadequate to substantiate that applicant meets the occupational description and/or a considerable variety of the principle duties of NOC 0213.
Justice Roy’s causes in figuring out that the failure of the visa officer to offer the applicant with a possibility to answer his issues about credibility was a breach of procedural equity present a complete abstract of the regulation on this concern, and I’ve reproduced them in full, bolding the important thing factors:
Justice O’Keefe was confronted to the identical type of state of affairs within the case of Patel, supra. (“Patel“) Paragraphs 24 to 27 appear to me to use squarely to the state of affairs at hand. They learn:
Regulation 75 clearly signifies {that a} overseas nationwide is simply a talented employee if he can present one 12 months of full time employment the place he carried out the actions within the lead assertion of the NOC and a considerable variety of the principle duties.
As such, if the visa officer was involved solely that the employment letter was inadequate proof that the principal applicant met the necessities of Regulation 75, then she wouldn’t have been required to conduct an interview.
Nevertheless, the officer states that her concern is that the duties within the employment letter have been copied immediately from the NOC description and that the duties within the expertise letter are an identical to the letter of employment. I agree with the principal applicant that the officer’s causes are insufficient to clarify why this was problematic. I discover that the implication from these issues is that the officer thought-about the expertise letter to be fraudulent.
Consequently, by viewing the letter as fraudulent, the officer should have convoked an interview of the principal applicant based mostly on the jurisprudence above. As such, the officer denied the principal applicant procedural equity and the judicial overview should be allowed.
The slender concern that must be determined right here is whether or not or not it is a case relating to the sufficiency of the proof, within the sense that, within the phrases of Justice Richard Mosley in Hassani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1283, [2007] 3 FCR 501:
… there isn’t a obligation on the a part of the visa officer to apprise an applicant of her issues that come up immediately from the necessities of the previous Act or Regulations …
Additionally it is definitely true {that a} visa officer doesn’t have an obligation to offer a “operating rating” of the weaknesses in an utility. Nevertheless, the place the problem is credibility, “the obligation of equity could require immigration officers to tell candidates of their issues with functions in order that an applicant could have an opportunity to “disabuse” an officer of such issues, even the place such issues come up from proof tendered by the applicant” (Rukmangathan, above, at paragraph 22). Justice de Montigny, in Talpur, supra, discovering assist inHassani, summarized clearly what I imagine is the state of the regulation:
It’s by now properly established that the obligation of equity, even whether it is on the low finish of the spectrum within the context of visa functions … require visa officers to tell candidates of their issues in order that an applicant could have a possibility to disabuse an officer of such issues. This would be the case, specifically, the place such concern arises not a lot from the authorized necessities however from the authenticity or credibility of the proof supplied by the applicant.
Right here, the visa officer signifies clearly that the credibility of the applicant, or lack thereof, is the basic concern he has. Opposite to different instances the place a possibility is given to the applicant to handle the issues, there’s nothing of the type on this case. It might appear to me that each Patel and Rukmangathanare dispositive of the problem and that the matter ought to be remitted to a special visa officer for the aim of a re-determination of the matter.
One other instance of this precept could be present in Madadi v. Canada, 2013 FC 176. There, in figuring out that an applicant didn’t carry out a considerable variety of the principle duties in Nationwide Occupational Classification (“NOC”) 0711, IRCC didn’t take into account any duties within the applicant’s affirmation of employment which both copied the NOC descriptions or carefully paraphrased them. After not contemplating these job duties, the officer discovered that the applicant didn’t carry out a considerable variety of the duties listed in NOC 0711. The Court docket decided that procedural equity was breached, as a result of the visa officer’s issues associated to the genuineness of the affirmation of employment.
Conversely, in Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 943, the Federal Court docket discovered that an announcement similar to “this data lacks authenticity of the rationale to return to Canada” will not be a credibility discovering.
Inspecting Whether or not Credibility is an Challenge
When reviewing refusal causes it is very important study whether or not credibility could have been an concern resulting in refusal.
Generally it’s apparent. For instance, in Azizian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 379 a visa officer wrote:
Given the provision of the data [about the CBI], I discovered it tough to imagine that the applicant has by no means heard of those issues throughout his employment at CBI and since retiring… I don’t discover credible that the applicant would haven’t been concerned in coverage resolution making and choices regarding allocation of funds, particularly for the reason that PA held the place of Secretary Basic of the financial institution and since he indicated in his affidavit that his obligation in 2003-2009 was to develop and supervise the implementation of the by-laws and pointers for the Iranian banking system.
This was discovered to obviously be a credibility concern.
Credibility assessments are sometimes implicit, nevertheless, quite than express. In Khodchenko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 829, IRCC’s refusal causes partially said that:
REVIEWED INFO SUBMITTED FOR THE FILE. PI’S EXPENCES WILL BE PAID BY MR. NAZAREVICH – FAMILY FRIEND. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY HE WOULD PAY SUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR PI. NOT SATISFIED PI IS FORTHCOMING ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIP. TIES TO UKRAINE ARE WEAK. REFUSED. (sic) [emphasis added]
The Federal Court docket discovered that the officer made a veiled credibility evaluation of the benefactor and the applicant in questioning that the employment association was what the candidates stated it was, and that the officer accordingly owed an obligation of equity to the applicant to place his issues immediately and explicitly and provides her a possibility to reply.
In Rani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), in the meantime, Madam Justice Strickland discovered {that a} visa officer’s assertion that “proof of [the applicant’s] involvement with partner’s enterprise comes solely from her personal statements and that of her supporting relative in Canada. It’s due to this fact not clear to what extent the context of English language use…could possibly be thought-about acquainted” to even be an implicit credibility evaluation, and ordered the matter re-decided.
Lastly, in B147 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 843, Justice Roussel highlighted some key phrases that to him indicated {that a} veiled credibility discovering was made. He wrote:
I agree with the Applicant that, on its face, the choice of Minister’s Delegate seems to be based mostly on veiled credibility findings. Whereas the findings of the Minister’s Delegate relating to the brand new proof are couched in “sufficiency of proof” language, when the choice is learn as an entire, the next expressions definitely go away open the interpretation that the Minister’s Delegate had credibility points with the Applicant and his new proof. Such expressions embody “[the Applicant] has supplied quite a few modifications in his story”, “[the Applicant] has supplied a wide range of conflicting statements”, “at his inadmissibility listening to, [the Applicant] said since his arrival he had by no means been utterly truthful”, “the data contained therein differs from what was said in earlier submissions” and “the data differs from that supplied immediately from [the Applicant] throughout his interview with CBSA”. Crucial one, in my opinion, is the Minister’s Delegate’s assertion that he’s “additionally cognizant that all through his dealings with CBSA officers, there’s reference to [the Applicant] accessing many paperwork, fraudulent or in any other case” and is “due to this fact, cautious of the documentary proof submitted by [the Applicant] from third events, notably these paperwork he was in a position to receive after his arrival to Canada”. This final assertion leads me to imagine that the Minister’s Delegate had credibility points with the Applicant’s new proof of danger.
In Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1617, Justice Régimbald held that the next assertion was a credibility concern, and never a sufficiency of proof concern:
Inadequate proof of funds and monetary establishement [sic] in COR. I additionally word the stamp from the canteen doesn’t have common tax code. No strong proof of employment supplied.
Equally, in Jahanian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 581, Justice Norris determind that this was a credibility concern:
Financial institution steadiness statements supplied; giant balances famous, no transaction historical past. I’ve issues that the property paperwork are for demonstration functions solely and are usually not reflective of the candidates [sic] respectable monetary sources.
One other Useful Abstract of this Precept
Bajwa v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship) accommodates one other useful abstract of the excellence between credibility and inadequate proof. There, Justice Russel wrote:
These phrases give rise to a well-recognized dispute within the jurisprudence as as to if the Visa Officer is questioning the credibility of the Candidates or just deciding that the proof will not be adequate to assist the standards that should be established with a view to qualify for the standing utilized for. Justice Kane supplied a abstract of the Court docket’s strategy to this concern in Ansari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 849:
If the priority is actually about credibility, the case regulation has established {that a} obligation of procedural equity could come up [Hassani]. Nevertheless, if the priority is concerning the sufficiency of proof, on condition that the applicant is clearly directed to offer an entire utility with supporting paperwork, no such obligation arises. Distinguishing between issues about sufficiency of proof and credibility will not be a easy job as each points could also be associated.
…
The case regulation has established that every case should be assessed to find out if the priority does actually relate to credibility. In a number of of the instances referred to, though the duties have been copied or paraphrased from the NOC, there have been further elements confirming that the priority of the officer was concerning the authenticity or veracity of the doc or the credibility of the writer of the doc. Merely utilizing the time period credibility will not be determinative of whether or not the priority is about credibility, although using the time period can’t be ignored.
Candidates usually discover it very obscure this distinction. They purpose that if their very own representations are usually not accepted then they don’t seem to be believed, so the officer involved should be questioning their credibility and this requires an interview or an enough alternative to handle credibility on grounds of procedural equity.
I believe the problem is finest defined in lay phrases by recognizing that candidates have a double obligation. To begin with, they’re underneath an obligation of candor to inform the reality and to not conceal related info. If an officer suspects that the obligation of candour will not be being met, then she or he should put the matter to the applicant and supply an inexpensive alternative – both in writing or in individual – for the applicant to handle the officer’s issues. The place misrepresentation or breach of the obligation of candor is the problem, then an utility is normally refused on the idea of misrepresentation and s 40 of the Act.
However candidates even have an obligation – over and above the obligation of candor – to assist their functions with documentation that confirms their positions. Documentation is required by the laws in all functions and a failure to offer enough documentation may end up in a refusal that isn’t based mostly upon credibility. If this weren’t the case, then all functions must be accepted upon their very own unsupported assertions. There shall be conditions the place documentation will not be out there and the Act makes enough allowances for this. Candidates are permitted to clarify why they can’t present paperwork which are required and/or anticipated of their specific conditions.
Within the current case, the therapy of the 2 letters from Mr. Singh needs to be learn within the context of the Resolution as an entire with a view to decide what the Visa Officer means by “happy.” Does she imply that the proof is insufficient to assist the appliance or does she imply that she questions the veracity of that proof when she says that “I’m not happy that the shopper is a bona fide employee underneath R 205 (D) or will go away after her licensed keep.”
In all work allow functions and extension functions, the officer has to determine on the proof whether or not the applicant is more likely to go away on the finish of the interval requested. And interviews and/or equity letters are usually not required in most conditions. Because the Respondent factors out, it’s usually not a procedural equity requirement that work allow candidates be granted a possibility to answer the issues of officers. Nevertheless, there have been conditions within the context of labor allow functions the place officers have been required for causes of procedural equity to hunt additional clarification for credibility issues specifically.
In Hamza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 264, the appliance was rejected on the idea that the work expertise letter mirrored the job duties of the NOC description, which the visa officer described as “self-serving.” Justice Bédard discovered that by stating the letter was self-serving, the officer was saying that she or he doubted the veracity of its content material. It was thus distinguished from Kaur, above, as a result of the applicant had supplied adequate proof and an obligation to offer the applicant a possibility to reply was discovered. The choice quoted Justice Snider in Perez Enriquez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1091:
The primary obligation raised by the Applicant is the obligation to hunt clarification. When an Applicant places his or her finest foot ahead by submitting full proof and a visa officer doubts that proof, the officer has an obligation to hunt clarification (Sandhu, above at paras 32-33). Though this obligation will not be triggered in conditions the place an applicant merely presents inadequate proof, it can come up if the officer entertains issues relating to the veracity of proof; for instance, if the officer questions the credibility, accuracy or real nature of the data supplied (Olorunshola, above at paras 32-35). On the info of this case, an obligation to make clear could have arisen however was discharged by the Officer’s inquiries to the Applicant in the course of the interview. There was no breach of equity.
The second obligation raised by the Applicant is an obligation to offer a possibility to reply. When an applicant submits data that, if accepted, helps the appliance, she or he ought to be given a possibility to answer the officer’s issues if the officer needs to decide based mostly on these issues (Kumar, above at paras 30-31). Procedural equity could require an interview; for instance, if a visa officer believes an applicant’s paperwork could also be fraudulent (Patel, above at paras 24-27). (…)
(some references omitted)
Justice Zinn’s resolution in Madadi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 716 at para 6 offers a succinct abstract:
The jurisprudence of this Court docket on procedural equity on this space is evident: The place an applicant offers proof adequate to ascertain that they meet the necessities of the Act or rules, because the case could also be, and the officer doubts the “credibility, accuracy or real nature of the data supplied” and needs to disclaim the appliance based mostly on these issues, the obligation of equity is invoked[.]
(references omitted)
H&C Functions
In Pierre v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1524, Justice Norris wrote:
In view of the restricted proof of multinational, on a strict sufficiency evaluation, the Officer might fairly have decided that this issue didn’t weigh closely within the applicant’s favour. As a substitute, the Officer assessed this proof as follows:
It ought to be famous that the applicant doesn’t clarify how her lease is paid or by whom. She doesn’t reveal via tangible documentary proof that she doesn’t obtain social help, and she or he doesn’t present proof that her relations assist her financially. She doesn’t reveal how she has supplied for herself and paid for her day-to-day dwelling bills over all these years. I draw a damaging inference from this.
It’s affordable to assume that renting lodging and paying routine prices and dwelling bills require a job. The applicant doesn’t dwell along with her kids or her sisters/brothers in Canada. It’s affordable to assume that if she will not be receiving social help, she will need to have undeclared employment or obtain another type of authorities help. She doesn’t clarify it on this utility and doesn’t corroborate her claims with tangible proof. I draw a damaging inference from this.
[16] I agree with the applicant that the Officer has made antagonistic findings relating to the credibility of her account of her financial circumstances. Whereas the Officer’s findings are couched when it comes to the absence of corroborative proof, express antagonistic credibility findings are usually not required to set off procedural equity issues: see Adeoye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 680 at para 8, and Hamza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 264 at para 30. It’s clear that the Officer disbelieved the applicant’s declare that she has not labored in Canada or obtained social help.
Type vs. Substance
In Sidhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1510, Justice Pentney discovered that an officer’s use of the time period “credible” doesn’t all the time imply that they made a credibility discovering, and that to carry in any other case could be “kind over substance.”
