Appendix B – A40
A permanent resident or a foreign national becomes inadmissible for misrepresentation if the individual:
- Directly or indirectly misrepresents or withholds material facts concerning a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
- Has been sponsored by a person the authorities consider as inadmissible for misrepresentation
- Receives a final determination for vacating a decision that allows the individual’s claim for refugee protection or application for protection or,
- Ceases to be a citizen under paragraph 10 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances specified in subsection 10 (2) of the Citizenship Act
After the authorities deem a person inadmissible for misrepresentation, the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to remain inadmissible for misrepresentation. This will be valid for a period of five years following:
- A final determination of inadmissibility (in the case of a determination outside Canada) or,
- The date of enforcement of the removal order (in the case of a determination within Canada)
In addition, it is worth noting that the following clause mentioned above does not apply, unless the Minister expresses satisfaction that the facts of the case justify the inadmissibility:
- The individual has been sponsored by a person the authorities consider as inadmissible for misrepresentation
Therefore, a foreign national found inadmissible under this section will not be able to apply for permanent resident status until the five-year period of debarment ends.
Source: Citizenship and Immigration
2015-02-12 | 2015 FC 172 | IMM-5323-13
Barua v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
- A foreign national applying for a work permit with the intention of eventually becoming a permanent resident can be validly excluded from Canada if it seems likely that he will not leave Canada upon the expiration of his work permit.
- A foreign national applying for a work permit with the intention of eventually becoming a permanent resident will be subject to s. 20(1)(1) of the IRPA
Barua sought judicial review of a border service officer’s order that he be excluded from Canada.
Barua, a foreign national, applied for a work permit. During his interview with a border service officer, Barua stated an intention to eventually become a permanent resident of Canada. The officer subsequently ordered that Barua be excluded from Canada.
The officer argued that Barua had violated s. 20(1)(a) of the IRPA, which states that any foreign national who seeks to enter Canada to become a permanent resident must hold either a permanent residency visa or other documents required by regulation. Barua did not possess said documents at the time of his interview.
Barua argued that the officer did not consider s. 22(2) of the IRPA, which states that a foreign national’s intention to become a permanent resident does not preclude him from applying for temporary residency if it is clear he will leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.
The court confirmed the border service officer’s decision, as there was no evidence that Barua intended to leave Canada upon the expiration of his work permit. The court also found Barua to have violated s. 20(1)(a) of the IRPA as he did not possess the requisite permanent residency application documents at the time of his interview. The application for judicial review was dismissed.