The Federal Court dismissed a Visitor Visa Misrepresentation Disclosure challenge after finding that Samira Rafiee had not shown how additional information from IRCC could have changed her response to a concern about a fraudulent bank document. The October 21, 2026 decision left in place the refusal of her visitor visa application and the finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation.
Visitor visa refusal and misrepresentation finding
In Fafiee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1287, Madam Justice Sadrehashemi reviewed the refusal of Ms. Rafiee’s application to visit her husband in Canada, where he was living on a work permit.
The application included an Iranian bank statement dated May 8, 2024, showing a Canadian-equivalent balance of $31,957. IRCC asked the bank directly to verify the document, and a bank representative replied that the statement was “NOT GENUINE.”
After receiving a procedural fairness letter, Ms. Rafiee responded within three days, denied submitting a fraudulent document and provided a new bank statement and three months of transactions. A Minister’s Delegate later refused the application and found her inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The fairness issue before the Court
The judicial review concerned procedural fairness, not the reasonableness of the misrepresentation finding. Ms. Rafiee had initially raised arguments about an alleged innocent mistake and the materiality of the information, but abandoned those arguments. Her sole issue was whether IRCC should have provided the materials sent to the bank and the bank’s response together with the procedural fairness letter.
Justice Sadrehashemi noted that fairness claims are assessed by asking whether the procedure was fair in all the circumstances, rather than under the presumptive reasonableness standard of review.
The Court also noted the serious consequences of a misrepresentation finding. Under the provisions cited in the decision, it results in a five-year period of inadmissibility, during which a person cannot apply for permanent residence and requires Ministerial permission to enter Canada.
Why additional disclosure did not change the result
Following the refusal, Ms. Rafiee sought reconsideration and complained to the regulator of immigration consultants. In those materials, she alleged that a consultant who had assisted with the application altered the bank document without her knowledge. She also alleged that the consultant had sole access to her IRCC portal and may not have told her about the procedural fairness letter.
The Court observed that the bank document Ms. Rafiee said she had sent to the consultant had the same date and file number as the document under review, but a substantially different closing balance: $4,510 rather than $31,957. The Court did not resolve discrepancies in the evidence about whether she had been informed of the procedural fairness letter.
Instead, the Court found that, even setting those issues aside, Ms. Rafiee had not demonstrated how receiving the additional bank-verification materials would have affected her response to IRCC’s concern. Justice Sadrehashemi stated that the central concern appeared to be the competence of the consultant, but no incompetence-of-counsel claim had been raised in this judicial review.
Application dismissed and no question certified
The Court found no procedural fairness breach and dismissed the application for judicial review. It did not decide whether additional disclosure would generally have been required in other circumstances, because the applicant had not established a possible different outcome on the facts of this case.
The respondent had proposed a question for certification concerning disclosure requirements in these circumstances. The Court declined to certify it because, given its fact-specific conclusion, an answer would not have been determinative of an appeal.
The decision is limited to its particular record. It does not decide a general disclosure standard for all misrepresentation cases, but illustrates the importance of showing how an alleged procedural shortcoming could have materially affected an applicant’s opportunity to respond.
Source: Federal Court Decisions