Date: 20251114

Docket: IMM-23194-24

Citation: 2025 FC 1821

Ottawa, Ontario, November 14, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne

BETWEEN:

IBRAHIM ISSA

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant seeks judicial of a visa officer’s [the Officer] decision [the Decision] that refused his temporary resident visa application and found him inadmissible to enter Canada for a period of five years for misrepresentation pursuant to subsections 40(1) and (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

[2] The Applicant has met his burden of demonstrating that the Decision is unreasonable in light of the facts and the applicable law. His application is therefore granted for the reasons that follow.

I. Background

[3] The Applicant is a citizen of Lebanon. In January 2024, he submitted an application for a Canadian temporary resident visa to visit his brother in Canada. The application form completed by the Applicant includes question 2(b), which reads: “Have you ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry, or ordered to leave Canada or any other country or territory?”. The Applicant answered “No” to this question.

[4] On May 16, 2024, the Officer sent the Applicant a procedural fairness letter [the PFL] that identified concerns about the Applicant’s incomplete disclosure in his application, in particular, the failure to disclose all previous visa refusals.

[5] On May 26, 2024, the Applicant responded to the PFL by way of a letter with several documents attached. The Applicant described his travel history in the United States of America [the US] and stated that had not been refused a visa by the US. He also explained that he had been notified by the Non-immigrant Visa Section of the US Embassy Beirut on November 14, 2013, that the US State Department had “prudentially revoked” his F1 study visa on the basis of information that became available after his visa has been issued. He was requested to bring his passport to the US embassy for physical cancellation despite that he could still apply for another F1 study visa. The Applicant was pursuing a PhD in electrical and computer engineering at Cornell University in New York State at the time.

[6] The Applicant had sought clarification of what “prudentially revoked” meant in 2014. The Applicant received a response from the Director of Legal Affairs, Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs in the US State Department on September 15, 2014, that informed him that:

“[…] “prudential revocation” signifies that no inadmissibility determination was made at the time of revocation. We revoke prudentially when information comes to our attention after visa issuance that could lead to an inadmissibility finding. A final determination of inadmissibility would be made only after a new visa application is filed and the individual is interviewed.”

[7] The Applicant was not removed by the US immigration authorities despite the “prudential revocation” of his F1 study visa and he continued his studies until completion after which he voluntarily left the US. He left the US shortly before the expiry date of his original and prudentially revoked F1 study visa.

[8] The Applicant’s response to the PFL also disclosed that he believed that there was a difference between a “refusal” and a “revocation” of a visa based on his experience with US immigration forms. The Applicant noted that the US visa application included two separate questions regarding visa refusals and visa revocations, and that he had answered “no” to the visa refusals questions, and “yes” to the visa revocations questions in his US applications. The Applicant wrote that:

“To summarize, given my discussions with the lawyer at the time and the explanation we received from the US state department official saying “prudential revocation” does not mean inadmissibility, my understanding is that this is different from a visa refusal. Hence, I answered “no” to the statutory question in this visa application about previous visa refusals, denial of entry, and orders to leave a country or a territory, as to my understanding, none of these conditions apply to me.

Finally, I never had any issues with visas from any country other than the one described in this document with the US student visa.”

[9] The Officer received this information in a timely manner from the Applicant.

II. The Decision

[10] The Decision set out that the Officer determined that the Applicant’s application does not meet the requirements of the IRPA and was therefore refused. The Decision also found the Applicant inadmissible to Canada for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA. Further, the Applicant was found inadmissible to Canada for a period of five years pursuant to 40(2)(a) of the IRPA.

[11] The Global Case Management Notes that form part of the Decision (Seyedsalehi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1250, at para 19; Gebrewldi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 621, at para 29; Khowaja v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 823 at para 3; Kotanyan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 507 at para 26) set out in salient part as follows:

2024/05/15 : (ADM/info sharing)

A40 concerns - non disclosed adverse US visa refusal from 2018, after having

previously been in the USA.

The utterance of false declarations could have led to an error in the administration of

the Act, and therefore the PA may be inadmissible to Canada under A40.

PFL to be sent, verification activity completed, misrep started.

A40 PFL required.

2024/05/15 (ADM/Misrep)

For PFL:

You have failed to disclose complete answers in your statutory questions, namely, the failure to disclose all previous visa refusals, from all countries, including the USA. Explain why this information was not provided, and provide copies of documentation you have to support your response, which may include copies of refusal letters or other correspondence.

15 days to reply

2025/05/16 (ADM/Misrep)

A40 PFL sent in English via online correspondence channel. To comply by 2024/06/01.

2024/10/04: (ADM/Misrep)

Response to PFL reviewed.

PA confirms that their earlier visa for the USA was revoked - while they were still in the country completing their studies.

PA confirms that their subsequent visa application was later refused (after submitting current TRV application) - appears file was on hold pending extensive review by USA prior to contacting PA for updated purpose of travel in 2024 and visa being not issued.

As PA confirms that their visa was revoked by the USA - and given the adverse information noted in the info sharing, the PAs failure to disclose this is relevant and material to my assessment of their admissibility, and the failure to provide complete information upfront in the application could directly or indirectly impact that assessment and prevent the proper assessment of IRPA and the IRPR.

 

PA`s response has failed to alleviate my concerns, instead he has confirmed the circumstances of the visa revocation, which was not properly disclosed in the application.

As PA has not been truthful in application, not satisfied A16 met. Eligibility failed.

File referred to delegated officer for assessment of admissibility pursuant to A40.

2024/10/04 (AMD/Security)

Security screening cancelled as eligibility failed and file referred for assessment of misrepresentation.

2024/10/07 (ADM/Misrep)

Procedural fairness letter sent and response received and reviewed. Concerns related to misrepresentation were outlined in the letter sent to the applicant and they were provided an opportunity address the concerns identified. Overall I’m not satisfied that the applicant has adequately addressed concerns outlined in the procedural fairness letter in the submissions received.

Therefore, it appears that the applicant has provided information that has directly misrepresented material facts, related to a relevant matter, that could have induced an error in the administration of this Act. Subsequently, I am not satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible to Canada as they are inadmissible to Canada under A40 of IRPA.

III. Issue

[12] The issue before the Court is whether the Decision is reasonable.

IV. The Standard of Review

[13] The parties agreed, and I with them, that the standard of review with respect to the Officer’s misrepresentation finding is reasonableness (Li v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 87 at para 9; Bains v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 57 at para 49).

[14] In conducting a reasonableness review, a court must consider the outcome of the administrative decision in light of its underlying rationale in order to ensure that the decision as a whole is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 15 [Vavilov]).

[15] The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable, and the court must be satisfied that any shortcomings or flaws are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at paras 83-84, 100; Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 at para 49 [Pepa]).

[16] A reviewing court may intervene if the decision is unreasonable due to not being “justified in light of the facts” or when “the decision maker has fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it” (Vavilov at para 126). On reasonableness review, a court must not substitute its own view, but instead assess only whether the administrative decision, including its rationale and outcome, was unreasonable (Pepa at para 48).

V. The Legal Framework regarding misrepresentation pursuant to the section 40 of the IRPA

[17] Sections 11, 16 and 40 of the IRPA set out the general legal framework with respect to matters of misrepresentation pursuant to the IPRA. Those sections read as follow:

 

[18] Our jurisprudence has interpreted these provisions on a number of occasions.

[19] Subsection 11(1) of the IRPA has been interpreted to mean that a visa issues only if an officer is satisfied the applicant meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements (J.P. v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 FCA 262 at para 14; Sidhu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 169 at para 17 [Sidhu]).

[20] Subsection 16(1) of the IRPA explicitly imposes a duty of candour upon an applicant wherein persons who seek to enter into or remain in Canada must provide true, correct, and complete information (Bodine v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 848 at paras 41-42, 44; Sidhu at para 17).

[21] An inadmissibility finding cannot be made pursuant to section 40(1)(a) of the IRPA unless the officer determining the matter is satisfied that (1) a direct or indirect misrepresentation was made by the applicant; (2) the misrepresentation concerns material facts relating to a relevant matter; and (3) the misrepresentation induces or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA (Mohseni v Canada (MCI), 2018 FC 795 at paras 39-41 [Mohseni].

[22] My colleague Mr. Justice Denis Gascon has helpfully summarized the general principles arising from our jurisprudence that considered the scope and application of section 40(1)(a) IRPA as follows in Kazzi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 153, at para 38 as follows:

[38] Turning now to the case law, the general principles arising out of this Court’s jurisprudence on paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA have been well summarized by Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer in Sayedi at paras 23-27, by Madame Justice Strickland in Goburdhun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 971 [Goburdhun] at para 28 and by Mr. Justice Gleeson in Brar at paras 11-12. The key elements flowing from those decisions and that are of particular relevance in the context of this application can be synthetized as follows: (1) the provision should receive a broad interpretation in order to promote its underlying purpose; (2) its objective is to deter misrepresentation and maintain the integrity of the Canadian immigration process; (3) any exception to this general rule is narrow and applies only to truly extraordinary circumstances; (4) an applicant has the onus and a continuing duty of candour to provide complete, accurate, honest and truthful information when applying for entry into Canada; (5) regard must be had for the wording of the provision and its underlying purpose in determining whether a misrepresentation is material; (6) a misrepresentation is material if it is important enough to affect the immigration process; (7) a misrepresentation need not be decisive or determinative to be material; (8) an applicant may not take advantage of the fact that the misrepresentation is caught by the immigration authorities before the final assessment of the application; (9) the materiality analysis is not limited to a particular point in time in the processing of the application; and (10) the assessment of whether a misrepresentation could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA is to be made at the time the false statement was made.

[23] My colleague Madam Justice Angela Furlanetto summarized the legal framework of misrepresentation in Munoz Gallardo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1304 at paragraphs 17-19 [Gallardo] as follows:

[17] Paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA provides that a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation where they withhold material facts that could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA. The facts must be material for there to be a misrepresentation and there must be clear and convincing evidence that an applicant, on a balance of probabilities, has withheld material facts for a finding of misrepresentation to be made: Chughtai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 416 at para 29.

[18] Paragraph 40(1)(a) is to be given a broad and robust interpretation: Kazzi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 153 at para 38 [Kazzi]; Oloumi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 428 [Oloumi] at para 23. The purpose of paragraph 40(1)(a) is to preserve the integrity of the immigration process and ensure that applicants provide complete, honest, and truthful information when seeking to enter Canada: Kazzi at para 38; Bodine v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 848 at para 41.

[19] In extraordinary circumstances, a narrow exception to a misrepresentation finding under paragraph 40(1)(a) may apply where an applicant is able to show that they honestly and reasonably believed that they were not withholding material information: Kazzi at para 38; Goburdhun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 971 [Goburdhun] at para 31; Medel v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 FC 345, [1990] FCJ No 318 (QL) (FCA). In Alkhaldi at paragraph 19, this was described as involving a subjective test, where the decision-maker asks, whether the person honestly believed that he was not making a misrepresentation; and an objective test, where the decision-maker asks whether it was reasonable on the facts that the person believed that he was not making a misrepresentation.

[24] The purpose of section 40 of the IRPA is to ensure that applicants provide complete, honest, and truthful information in every manner when applying for entry to Canada, to preserve the integrity of the Canadian immigration process, to deter misrepresentation, and to curb abuse (Zolfagharian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1455 at para 21; Sbayti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1296 at para 25). Paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA renders a foreign national inadmissible where the person directly or indirectly misrepresents or withholds material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA. In making a section 40 finding, there is no obligation for the Respondent to show that the Applicant’s misrepresentation was intentional, deliberate, or negligent (Oloumi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 428 at 51).

VI. The Applicant’s Submissions

[25] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable because the Officer failed to consider material evidence, made mistakes of facts, and omitted the required materiality analysis.

[26] The Applicant submits that the Officer did not fully consider evidence that was before them. The Applicant argues that the Decision cites none of the submitted materials, gives no reason for the negative outcome, and raises no credibility concerns, all of which support the conclusion that the evidence submitted was not considered. The Applicant argues that his response to the PFL enclosed communications with US authorities confirmed that a “prudential revocation” is distinct from a refusal and that he maintained a lawful status in the US until August 2017. Further, the Applicant argues, his explanation was enough for the Officer to understand what a prudential revocation is.

[27] The Applicant also submits that the Officer made a material factual error by asserting that the Applicant’s subsequent US visa application was refused when it in fact was not. The Applicant argues that he never stated that any refusal occurred and provided correspondence showing the US authority’s request for updated information to continue processing his visa application and his own reply which discontinued that application. The Applicant asserts that unless the Respondent can point to reliable evidence of an actual refusal, the record shows no refusal and therefore that there was no non-disclosure of a refusal.

[28] The Applicant submits that the Officer conflated the words “revocation” and “refusal”. He argues that question 2(b) of the Canadian visa application form refers to refusals, orders to leave a country, and inadmissibility, and does not refer to revocations. The Applicant further submits that the prudential revocation concerned potential re-entry to the US while he remained in status; it did not constitute a past refusal or a finding of inadmissibility. He argues that answering “no” to question 2(b) was accurate on these facts, and thus no misrepresentation is present in the file.

[29] The Applicant submits that the Officer failed to conduct the required materiality analysis for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. The Applicant asserts that this Court has consistently required a clear and convincing basis for materiality and reasons that demonstrate why the impugned information mattered to the outcome, but no such analysis appears in the Decision.

[30] The Applicant further submits that heightened procedural fairness attaches to misrepresentation findings given the severe consequence of a five-year bar that arises pursuant to paragraph 40(2) of the IRPA.

[31] The Applicant submits that the Officer’s boilerplate references to adverse information, without identifying the material fact or engaging with the record, cannot sustain the decision.

[32] The Applicant seeks costs, submitting that decisions of this nature, which disregard the record and omit required analysis, impose unnecessary burdens on applicants and this Court, and should be discouraged.

VII. The Respondent’s Submissions

[33] The Respondent submits that the Officer reasonably found inadmissibility for misrepresentation because the Applicant failed to disclose the revocation of his US visa, a material fact under section 40 of the IRPA. The Respondent argues that the Decision is internally coherent, transparent, intelligible, and justified on the record such that this application should be dismissed.

[34] The Respondent submits that foreign nationals have no unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada and that the onus is on the foreign national to satisfy an officer with clear and cogent evidence that the statutory criteria are met, failing which the person is inadmissible. The Respondent also asserts that paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA is drafted broadly, and that inadmissibility for misrepresentation occurs when: 1) a misrepresentation has been made; and 2) the misrepresentation is material in that it could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA (Alkhaldi v Canada (MCI), 2019 FC 584 at para 19; Canada (MCI) v Robinson, 2018 FC 159 at para 6).

[35] The Respondent asserts that materiality does not require that the misrepresentation be decisive, only that it be important enough to affect the process, assessed in light of section 40 and its purposes, while not being confined to any single point in processing (Wang v. Canada (MCI), 2020 FC 262 at paras 15-16; Mohseni v Canada (MCI), 2018 FC 795 at paras 39-41, 46-47).

[36] The Respondent argues that the Applicant does not dispute his non-disclosure of the U.S. visa revocation in the application form. The Respondent submits that question 2(b) is clearly worded to determine whether the Applicant has been denied entry or ordered to leave any country and that a visa cancellation or revocation can constitute a denial of entry, which the Applicant had a duty to disclose, regardless of whether he physically left the U.S. at the time of revocation.

[37] The Respondent argues that the contention that the Officer ignored evidence is unfounded because the Officer was not obliged to mention every piece of evidence and the GCMS notes show the Officer considered the facts, reviewed both the revocation and the later U.S. visa application, and found the Applicant’s explanation insufficient (Florea v Canada (MEI), 1993 FCJ No 598 at para 1 (FCA); Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at para 16). The Respondent argues the US visa revocation was material because past visa outcomes are relevant to admissibility and may prompt additional inquiries. The Respondent submits that the Officer reasonably concluded that the Applicant’s failure to disclose the revocation of his F1 study visa could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA.

[38] The Respondent argues that the Officer expressly addressed the materiality of the non-disclosure by finding that the Applicant directly misrepresented material facts on a relevant matter that could have induced an error, and that no further analysis was required. The Respondent submits that the Applicant had a reasonable opportunity through the procedural fairness process to address the concerns but did not dispel them.

[39] Finally, the Respondent asserts that the Applicant repeats his reply to the PFL to this Court effectively seeking a reconsideration of the merits without showing how the Decision unreasonable. The Respondent argues that it is not the Court’s role on judicial review to reweigh evidence or substitute its discretion for the Officer’s.

VIII. Analysis

[40] The Decision and the GCMS notes reflect a series of events that must be appreciated in chronological order to determine the whether the Decision was reasonable.

[41] The Applicant completed his online visa application on January 23, 2024. The Applicant answered “no” to the following question: “Have you ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry to, or ordered to leave any country or territory?”

[42] The Officer received information regarding the Applicant and a visa request he had made in 2018. On May 15, 2024, the Officer noted as follows in the GCMS notes:

“A40 concerns – non disclosed adverse US visa refusal from 2018. The utterance of false declarations could have led to an error in the administration of the Act, and therefore the PA may be inadmissible in Canada under A 40. PFL to be sent, verification activity completed, misrep started.”

[43] The Officer’s remarks regarding an “adverse USA visa refusal from 2018” are the trigger that led to the issue of the PFL and to the Applicant’s response in which he spoke of the “prudential revocation” of his F1 student visa in 2014.

[44] The record before the Court reflects that the Applicant’s 2018 visa application was neither granted nor refused by the US authorities. Rather, his visa application was being processed by US authorities for approximately 6 years. The evidence is contained in the Applicant’s response to the PFL and in the documents he attached to it. The Applicant’s narrative in his PFL response is as follows:

“On April 6, 2018 (while I was a postdoc in Switzerland), I applied to enter the US again as a visitor to attend a conference [original link removed by this Court].

– I would like to note that the US visa application includes two separate questions regarding visa refusals and visa revocations. As such, I answered “no” to any visa refusals, and “yes” to any visa revocations, in my US visa application.

The time of the conference passed without hearing back from the embassy. Surprisingly, I only heard back on February 14, 2024. The US embassy (in Bern) requested a new purpose for travel to continue processing my application. As I did not have any travel plans to the US, I replied that I am currently not interested (email attached on pages 10-11).”

[45] The documentation the Applicant provided from the US Embassy’s visa section reflects that the US Embassy requested “new purpose of travel, dates and destination”. The documentation from the US Embassy also reads:

“If the purpose of travel has changed, and you will be traveling for a conference or business, please also submit a new letter of invitation along with the conference agenda.

We will continue processing your case once we receive the information requested above.

If you do not have a new purpose of travel to the United States, please let us know and your case will be administratively closed. You are welcome to reapply in the future when your travel needs change.”

(the emphasis is mine)

[46] The evidence in the record does not suggest the reason for the US authorities’ delay in processing the Applicant’s 2018 visa application.

[47] The Respondent does not challenge this evidence and there is no contrary evidence in the record. Rather, the Respondent argued during the hearing that the passage of time between the Applicant’s application in 2018 and the US Embassy’s response to the Applicant in 2024 is tantamount to a refusal of the Applicant’s 2018 visa application. The Court cannot agree.

[48] While it may be tempting to use the passage of time as a substitute for a visa refusal decision, an actual decision refusing a visa application is required before one can find that a visa application was refused. The absence of a refusal decision reflects only that a decision to accept or reject the application has not been made.

[49] The discovery of information that delays a decision to grant or refuse a visa application by a foreign authority may be relevant and may lead to a finding a misrepresentation, but the mere passage of time and a lengthy application processing delay without greater detail as to the reasons behind the delay, in my view, cannot. I must reject the Defendant’s argument in this regard.

[50] The Officer concluded in their GCMS notes notwithstanding the information and evidence contained in the Applicant’s response to the PFL that:

“PA confirms that their subsequent visa application was later refused (after submitting current TRV application) - appears file was on hold pending extensive review by USA prior to contacting PA for updated purpose of travel in 2024 and visa being not issued.”

(the emphasis is mine)

[51] The Officer’s initial assessment of the Applicant’s application that led to the issue of the PFL – that he had failed to disclose an adverse finding regarding his 2018 US visa application – is factually incorrect as the record shows. It follows that the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant failed to disclose a visa refusal in his application in connection with his 2018 visa application to the US is factually unsupported, unjustified, and unreasonable.

[52] This does not end the matter. The Applicant’s response to the PFL raised another potential misrepresentation with respect to a matter that had not been identified by the Officer prior to the PFL and had not been identified as an issue in the PFL: the matter of the 2014 prudential revocation of the Applicant’s F1 study visa.

[53] The PFL set out that the Officer was seeking information from the Applicant as follows:

“I have concerns that you have not fulfilled the requirement put upon you by subsection 16(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which states:

16(1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonable requires.

Specifically, I have concerns that you have failed to disclose complete answers in your statutory questions, namely the failure to disclose all previous visa refusals, from all countries, including the USA. Explain why this information was not provided, and provide copies of documentation you have to support your response, which may include copies of refusal letters or other correspondence.”

[54] The Applicant responded to the PFL and provided information with respect to the 2014 prudential revocation of his F1 study visa in addition to information regarding the situation regarding his 2018 visa application. Information regarding the 2014 prudential revocation of the Applicant’s 2014 F1 study visa had not been asked for or identified in the PFL. With this new information in hand, the Officer noted as follows in their GCMS notes:

“PA confirms that their earlier visa for the USA was revoked - while they were still in the country completing their studies.

PA confirms that their subsequent visa application was later refused (after submitting current TRV application) - appears file was on hold pending extensive review by USA prior to contacting PA for updated purpose of travel in 2024 and visa being not issued.

As PA confirms that their visa was revoked by the USA - and given the adverse information noted in the info sharing, the PAs failure to disclose this is relevant and material to my assessment of their admissibility, and the failure to provide complete information upfront in the application could directly or indirectly impact that assessment and prevent the proper assessment of IRPA and the IRPR.”

[55] There are a number of unjustified assertions of fact in these notes.

[56] While it is correct that the Applicant confirmed that his earlier study visa had been revoked, it is incorrect for the Officer to conclude that the Applicant had failed to “provide complete information upfront in the application” by not mentioning the 2014 prudential revocation of his visa in his visa application. The matter of his visa revocation was not raised in the PFL by the Officer. More importantly for the purposes of this proceeding, the matter of any past visa revocation was omitted from the online visa application form which limited its question to a) the refusal of a visa or permit; b) denial of entry into a country; and c) being ordered to leave any country or territory. There is no question in the visa application that asked the Applicant any questions regarding a past visa revocation, prudential or otherwise.

[57] The Officer concluded that his concerns were not alleviated because the Applicant “confirmed the circumstances of the visa revocation, which was not properly disclosed in the application”. The record does not support the Officer’s conclusion that the visa revocation was not properly disclosed in the online application completed by the Applicant. The Applicant answered the question that was asked in the visa application in light of its plain language that did not refer to or suggest any past visa revocation. Words used in an application form matter. If revocation was a matter to be disclosed, then the form could have used the word “revocation” in its prompting questions. It did not.

[58] The Application complied with section 16(1) of the IRPA. The Officer was therefore unjustified in coming to a negative conclusion regarding the Applicant’s failure to disclose something that was not asked of him through the visa application form.

[59] It was also unreasonable for the Officer to omit grappling with the difference, if any, between a “prudential revocation” and a “revocation” of a visa. The “prudential revocation” was explained in the Applicant’s evidence as constituting a revocation of a visa after its issuance due to information coming to the issuer’s attention that could lead to an inadmissibility finding. “Prudential revocation” was also explained as signifying that no inadmissibility finding was made at the time of revocation. Finally, the Applicant’s evidence was that a final determination on inadmissibility following a “prudential revocation” would only be made after a new visa application was filed and the individual was interviewed.

[60] There is no evidence in the record that the Applicant was found inadmissible to the US, and no evidence as to what information had triggered the US to “prudentially revoke” the Applicants’ F1 study visa while taking no steps to remove him. The Applicant’s evidence was set out in part in an email from the Director of Legal Affairs, Visa Officer, Bureau of Consular Affairs, US Department of State. The Officer’s failure to grapple with this information from a US state authority source reflects that their reasoning and conclusions are unjustified and unreasonable.

[61] The Officer’s reasoning that a failure to disclose a matter that had not been asked for, combined with their factual error in determining that a visa had been refused when it had not, undermines the Officer’s rationale and decision because the basis of the reasoning and decision is neither rational nor justified by the evidence in the record.

[62] The Officer’s conclusion that their “concerns related to misrepresentation […] outlined in the letter sent to the applicant” were not adequately addressed in the Applicant’s response to the PFL is unjustified because there was no misrepresentation by the Applicant, only an unsupported conclusion of fact by the Officer.

[63] Similarly, the Officer’s conclusion that “it appears that the applicant has provided information that has directly misrepresented material facts, related to a relevant matter, that could have induced an error in the administration of this Act” is equally unjustified and untenable because it proceeds on the basis of the Officer’s own errors of fact.

[64] Once these errors of fact are appreciated, it is plain that the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant is inadmissible pursuant to section 40(1)(a) of the IRPA is unjustified because the Applicant did not, based on the record before the Court, .directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA

[65] I acknowledge that previous decisions of this court have held that a failure to disclose a visa cancellation constitutes a misrepresentation when the visa was included in the copy of the applicant’s passport submitted in connection with an application and was intended to be relied upon (Tuiran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 324), or when a visa issued by a foreign authority was revoked by the authority for misrepresentation under that authority’s immigration regime (Quach v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 855, at para 6). Those decisions turn on their own facts and those facts are quite different from the facts of this matter. Those decision must therefore be distinguished as they do not apply here.

[66] The Applicant has established that the Decision is unjustified and is unreasonable. His application will therefore be granted.

[67] Neither party suggested that there is any question arising out of this proceeding to be certified pursuant to section 79 of the IRPA. The Court agrees.

IX. Costs

[68] The Applicant has sought his costs of his application. The Defendant argues that a costs award is not warranted on the facts of this proceeding. Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/2002-227, provides that the Court may only award costs for “special reasons”.

[69] The Court strongly encourages the parties to this motion to confer and attempt to agree on the costs of this motion and of the action prior to November 24, 2025. If the parties agree on costs by then, they may deliver a letter on consent to the Court to my attention that sets out their agreement as to costs. If the Court considers such costs appropriate, a subsequent order as to costs consistent with the agreement will be issued.

[70] In the event that the parties do not agree on costs, then the Applicant shall have until November 26, 2025, to serve and file costs submissions that do not exceed three pages, double-spaced, exclusive of schedules, appendices, and authorities. The Defendant will then have until December 5, 2025, to serve and file its costs submissions, also limited to three pages, double-spaced, exclusive of schedules, appendices, and authorities.

[71] If no agreement as to costs is filed by November 24, 2025, and no costs submissions are served and filed by November 26, 2025, then no costs will be awarded to any party for this motion or action.

 

JUDGMENT in IMM-23194-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The Applicant’s application for judicial review is granted.

2. The decision dated October 14, 2024, that rejected the Applicant’s application and found the Applicant inadmissible to Canada for a period of five years pursuant to subsection 40(2)(a) of the IRPA, is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. This Applicant’s application shall be forthwith remitted to a different decision maker to be considered and determined afresh in light of the reasons set out in this judgment.

4. There is no question to be certified pursuant to section 79 of the IRPA.

5. The matter of costs is reserved to be determined in accordance with the terms of this judgment.

“Benoit M. Duchesne”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	IMM-23194-24
STYLE OF CAUSE:	IBRAHIM ISSA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:	montréal, québec
DATE OF HEARING:	october 23, 2025
judgment AND REASONS:	duchesne, j.
DATED:	november 14, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Angela Potvin	For The Applicant
Andrea Shahin	For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Serv IMM Montréal, Québec	For The Applicant
Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Québec	For The Respondent