Kumar v. M.C.I. 2023 FC 1512
Mr. Kumar had come to visit his daughter in Canada. The day after he arrived in Canada, he called on a business in Ontario that had offered him a job several months prior. He wanted to confirm that their offer to him was still open. The business confirmed that it was and advised him that he could apply for a work permit at the U.S./Canada border.
Mr. Kumar visited with his daughter for a few weeks and then, after having the necessary documents couriered to him from his home in India, went to the border and applied for a work permit.
The border officer processing his work permit application found that Mr. Kumar had misrepresented his true intention for coming to Canada: it was not to visit his daughter, but rather to work in Canada. The officer therefore refused his work permit application on the basis of the misrepresentation, thereby potentially banning him from Canada for 5 years if the officer’s finding would be upheld by the Immigration Division at an Admissibility Hearing.
Mr. Kumar hired Eastman Law Office to represent him at his Admissibility Hearing, to challenge the officer’s refusal decision and have the 5 years ban overturned.
Eastman Law Office successfully represented Mr. Kumar at his Admissibility Hearing. The Immigration Division quashed the border officer’s refusal decision.
The Minister, however, appealed the Immigration Division’s decision to overturn the officer’s refusal decision to the Immigration Appeal Division.
The Immigration Appeal Division overturned the Immigration Division’s decision and reinstated the border officer’s refusal decision based on a finding of misrepresentation.
Eastman Law Office, on behalf of Mr. Kumar, filed an Application for Leave and Judicial Review in the Federal Court of Canada seeking judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision.
The Federal Court agreed with Eastman Law Office’s arguments that the border officer had made a legal error in arriving at his misrepresentation finding. The court therefore ruled in Mr. Kumar’s favour and quashed the border officer’s refusal decision and 5 years ban.
Download