Skip to content
+92 3350001111

Canada · Refusals and findings

Misrepresentation is the one finding you should never handle alone

A finding under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act carries a period of inadmissibility. It can arise from something an agent did in your name. This page explains what the provision is — and then tells you to stop reading and speak to a licensed representative.

Speak to someone licensed

This is not a page to act on by yourself

If you have received a letter raising a concern about the truth or completeness of your application, or a decision that refers to misrepresentation, that is the point to obtain representation from someone licensed to give Canadian immigration advice — a member in good standing of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, or a lawyer entitled to practise in a Canadian province or territory.

We do not publish model answers, template explanations or strategy for these letters. That is deliberate. The response often shapes the outcome, the deadline is set out in the letter itself, and a well-intentioned self-drafted reply can close options that a licensed representative would have kept open. If your matter is at that stage, book a consultation rather than reading further and acting on it.

The provision, plainly

What section 40 actually covers

Four elements do all the work, and each one is wider than most applicants expect.

The conduct

Misrepresenting or withholding

The provision covers both an untrue statement and the omission of something that should have been disclosed. Silence is capable of being misrepresentation.

The route

Directly or indirectly

The words “directly or indirectly” are the reason an agent’s conduct in your name can be attributed to your application. It does not have to have come from your own hand.

The subject matter

Material facts

The fact must be material — it must matter to a relevant matter in the application. Materiality is assessed by the decision-maker, not by the applicant, and it is broader than most people assume.

The effect

Could induce an error

The test reaches conduct that could induce an error in the administration of the Act. An officer catching the problem does not remove the concern — the risk of error is what the provision targets.

Section 40 also reaches situations beyond a person’s own statements — including having been sponsored by someone found inadmissible for misrepresentation, a final determination vacating a refugee decision, and loss of citizenship in specified circumstances. The full wording, and the periods and restrictions attached to it, are set out in the Act itself. Read the section rather than a summary of it — including ours.

How people arrive here

The situations that produce these findings

Very few of the people who reach us set out to deceive anyone. That is the point of the section below.

  1. 1

    An agent files in your name

    Forms completed, employment history inflated, or an address and travel history adjusted by someone acting for you. The application bears your signature and your declaration.

  2. 2

    A document you did not create

    An experience letter, bank statement, offer letter or enrolment letter arranged by a third party. Supporting documents may be verified with the issuer, and the document is submitted as part of your application.

  3. 3

    An earlier refusal not disclosed

    A prior refusal or visa application to any country, omitted because someone advised that it “would only hurt the case”. The omission is the problem, not the refusal.

  4. 4

    A relationship or dependant not declared

    A spouse, a child, or a change in marital status left out of a form — sometimes on advice, sometimes because a form was completed for the applicant.

  5. 5

    Something true when filed, not updated

    Circumstances change while an application is pending. Whether a duty to update applies depends on the situation, and this is a common route into a fairness letter.

  6. 6

    Copy-forward across applications

    An answer given in one application that does not match an answer given in another. Prior applications are held on record, and an inconsistency between them is one of the things that can prompt a closer look.

Why the agent question matters so much

“Directly or indirectly” is the whole problem

When an application is filed, it carries a declaration that the information in it is truthful, complete and correct. If an unlicensed agent completes your forms, improves your employment history, produces a supporting document, or answers a question in a way you never saw, the application still went in under your name and your declaration.

The provision covers misrepresentation made directly or indirectly. That wording exists precisely so that responsibility cannot be moved onto a third party by handing the file to them. In practice the agent is untraceable by the time a letter arrives, has no regulator, and bears none of the consequence. You bear all of it.

This is the honest reason to care whether your representative is licensed. A member of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants or a Canadian lawyer is on a public register, is subject to a complaints and discipline process, and can be sanctioned for the conduct that produces these findings. That is not a guarantee of good behaviour — it is a guarantee that there is somewhere to complain. Someone operating outside that system is accountable to no one, and the file is in your name.

The related consequence is that you should personally read every form before it is submitted, and keep your own copy of what was filed. If a representative will not show you the complete application before signing, that alone is a reason to stop.

Before a decision is made

Procedural fairness letters exist — and they are time-limited

Canadian decision-making includes a duty of fairness. Where an officer holds a concern that could lead to a finding against you, they may put that concern to you in writing and give you an opportunity to respond before deciding. That letter is not a decision. It is the opportunity that precedes one.

Two things follow from that, and only two, because the rest is not ours to publish. The first is that the window is short and it is real — missing it generally means the decision is made without your side of it. The second is that what goes into the response is legal work, on your specific facts, and a well-meaning reply written at speed can make the position worse rather than better.

We will not set out here what such a response should contain, what to concede, what to explain, or what evidence to attach. Any page that offers you that is offering legal advice about a case it has never seen. Take the letter, with your full application file, to a licensed representative.

Being honest about fit

Who this page does not help

If you want a shortcut, we are the wrong firm

This page does not help anyone looking for a way to have a finding removed, reduced or overlooked. There is no such service, and any offer of one is the same category of conduct that caused the problem in the first place.

It also does not suit anyone who wants to file again quickly and say nothing about what happened. A new application inconsistent with your own record compounds the issue rather than resolving it. And it does not suit anyone who wants us to confirm that an honest mistake ends the matter — it may be highly relevant, but it is not a switch that turns the provision off, and we will not tell you otherwise to make a call easier.

What we can do is look at what was actually filed, tell you plainly what stage you are at, and help you get it in front of the right licensed person. We cannot promise an outcome, and we publish a no-guarantee policy saying so. If you are still at the stage of understanding an ordinary refusal rather than a finding, start with the officer’s own notes instead.

Where the authority lives

Read it at the source

We do not publish the length of the inadmissibility period, the deadline on a fairness letter, or any figure attached to this subject. Those things are set out in the legislation and in the correspondence you receive, and a number remembered from a website is exactly how people miss a window that mattered.

The provision is section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Immigration consultants are regulated by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, whose public register lets you check whether anyone advising you is licensed at all. Check it before you hand over documents, not after.

If your matter has not reached this stage and you are simply working out why an application was refused, our pages on reconsideration, judicial review and re-applying set out the general shape of those routes.

Straight answers

The questions people actually ask

What is misrepresentation under Canadian immigration law?
Section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act makes a person inadmissible for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter, where doing so induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Act. The provision is short, and it is broad. The wording is published in full on the Justice Canada site and is the only text worth relying on.
I did not lie — my agent did. Does that protect me?
Not automatically. The provision reaches misrepresentation made directly or indirectly, and the application was submitted in your name with your declaration attached. This is the single most important reason not to use an unlicensed agent: their conduct can attach to you, and they carry none of the consequence. If this has happened, it is a matter for a licensed representative, not for a self-drafted explanation.
It was an honest mistake. Is that a defence?
Innocence is not an automatic answer. The provision is not written around intent, and applicants have been found inadmissible without any finding of deliberate deception. Canadian courts have recognised a narrow exception in genuinely exceptional circumstances, but it is narrow, it is fact-specific, and whether it could apply to your situation is a legal assessment — not something to conclude from a web page.
What is a procedural fairness letter?
Where an officer has a concern that could lead to a refusal or a finding against you, they may write to you setting out the concern and inviting a response before deciding. It is a real and meaningful opportunity, and it is time-limited. We deliberately do not publish guidance on how to answer one, because the content of that response can materially affect the outcome and depends entirely on your own facts. Take it to a licensed representative immediately, and work to the deadline stated in the letter itself rather than any period you have read elsewhere.
How long does inadmissibility last?
The Act sets a period of inadmissibility, and for a foreign national it also restricts applying for permanent resident status during that period. Note that the clock does not simply run from the decision: section 40 sets out different starting points depending on whether the person is inside or outside Canada, and getting that wrong is how people miscount by years. We do not print the length or the start date here, because the period that applies, when it begins, and what it bars in your particular case are exactly the questions people get wrong from summaries. Read section 40 at the source, and have a licensed representative apply it to your facts.
Can a misrepresentation finding be challenged?
There are avenues in the Canadian system for challenging decisions, and they have their own tests, deadlines and forums. Which — if any — is open to you depends on the decision made, where it was made, and what stage you are at. That assessment is licensed work. See our pages on reconsideration and judicial review for the general shape of those routes.
Should I just apply again and not mention it?
No. Prior applications and prior findings are held on record, and a new application that does not match them compounds the original problem rather than resolving it. If you are inadmissible, a fresh application filed as though nothing happened is the worst available step.
Can you make a misrepresentation finding go away?
No, and nobody honestly can. Anyone who tells you they can have a finding removed, expedited or overlooked for a fee is describing something that does not exist. We publish a no-guarantee policy for exactly this reason.

Do not wait on this one

Bring us the letter and the full file

If a concern has been raised about the truth or completeness of your application, the useful first step is a licensed person reading what was actually submitted in your name. Deadlines in these matters are short.

Book a consultationAsk on WhatsApp