SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Date: 20141128
Docket: IMM-3146-14
Citation: 2014 FC 1147
Ottawa, Ontario, November 28, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
YOGRAJ SINGH BUNDHEL
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION CANADA
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Let the attached edited version of my Reasons delivered orally from the bench at
Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 17, 2014, be filed to comply with section 51 of the
Federal Courts Act.
2014
FC
1147
(CanLII)
Page: 2
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed.
"R.L. Barnes"
Judge
2014
FC
1147
(CanLII)
REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Yograj Singh Bundhel, challenges a decision made on April 3, 2014,
denying his application for a temporary work permit. Mr. Bundhel is an actor who sought to
enter Canada to work on the set of a movie production. The basis of the decision was a finding
that Mr. Bundhel had misrepresented his background, pertaining specifically to two serious
criminal charges in India.
[2] Mr. Bundhel’s visa application included the following question: “Have you ever
committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any
country?”
[3] If the applicant provides an affirmative response to this question he is required to provide
details. Mr. Bundhel answered in the negative. This was inaccurate. Mr. Bundhel had faced
charges in India in connection with a reckless driving case and for harbouring a fugitive accused
of murder. Although his convictions were later overturned on appeal, it is beyond doubt that
Mr. Bundhel had been arrested and charged in connection with both matters.
[4] The Officer provided Mr. Bundhel with an opportunity to explain the discrepancy.
The excuse he offered was that his answer was merely a “clerical mistake”; because he
was ultimately acquitted of the criminal charges, he did not believe the details needed to be
mentioned.
2014
FC
1147
(CanLII)
Page: 4
[5] The Officer was not satisfied with Mr. Bundhel’s explanation and found that a
misrepresentation had occurred. Her reasons were stated as follows:
I have considered this response in the spirit of the way we have
phrased our question on the application form. Clearly we wish
to know about prior arrests and charges even if they do not
eventually result in conviction or we would not ask the question.
By concealing his prior arrest and conviction even if it did end
in acquittal the applicant could have induced an error in the
administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Specifically: the applicant is applying for a work permit and
temporary resident visa to visit Canada. By not providing truthful
information regarding his background the officer would not have
had the information necessary to determine whether or not he
would fall into A36(1)(c) having committed an offence outside of
Canada causing arrest and charged with an offence which would
equate to Section 221 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I do not
accept that this was a clerical error as the way the question is
worded makes it abundantly clear we are concerned with charges
and arrests as well as convictions. Applicant has failed in his
requirement to answer all questions truthfully as per A16(1).
As such the applicant is inadmissible under A40(1) of the IRPA.
Refused on bonafides and for misrepresentation.
[6] Mr. Bundhel argues that this decision was unreasonable because his explanation was
“at least plausible on its face” and it therefore demanded that the Officer explain why it was not
accepted. He also argues that he corrected the factual record at the first opportunity and some
consideration of that mitigating factor ought to have been applied. Finally, he points to the
serious consequences that the misrepresentation finding will have for his future overseas travel.
[7] None of these arguments has merit. The Officer reasonably concluded that Mr. Bundhel
had deliberately concealed the facts of his criminal arrests and prosecutions. The question that he
was asked does not allow for ambiguity. Mr. Bundhel knew full well that he had been arrested
and charged in connection with two serious criminal matters and the Officer found that he
2014
FC
1147
(CanLII)
Page: 5
deliberately withheld that information on his application. His response to the Officer failed to
explain how he could have plausibly misunderstood those parts of the criminality question.
There was, accordingly, no basis for the Officer to make a finding other than the obvious one –
that is, Mr. Bundhel was being dishonest when he withheld the true facts, knowing that a truthful
answer could create admissibility problems.
[8] Mr. Bundhel’s complaint that the Officer should have considered the fact that he owned-
up to the problem at the first available opportunity is also unjustified. Mr. Bundhel only
acknowledged the true facts when he was confronted with them. This is not equivalent to
a situation where an applicant owns-up to a mistake before it is brought to light or where the file
already contains the correct information. In such a case, a favourable inference is more likely to
be drawn because it is suggestive of an innocent mistake and not a wilful omission. The same
point is made in Uppal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 445,
where Justice Anne Mactavish stated the following:
30 The misrepresentations in this case were made in the
context of the applications for permanent residence that were under
consideration by the officer. In such circumstances, the fact that
the misrepresentations were disclosed by the applicants prior to a
final decision having actually been taken in relation to their
applications does not assist them. Indeed, this Court specifically
rejected this argument in Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
& Immigration), 2008 FC 512 at paras. 27-29.
31 That is, the Court held in Khan that such an interpretation
would lead to situations where individuals could knowingly
misrepresent their circumstances, but nevertheless escape an
inadmissibility finding, as long as they disclosed the
misrepresentation right before a decision was made. Not only
would such an interpretation encourage the abuse of the Act, it
also ignores the requirement to provide truthful information in
applications under the Act.
2014
FC
1147
(CanLII)
Page: 6
32 The Court’s concerns in Khan are amply illustrated by
the facts of this case, where the applicants only came forward with
their “clarification” once they knew that their lies were about to be
uncovered through genetic testing.
33 As a consequence, I am satisfied that the officer’s
conclusion that the applicants had misrepresented material facts
relating to a relevant matter that could have induced an error in the
administration of the Act was one that was reasonably open to him
on the record before him.
[9] The fact is, our system of immigration control relies heavily on the truthfulness of those
who apply to come here. Those who misrepresent their histories or withhold material information
with a view to enhancing their chances for entry are undeserving of special consideration. The
consequences for Mr. Bundhel are undoubtedly serious but they result from his failure to
disclose material information. The integrity of Canada’s control over its borders demands
nothing less than scrupulous honesty from applicants and the rigid enforcement of that
obligation. The Officer’s decision fulfills this principle and is in all respects reasonable.
[10] This application is accordingly dismissed. Neither party proposed a certified question and
no issue of general importance arises on this record.
2014
FC
1147
(CanLII)
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3146-14
STYLE OF CAUSE: YOGRAJ SINGH BUNDHEL v MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 17, 2014
JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BARNES J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 28, 2014
APPEARANCES:
Katrina Sriranpong FOR THE APPLICANT
Mary E. Murray FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Overseas Immigration
Surrey, British Columbia
FOR THE APPLICANT
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE RESPONDENT
2014
FC
1147
(CanLII)

More Related Content

Similar to Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)

Sandwich Blitz Unit 4
Sandwich Blitz Unit 4Sandwich Blitz Unit 4
Sandwich Blitz Unit 4
Pamela Wright
 
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj   17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj   17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...
Seth Row
 
Call for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costs
Call for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costsCall for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costs
Call for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costs
Douglas GARDINER
 
Crawford Memo.pdf
Crawford Memo.pdfCrawford Memo.pdf
Crawford Memo.pdf
Todd Spodek
 
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...
Best Best and Krieger LLP
 
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
Evidence_Complicit
 
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docx
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docxThis argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docx
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docx
christalgrieg
 
Judicial complaint dismissal
Judicial complaint dismissalJudicial complaint dismissal
Judicial complaint dismissal
Douglas GARDINER
 
Holcomb Appeals - Part 1
Holcomb Appeals - Part 1Holcomb Appeals - Part 1
Holcomb Appeals - Part 1
Abdul-Hakim Shabazz
 
Proposed areas to be investigated
Proposed areas to be investigatedProposed areas to be investigated
Proposed areas to be investigated
John Smith
 
Ca phc apn_24_2014_2
Ca phc apn_24_2014_2Ca phc apn_24_2014_2
Ca phc apn_24_2014_2
awasalam
 
sajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdf
sajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdfsajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdf
sajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdf
bhavenpr
 
Final decision ea20170161 redact
Final decision ea20170161 redactFinal decision ea20170161 redact
Final decision ea20170161 redact
John Smith
 
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, London
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, LondonDeterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, London
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, London
Browne Jacobson LLP
 
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, Birmingham
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, BirminghamDeterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, Birmingham
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, Birmingham
Browne Jacobson LLP
 
Letter before action 26 sept 2019 r
Letter before action 26 sept 2019   rLetter before action 26 sept 2019   r
Letter before action 26 sept 2019 r
John Smith
 
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEYOmnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
jjohnsebastianattorney
 
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Katrina Sriranpong
 

Similar to Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII) (20)

Sandwich Blitz Unit 4
Sandwich Blitz Unit 4Sandwich Blitz Unit 4
Sandwich Blitz Unit 4
 
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj   17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj   17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...
 
Call for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costs
Call for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costsCall for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costs
Call for review of ET judgment at a hearing for wasted costs
 
Crawford Memo.pdf
Crawford Memo.pdfCrawford Memo.pdf
Crawford Memo.pdf
 
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...
2013 Best Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Update: Discrimination, Harassmen...
 
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
 
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...
 
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
Discontinue 12 june 19 co498-17
 
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docx
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docxThis argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docx
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docx
 
Judicial complaint dismissal
Judicial complaint dismissalJudicial complaint dismissal
Judicial complaint dismissal
 
Holcomb Appeals - Part 1
Holcomb Appeals - Part 1Holcomb Appeals - Part 1
Holcomb Appeals - Part 1
 
Proposed areas to be investigated
Proposed areas to be investigatedProposed areas to be investigated
Proposed areas to be investigated
 
Ca phc apn_24_2014_2
Ca phc apn_24_2014_2Ca phc apn_24_2014_2
Ca phc apn_24_2014_2
 
sajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdf
sajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdfsajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdf
sajad-gul-psa-quashed-504756.pdf
 
Final decision ea20170161 redact
Final decision ea20170161 redactFinal decision ea20170161 redact
Final decision ea20170161 redact
 
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, London
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, LondonDeterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, London
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, London
 
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, Birmingham
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, BirminghamDeterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, Birmingham
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, Birmingham
 
Letter before action 26 sept 2019 r
Letter before action 26 sept 2019   rLetter before action 26 sept 2019   r
Letter before action 26 sept 2019 r
 
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEYOmnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
Omnibus motion bribery-J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
 
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
 

More from Katrina Sriranpong

Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong
 
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdfIf there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
Katrina Sriranpong
 
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Katrina Sriranpong
 
Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...
Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...
Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...
Katrina Sriranpong
 
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)
Katrina Sriranpong
 
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Katrina Sriranpong
 
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docxINFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
Katrina Sriranpong
 

More from Katrina Sriranpong (7)

Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
 
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdfIf there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
 
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
 
Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...
Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...
Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (C...
 
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)
 
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
 
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docxINFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
 

Recently uploaded

17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
ssuser0dfed9
 
一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理
gedsuu
 
Call Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts Available
Call Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts AvailableCall Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts Available
Call Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts Available
soyamiss679 #v08
 
Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?
Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?
Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?
RoseZubler1
 
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
fexbqa
 
一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理
onduyv
 
一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理
cadyzeo
 
THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptx
THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptxTHE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptx
THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptx
Namrata Chakraborty
 
Asian legal busiess india you are invited
Asian legal busiess india you are invitedAsian legal busiess india you are invited
Asian legal busiess india you are invited
digitalrashi12
 
一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理
ayvace
 
原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样
原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样
原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样
abondo3
 
How to Review a Contract Faster and More Efficiently
How to Review a Contract Faster and More EfficientlyHow to Review a Contract Faster and More Efficiently
How to Review a Contract Faster and More Efficiently
PracticeLeagueLegalt
 
PoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffff
PoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffffPoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffff
PoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffff
RajatVerma652178
 
一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
bzofm
 
BNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdf
BNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdfBNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdf
BNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdf
surbhiaeron21
 
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
ooqzo
 
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
ucoux1
 
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
woywevt
 
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA War
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA WarA Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA War
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA War
Nilendra Kumar
 
一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理
pdeehy
 

Recently uploaded (20)

17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
 
一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版英国伦敦商学院毕业证(lbs毕业证书)如何办理
 
Call Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts Available
Call Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts AvailableCall Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts Available
Call Girls Hyderabad 📞 8824825030 Top Class Hyderabad Escorts Available
 
Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?
Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?
Should AI hold Intellectual Property Rights?
 
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
 
一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版朴次茅斯大学毕业证(uop毕业证)如何办理
 
一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理
一比一原版加拿大达尔豪斯大学毕业证(dalhousie毕业证书)如何办理
 
THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptx
THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptxTHE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptx
THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DEFAULT BAIL.pptx
 
Asian legal busiess india you are invited
Asian legal busiess india you are invitedAsian legal busiess india you are invited
Asian legal busiess india you are invited
 
一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ual毕业证书)伦敦艺术大学毕业证如何办理
 
原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样
原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样
原版定做(sheffield学位证书)英国谢菲尔德大学毕业证文凭证书原版一模一样
 
How to Review a Contract Faster and More Efficiently
How to Review a Contract Faster and More EfficientlyHow to Review a Contract Faster and More Efficiently
How to Review a Contract Faster and More Efficiently
 
PoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffff
PoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffffPoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffff
PoliticalScience_SrSec_2023-24.pdfffffff
 
一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(monash毕业证书)莫纳什大学毕业证如何办理
 
BNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdf
BNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdfBNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdf
BNS PRESENTATION for basic information.pdf
 
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
 
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
 
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
 
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA War
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA WarA Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA War
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA War
 
一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(uwgb毕业证书)美国威斯康星大学绿湾分校毕业证如何办理
 

Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)

  • 1. Date: 20141128 Docket: IMM-3146-14 Citation: 2014 FC 1147 Ottawa, Ontario, November 28, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes BETWEEN: YOGRAJ SINGH BUNDHEL Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS Let the attached edited version of my Reasons delivered orally from the bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 17, 2014, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Courts Act. 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
  • 2. Page: 2 JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed. "R.L. Barnes" Judge 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
  • 3. REASONS [1] The Applicant, Yograj Singh Bundhel, challenges a decision made on April 3, 2014, denying his application for a temporary work permit. Mr. Bundhel is an actor who sought to enter Canada to work on the set of a movie production. The basis of the decision was a finding that Mr. Bundhel had misrepresented his background, pertaining specifically to two serious criminal charges in India. [2] Mr. Bundhel’s visa application included the following question: “Have you ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country?” [3] If the applicant provides an affirmative response to this question he is required to provide details. Mr. Bundhel answered in the negative. This was inaccurate. Mr. Bundhel had faced charges in India in connection with a reckless driving case and for harbouring a fugitive accused of murder. Although his convictions were later overturned on appeal, it is beyond doubt that Mr. Bundhel had been arrested and charged in connection with both matters. [4] The Officer provided Mr. Bundhel with an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The excuse he offered was that his answer was merely a “clerical mistake”; because he was ultimately acquitted of the criminal charges, he did not believe the details needed to be mentioned. 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
  • 4. Page: 4 [5] The Officer was not satisfied with Mr. Bundhel’s explanation and found that a misrepresentation had occurred. Her reasons were stated as follows: I have considered this response in the spirit of the way we have phrased our question on the application form. Clearly we wish to know about prior arrests and charges even if they do not eventually result in conviction or we would not ask the question. By concealing his prior arrest and conviction even if it did end in acquittal the applicant could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Specifically: the applicant is applying for a work permit and temporary resident visa to visit Canada. By not providing truthful information regarding his background the officer would not have had the information necessary to determine whether or not he would fall into A36(1)(c) having committed an offence outside of Canada causing arrest and charged with an offence which would equate to Section 221 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I do not accept that this was a clerical error as the way the question is worded makes it abundantly clear we are concerned with charges and arrests as well as convictions. Applicant has failed in his requirement to answer all questions truthfully as per A16(1). As such the applicant is inadmissible under A40(1) of the IRPA. Refused on bonafides and for misrepresentation. [6] Mr. Bundhel argues that this decision was unreasonable because his explanation was “at least plausible on its face” and it therefore demanded that the Officer explain why it was not accepted. He also argues that he corrected the factual record at the first opportunity and some consideration of that mitigating factor ought to have been applied. Finally, he points to the serious consequences that the misrepresentation finding will have for his future overseas travel. [7] None of these arguments has merit. The Officer reasonably concluded that Mr. Bundhel had deliberately concealed the facts of his criminal arrests and prosecutions. The question that he was asked does not allow for ambiguity. Mr. Bundhel knew full well that he had been arrested and charged in connection with two serious criminal matters and the Officer found that he 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
  • 5. Page: 5 deliberately withheld that information on his application. His response to the Officer failed to explain how he could have plausibly misunderstood those parts of the criminality question. There was, accordingly, no basis for the Officer to make a finding other than the obvious one – that is, Mr. Bundhel was being dishonest when he withheld the true facts, knowing that a truthful answer could create admissibility problems. [8] Mr. Bundhel’s complaint that the Officer should have considered the fact that he owned- up to the problem at the first available opportunity is also unjustified. Mr. Bundhel only acknowledged the true facts when he was confronted with them. This is not equivalent to a situation where an applicant owns-up to a mistake before it is brought to light or where the file already contains the correct information. In such a case, a favourable inference is more likely to be drawn because it is suggestive of an innocent mistake and not a wilful omission. The same point is made in Uppal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 445, where Justice Anne Mactavish stated the following: 30 The misrepresentations in this case were made in the context of the applications for permanent residence that were under consideration by the officer. In such circumstances, the fact that the misrepresentations were disclosed by the applicants prior to a final decision having actually been taken in relation to their applications does not assist them. Indeed, this Court specifically rejected this argument in Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2008 FC 512 at paras. 27-29. 31 That is, the Court held in Khan that such an interpretation would lead to situations where individuals could knowingly misrepresent their circumstances, but nevertheless escape an inadmissibility finding, as long as they disclosed the misrepresentation right before a decision was made. Not only would such an interpretation encourage the abuse of the Act, it also ignores the requirement to provide truthful information in applications under the Act. 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
  • 6. Page: 6 32 The Court’s concerns in Khan are amply illustrated by the facts of this case, where the applicants only came forward with their “clarification” once they knew that their lies were about to be uncovered through genetic testing. 33 As a consequence, I am satisfied that the officer’s conclusion that the applicants had misrepresented material facts relating to a relevant matter that could have induced an error in the administration of the Act was one that was reasonably open to him on the record before him. [9] The fact is, our system of immigration control relies heavily on the truthfulness of those who apply to come here. Those who misrepresent their histories or withhold material information with a view to enhancing their chances for entry are undeserving of special consideration. The consequences for Mr. Bundhel are undoubtedly serious but they result from his failure to disclose material information. The integrity of Canada’s control over its borders demands nothing less than scrupulous honesty from applicants and the rigid enforcement of that obligation. The Officer’s decision fulfills this principle and is in all respects reasonable. [10] This application is accordingly dismissed. Neither party proposed a certified question and no issue of general importance arises on this record. 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
  • 7. FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3146-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: YOGRAJ SINGH BUNDHEL v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 17, 2014 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BARNES J. DATED: NOVEMBER 28, 2014 APPEARANCES: Katrina Sriranpong FOR THE APPLICANT Mary E. Murray FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Overseas Immigration Surrey, British Columbia FOR THE APPLICANT William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE RESPONDENT 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)