IRPA s. 40(1)(a) and s. 40(2)(a)A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation 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 this Act. The person continues to be inadmissible for five years following a final determination.Read it on the Government of Canada's site
This is the one to take seriously. A finding under A40 normally carries a five-year period of inadmissibility, and it attaches to you personally — it follows every future application, including permanent residence.
Critically, misrepresentation does not require an intention to deceive. The test is whether a material fact was misrepresented or withheld in a way that could have induced an error. Applicants have been found inadmissible for mistakes made by agents acting on their behalf.
The word that decides most cases is material. The fact must matter to the decision. A trivial typo is not misrepresentation; an undisclosed previous refusal or an inflated work history is.
If your notes show A40, do not simply reapply. This is the one situation where you should get proper legal advice from a Canadian immigration lawyer or an RCIC before doing anything.
These are the situations that most often produce this finding. Your notes will usually name the specific one.
Fix the thing the officer named. Changing everything else at once usually makes a file look staged.
Officers write several codes on one file, and only one of them is usually the real reason. Send us your notes and we will tell you which line actually decided your case — and what to do about it.