Your agent submitted fake documents and IRCC found misrepresentation: your options and the deadline

By Sundeep S. Grewal, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation · Reviewed November 10, 2026

Published November 10, 2026

Sundeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2018, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Updated November 10, 2026: section 40 of the Act and two 2026 Federal Court decisions on fraudulent documents checked that day.

If IRCC found that your application contained a fake letter of acceptance, a fake GIC certificate or a fake bank letter that your agent or consultant prepared, you can be found inadmissible for five years even if you never saw the document. The Federal Court has said many times that a dishonest consultant is not, on its own, a defence. What can help is evidence: what you gave the agent, what you paid for, and why you could not have known. That evidence belongs in your answer to the fairness letter, and then, if needed, in judicial review in the Federal Court.

Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, answers misrepresentation letters, challenges misrepresentation findings in the Federal Court and represents people at Immigration Division hearings; this guide is by Sundeep S. Grewal.

Book a consultation about your misrepresentation letter or ban TapClick to open a short form. Our team will contact you to arrange a time.Short form, 4 quick fields Open form

What does the letter or decision say?

Most of these files start with a check IRCC makes on its own. For a letter of acceptance, the school confirms through IRCC’s system whether it issued the letter. A result of “No Match” means the school says the letter you filed is not one it issued. For a GIC or bank letter, the officer contacts the bank.

The wording I see in these files:

• “inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) [..] by submitting a fraudulent Letter of Acceptance”
• “A five-year Exclusion Order is attached.”
• “Verified – No Match” (in the officer’s notes, for the letter of acceptance)
• “Claiming ignorance of the process does not exempt an applicant from meeting the expectations.”

If you are outside Canada, the result is usually a refusal with a five-year ban. If you are in Canada, it can be a report and an admissibility hearing, ending in an exclusion order that carries the same five years.

Why this needs a lawyer

One lawyer, one file, every step:

• the fairness letter answer, built around the innocent mistake test;
• an admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division, if you are in Canada;
• judicial review within 15 or 60 days;
• a temporary resident permit if the ban stays.

The person who prepared the fake document should not be the person answering IRCC about it. A new representative has to look at the file with no stake in protecting the old one.

Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.

Reconsideration is often suggested by people who cannot represent you in the Federal Court. It is discretionary, rarely changes the result and does not stop the deadline.

What are my options?

1. Get your full file. The officer’s notes and, through an access to information request, what the agent actually filed in your name.
2. Answer the fairness letter in writing, on time, with proof. What you sent the agent, what you paid, the messages, and the real documents you had.
3. If you are in Canada and referred to a hearing: prepare for the Immigration Division. The Minister has to prove the misrepresentation; you can give evidence and call witnesses.
4. Judicial review in the Federal Court if the decision ignores your answer or the evidence. 15 days in Canada, 60 outside.
5. A temporary resident permit, if you need to be in Canada during the ban for a compelling reason.
6. Reconsideration request. Discretionary, rarely changes the result and does not stop the court deadline.

Could the finding be challenged in court?

Only with evidence. Two 2026 decisions show what happens without it.

In Ndigui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 281, the school answered IRCC’s check with “No Match.” The officer sent a fairness letter. The applicant did not answer it. The Court upheld the five-year finding: with no response, the officer could conclude the concern had not been answered, and a fraudulent letter of acceptance could clearly lead to an error.

In Makhija v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 743, decided in Vancouver, a fake GIC was filed and the applicant said an unlicensed consultant was to blame. He had not answered the fairness letter either. The Court repeated what it said in Goudarzi, 2012 FC 425: “the problem of fraudulent immigration consultants is a serious one. However, this problem does not amount to a defence against the operation of section 40(1)(a).” It refused to send the question to the Federal Court of Appeal because the law is settled.

What both cases leave open is the narrow innocent mistake exception: an applicant who honestly and reasonably believed they were not misrepresenting anything, where the knowledge was beyond their control. It needs proof, given to the officer before the decision.

Under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, an officer who receives that proof must deal with it in the reasons.

What does section 40 say?

Paragraph 40(1)(a) makes a person inadmissible “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 word “indirectly” is why an agent’s fake document is treated as yours.

Under paragraph 40(2)(a), the ban lasts five years. If the finding is made in Canada, the Immigration Division makes an exclusion order, and under section 225(3) of the Regulations you need written permission to return for five years after it is enforced.

Fake documents at a glance

One of our files

We represented a student at an Immigration Division hearing over a fraudulent letter of acceptance. The person who filed it was not a licensed consultant at all, but an unauthorized agent overseas. The Division rejected the innocent mistake defence and made a five-year exclusion order. A temporary resident permit was granted later, but only through a special temporary public policy for a particular group of students. It is not a route open to everyone.

The lesson I take from this file is that the hearing record matters even when the finding stays: the evidence about the agent is what made the student eligible when that policy came.

What if the consultant was registered in Canada?

If a licensed consultant in Canada filed a false document without your knowledge, start a complaint against them with the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants. Then show the officer or the Immigration Division, before the decision, that the consultant acted without your authorization and that you should not be held responsible for what they did. The complaint is part of that proof.

Worked example: the 15-day deadline in Canada

Example. A student in Surrey applied to extend his study permit and was found inadmissible for misrepresentation on November 2, 2026, over a letter of acceptance his agent had prepared. He is in Canada, so he has 15 days from notice: November 17, 2026. If he had applied from outside Canada, he would have had 60 days.

What to send with a fairness letter answer

• Your communications with the agent: messages, emails and what you sent them.
• Payments: receipts and transfers, and what each payment was for.
• The real documents: your actual offer from the school, your actual bank records, or proof you never had them.
• A sworn statement: what you knew, when you learned of the problem, and what you did then.
• Steps you have taken: a police report or a complaint to the regulator about the agent, where that applies.

Mistakes I have seen

• I have seen students let the same agent answer the fairness letter. The answer protected the agent, not the student.
• I have seen people not answer at all, as in Ndigui. Silence gives the officer nothing to weigh.
• I have seen answers that blame the agent with no proof of what the agent was given.
• I have seen people apply again inside the five years and be refused for the same finding.

Frequently asked questions

Can I be banned even if I never saw the fake document?

Yes. Section 40 covers misrepresentation made “indirectly”, including by an agent. The narrow innocent mistake exception is the main way out, and it needs proof.

Should I report the agent?

If they are a licensed consultant in Canada, yes: a complaint to the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants supports your account that they acted without your authorization. Talk to a lawyer first about what to say.

Does the ban apply to my family?

It can. Under section 42 an accompanying family member can be refused because of your inadmissibility.

Can I study in Canada during the five years?

Not on a study permit while the ban is in force, unless a temporary resident permit is issued.

What is “No Match”?

It is the school’s response to IRCC’s check. It means the school confirmed the letter in your application was not one it issued.

Related guides

See our guides on a fake job offer or LMIA, not disclosing a previous refusal and getting your CBSA file.

What should I do right now?

Do not let the agent answer for you. Save every message, receipt and document you exchanged with them today, before accounts are deleted. Write down the date on the letter or the decision and whether you are in or outside Canada.

Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.

Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑

Sources (official)

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 40 (current to October 19, 2026) and s. 72
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 225 and s. 229
• Ndigui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 281 (March 2, 2026)
• Makhija v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 743 (June 5, 2026)
• Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.