Federal Court upholds five-year misrepresentation ban after finding Lai Man Lam’s MBA likely ghostwritten

Federal Court upholds five-year misrepresentation ban after finding Lai Man Lam’s MBA likely ghostwritten

Summary: On 2025-09-02, the Federal Court dismissed Lai Man Lam’s judicial review and upheld a five-year inadmissibility finding under IRPA s. 40(1)(a), after an officer reasonably concluded her MBA was likely ghostwritten. The ruling affirms robust officer discretion to probe academic credentials and reiterates that procedural fairness requires meaningful notice and response—not a reweighing of evidence.

Date of update: 2025-09-02 | Source: Court Decision (Federal Court, Lai Man Lam v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1447) | Program affected: Work Permit (International Mobility Program), Enforcement In a decision with wide-ranging implications for credential-based immigration applications, the Federal Court has upheld a five-year misrepresentation ban against Lai Man Lam after an officer determined, on the balance of probabilities, that her MBA was not legitimately earned. Justice Régimbald dismissed the judicial review, confirming the officer’s refusal of an open work permit and the misrepresentation finding under IRPA s. 40(1)(a). The case arose from an application under the International Mobility Program in which the applicant relied on an MBA from Anglia Ruskin University. After issuing a procedural fairness letter, the officer conducted an interview focusing on core business concepts, thesis methodology, research strategy, and KPIs. Lam’s inability to explain basic elements of her purported work led the officer to conclude the degree was likely ghostwritten and had been misrepresented to secure immigration benefits. The Court held there was no breach of procedural fairness, finding the applicant received clear notice of concerns—including potential ghostwriting—an opportunity to provide documents, and a meaningful chance to respond at interview. This approach aligns with fairness principles highlighted in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, and recent Federal Court guidance emphasizing meaningful participation. On substance, the Court found the decision reasonable under Vavilov (2019 SCC 65), noting the officer’s analysis was focused on the legitimacy of the credential rather than peripheral documentation. Even accepting possible course exemptions or prior learning equivalences, the interview evidence—failure to demonstrate knowledge of one’s own thesis and core concepts—tipped the balance toward misrepresentation. The judgment echoes reasoning in cases such as Yip v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2025 FC 288) and Law v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2025 FC 480), and is consistent with the misrepresentation framework discussed in Somal v. MCI (2021 FC 630) and Seraj v. MCI (2016 FC 38). Independent analysis and potential impacts - For applicants: Honesty and demonstrable competence are critical. Where credentials underpin eligibility, applicants should be prepared for probing interviews that test real knowledge. A misrepresentation finding triggers a five-year bar that can derail career and immigration plans.

- For counsel: The decision reinforces the balance-of-probabilities standard for misrepresentation and the limited scope for reweighing evidence on judicial review. It underscores the value of preparing clients for substantive interviews and documenting the provenance of academic work.

- For officers and policy: The ruling supports targeted credential verification, including knowledge-based interviews, provided concerns are disclosed and applicants can respond. Media reports and known patterns (e.g., ghostwriting markets) may legitimately inform investigative focus when tied to evidence in the file.

- Risks and cautions: While the Court endorsed the officer’s approach here, knowledge quizzes must remain tied to the claimed credentials and disclosed concerns. Overreliance on generalized suspicion without a reasoned nexus to the individual record could still invite successful challenges. This decision is likely to be a key citation in future credential-misrepresentation reviews, particularly in International Mobility Program contexts where academic qualifications are central to eligibility.

Closing: The Lam ruling is a clear signal that in Canada’s immigration system, authentic credentials and verifiable expertise matter. For practitioners and applicants alike, it offers a practical blueprint: disclose fully, prepare rigorously, and expect scrutiny where credentials are in doubt.

Tags: Canada immigration, Federal Court, misrepresentation, IRPA s.40, work permit, International Mobility Program, credential fraud, ghostwriting, judicial review, Vavilov, enforcement, inadmissibility, procedural fairness