Archive for category: Misrepresentation

You are here: / Misrepresentation

2026: Common Mistakes

/in , , , /by

We specialize in complex cases. We know that many people want to submit their applications to IRCC on their own, or with guidance from friends or neighbours who may have some experience. IRCC publishes, correctly, on their website that applicants do not need to hire a professional. That is true.

In 2025, the team at CIL has seen many significant changes to the Canadian immigration system. There has been an increase in refusals. Programs have been cut or limited. We entered a new era.

Many applicants continue to rely on outdated policies from the Trudeau era. Since then, the entire culture at IRCC has shifted. Previous Minister Marc Miller started to make cuts. Those cuts were deepened under current Minister Diab.

Here are the Top Common Mistakes in 2025:

  • 1. “My [relative/ friend/colleague] did it and it worked.”

We hear this quite frequently. Typically, the person who filed the application went through their process before 2024. From 2016 to 2024, the system was very different. We often saw cases where an applicant did not qualify for a Work Permit, for example, and the IRCC Officer was able to use their discretionary powers to issue a document regardless.

Times have changed. Relying on outdated guidance may lead to refusals. Every case is different. A procedure that may have worked for your friend may not work for you.

  • 2. “I just trusted my agent”

This is not a new mistake. This is a mistake that we have seen for the 15 years that we have been in practice. Never blindly trust your representative. Empower yourself. It is your application. If your agent messes up (everyone makes mistakes), the consequences are on your shoulders.

At CIL, we use our “triple check” approach to make sure we minimize mistakes. Do team members at CIL make mistakes? Sure. But our “triple check” approach makes sure that we catch 99% of mistakes before the application reaches an Officer. That is what our clients are paying for.

  • 3. Outdated forms

IRCC is constantly changing their forms. For example, IMM5476 was updated in NOV 2025. If the applicant submits outdated forms, the application may be returned or worse. It may also be refused. For IMM5476, IRCC will accept the old forms until MARCH 2026. For other forms that are out of date, the Officer may not be sympathetic. The onus is on the applicant to make sure all the forms are up to date.

  • 4. Wrong Fees to IRCC

IRCC increased their fees in DEC 2024 and then again in MARCH 2025. We have seen Work Permits refused because the applicant did not see the changes and they did not pay the correct fees. We have also seen Work Permit applications refused as the applicant failed to pay the Open Work Permit holder fee.

  • 5. Failure to Explain

Life is messy. Immigration can be complex. Applicants who assume the Officer will not notice an issue may get a refusal from IRCC. Our advice: make sure you provide an explanation for all potential issues. We have helped many clients reply to Officer’s concerns as stated in a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) and we help them with the explanation.

  • 6. “I watched a YouTube video”

There are many clickbait videos on YouTube related to Canadian immigration. A quick search will show many videos related to TR to PR programs. Applicants who rely on these videos may be on the wrong end of a decision. As with many aspects of our capitalist society, caveat emptor.

  • 7. “I didn’t understand the question”

Many IRCC forms ask broad questions. For example, a common question is whether the applicant has ever been refused an immigration application. Many people interpret this question and they believe it only applies to Canadian applications. That is incorrect. We met with many applicants in 2025 who had been refused applications to the USA or other countries and they failed to disclose that information. That can lead to a A40 determination and a 5 year ban from Canada. We have helped clients overcome the A40 at Federal Court; however, these cases are very difficult.

  • 8. “I thought I submitted the document”

IRCC Portals are complex and many people have trouble. Uploading a document is different from submitting the document. Unfortunately, we have met with many folks in 2025 who thought that uploading their documentation to IRCC was enough. They failed to click the submit button.

  • 9. Wrong Document Checklist

In immigration, there are so many document checklists out there that it can be difficult to figure out which one applies to your application. We have met with so many people who think they have found the right checklist and then they follow it. They gather and submit their documents with the belief that everything will be ok. Then they get a refusal and they are shocked. They had no idea they were relying on the wrong checklist.

  • 10. Factors Outside Your Control

The team at CIL has helped clients from more than 100 countries. Every country has its own issues and procedures. Sometimes there are factors, outside the applicant’s control, that may impact the decision. Unfortunately, it may not be sufficient for the applicant to simply state the factors outside their control. They must demonstrate they have made “best efforts” to comply with Canadian laws and regulations.

Changes in 2026

We expect the Canadian immigration system will be quite different in 2026. There will likely be more scams and victims of abuse by desperate applicants. At CIL, we support law enforcement efforts to go after criminal consultants and we hope they are held accountable. In many cases, foreign workers are the victims. 

We wish you all the best for 2026 and we are here to help. 

 

REPOST: Suing Ghost Representatives

/in , , , , /by

This article was originally published on SLAW.CA. Alastair has been a contributor to SLAW.CA for many years and you can find many other articles on that website. We are reposting this article for reference purposes.

REPOST

Justice Hamilton (BC SC) recently issued a scathing decision against an unauthorized immigration representative, including a judgment that included more than $80k USD in damages. This decision may become a powerful precedent for other victims of ghost representatives to obtain financial compensation and damages. In my office, we have seen an increase in public interest in pursuing litigation against fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence. I do not practice litigation so I refer these individuals to competent counsel. Justice Hamilton’s decision represents a small step in the right direction and underscores how difficult it can be to hold scammers to account.

Here is a summary of the facts, based on a very complex immigration history. Please refer to the decision for all the facts:

  • Ms Roshanak Kazemian is an Iranian citizen who retained Mr Hossein Lotfi in 2015 and she agreed to pay $100k USD for permanent resident status;
  • The agreement included a Business Plan and other documents to submit to the BC PNP program;
  • Mr Lotfi is not a lawyer or a registered immigration consultant; however, Ms Kazemian was under the impressiong that he was licenced;
  • Upon learning that Mr Lotfi is a ghost representative, Ms Kazemian retained a licenced representative, Farid Alampour, to “salvage” her application;
  • Mr Lotfi denies that he claimed to be an immigration lawyer or a registered immigration consultant;
  • Mr Lotfi is the owner and director of “Silk Road Tours” and he incorporated “Vrossis Cosmetics Inc.” as well as “Vrossis Investments Group Inc;”
  • An employee at “Silk Road Tours”, Sao Khadjieva, was a licenced immigration consultant (RCIC), worked on Ms Kazemian’s application;
  • Mr Lotfi claimed that a retired immigration consultant, Mr. Larry DeLong, also worked on the application; and,
  • Ms Kazemian sued for fraudulent misrepresentation and, in the alternative, negligent misrepresentation.

Congratulations to Ms. Kazemian and her counsel, Özge Yazar and Flora Wu, for this important precedent.

Justice Hamilton’s BCSC Decision

As you can see from the summary above, this case involves a complex immigration history. My understanding is that Ms Kazemian continues to wait for a final decision on her PR application at IRCC and we hope that she is able to achieve her immigration goals. I wish her and her business in Whisler much success.

The main points of this decision:

  • The corporate veil did not protect the agent from liability.
  • The corporation cannot be used as a shield for a ghost representative.
  • This type of agreement may be void based on the common law principle of unconscionability.
  • The applicant received a positive judgment and Mr Hossein Lotfi has been found liable for his actions.

To be clear, I have not had any direct or indirect contact with any of the parties involved in this case. I became aware of this case from the podcast Borderlines where Steven, deanna and Eoin discussed this issue. I would highly recommend you listen to the podcast for their take. From my reading, here are a few key quotes related to ghost representation.

Justice Hamilton held that Mr. Lotfi represented himself as a qualified professional to handle immigration applications:

While Mr. Lotfi did not necessarily state that he was an immigration “consultant” or “lawyer”, I find that he represented to Ms. Kazemian that he was qualified to advise her on her immigration application and handle all issues relating to her immigration including applying under the BC PNP program. [para 30]

Justice Hamilton did not accept a semantic defence that Mr. Lotfi did not utter the words “consultant” or “lawyer”:

Mr. Lotfi appeared to be under the assumption that as long as he did not speak the word “consultant” or “lawyer” that he had not made a representation that he was able to handle Ms. Kazemian’s immigration needs. However, as stated in Froese, a misrepresentation can be by omission of words – Mr. Lotfi need not have mentioned the word “consultant’ or “lawyer” to have misled Ms. Kazemian. [para 33]

Justice Hamilton applied section 91 of IRPA:

Section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”) restricts who can advise or assist others in immigration applications. The Act requires those who advise others on immigration matters to be either a registered immigration consultant or a lawyer. Mr. Lotfi was neither. Mr. Lotfi’s representation that he was qualified to advise Ms. Kazemian on her immigration matters and assist her apply for permanent residency was therefore false. [para 46]

Justice Hamilton took into consideration the lack of sophistication of the applicant:

Ms. Kazemian was a newcomer to Canada. Her sole focus was obtaining permanent residency in Canada. She trusted Mr. Lotfi as her immigration advisor who handled her immigration matters. He had told her he had government connections relating to her immigration and she believed him. [para 130]

Justice Hamilton also considered the power imbalance between the applicant and the ghost representative:

I accept Ms. Kazemian’s evidence that she felt she had no choice but to sign the Summary Agreement document because she worried that he had the power and connections to sabotage her immigration application. [para 132]

Systemic Problem

When I was a junior high school teacher and a student would ask a question, they may start the question with a disclaimer. Something like, “this may be a silly question but…” As a teacher, I took every question seriously and I would tell my students there are no “silly” or “stupid” questions. In many cases, there were other students with the same question or the same misunderstanding. They may have been too shy to raise their hand or too afraid to ask. I truly applaud all the folks out there who have the courage to put their hands up.

Within a litigation context, Ms. Kazemian is like that student with the courage to come forward. From my experience, this BCSC case reflects a systemic problem and there are many other victims out there who did not have the courage to speak up. There have been other cases where the Courts have held that incompetent legal representation caused a misrepresentation; however, it is rare to see monetary compensation. I have no doubt that Ms. Kazemian must have spent significant time, resources and energy to pursue justice from her former representative. Kudos to her to initiate litigation and to see this matter through the court system. Silk Road Services and Mr Hossein Lotfi have been exposed. I would be shocked if there weren’t many other victims who paid Mr Lotfi for his services and did not go to court. I have not met any of those victims, of course, but I have met with many victims of ghost representatives who did not have the energy to litigate. Perhaps now that this decision has been made public, more victims may come forward – including past victims of Mr. Lofti and victims of other ghost representatives across Canada. This is a huge problem.

CILA published a warning earlier this year:

Canadian immigration is increasingly being targeted with fraudulent schemes, misrepresentation, identity theft, and passport-related crimes. Applicants and unscrupulous consultants exploit weaknesses in the system by using forged documents, stolen identities, sham marriages and misleading claims to obtain immigration status.

I have no idea whether the lawyers involved in this case sought settlement out of court. From my limited understanding of litigation, it is highly likely the parties attempted to settle. If that had happened, we would not have this published decision from the BCSC and the facts of this case would never have become public knowledge. Again, I have to commend Ms. Kazemian for seeing this case through to the end. I truly wish her and her staff all the best. Perhaps the next time I’m in Whistler, I’ll stop by her business. (I’m not sure I am the target client for Glacier Day Spa, but who knows!)

I cannot count the number of consultations I have had regarding ghost representation and potential negligence. During these meetings, I hear from applicants who have paid these snake oil salesmen between $10k to $80k based on false promises. I have heard countless stories of agents who lie about submitting the application. They may falsify documentation without even telling the applicant. They omit key information. They create elaborate schemes. They apply for defunct IRCC programs. Frequently, they conduct their business over the phone and they avoid putting anything incriminating in writing. And, of course, when the applications are refused, they blame IRCC and/or CBSA and/or the Government of Canada, leaving the applicants in the lurch.

IRCC has published a page including the consequences of immigration and citizenship fraud. They include this warning at the top:

You are responsible for all the information in your application, even if a representative completes it for you. Learn more about how to choose an authorized immigration and citizenship representative.

Of course, IRCC does not provide any information on ghost consultants, the differences between lawyers and RCIC consultants, suing incompetent representatives or other relevant topics. Many agents and consultants lie about being a lawyer. I cannot count the number of times I have heard, “Oh, I thought he was a lawyer!”

In the vast majority of cases, victims do not report the misconduct and they do not want to file a complaint. It is rare to find a victim who has the means to retain a civil litigator and take legal action. If you are in this situation, we have a referral list that includes a civil litigator who specializes in these cases. Here are the most common reasons that I hear from clients who decide they do not want to file a complaint or file a civil suit:

  1. “They are part of my community.” For example, it is very common for Indian applicants to seek our Indian representatives. In the case above, an Iranian applicant (Ms Kazemian) sought a representative who spoke Farsi (Mr. Lotfi) and, again, I have to applaud her for taking him to task.
  2. “Will it help me?” Unfortunately, IRPA does not include any type of whistleblower protection and Courts have held, over and over, that applicants are responsible for any mistakes made by their representatives. IRCC is very clear on this point.
  3. “I don’t want to cause them trouble.” I hear this a lot. Even though the applicants are the victims in these situations, they seem to feel guilty for putting their trust in a poor representative.

I understand the justifications above. Seeking justice from a shady consultant, a bad agent or a scammer is hard. And it should be hard. We do not want the system to benefit fake victims either. I have to let them know that the complaint may not have a positive impact on their situation. I have to advise them that the refusal will be permanently on their immigration file. I have to advise that their situation will be scrutinized.

For genuine victims, I have attended interviews where the CBSA Officer investigating the shady consultant also examines the victim’s immigration history and the victim becomes part of the investigation. Thankfully, in many of those cases, it all worked out for our client and we are able to help them explain how they were the victim and they were not aware of the agent’s activity.

Recommendations

From my point of view, CBSA investigators should spend more resources on scammers and ghost consultants. Canada is truly failing on this front. Take the example of the Patel family who perished near the USA/ Canada border in January 2022. I have written about this case many times and given countless interviews. The smugglers were convicted in Minnesota. I have heard that Indian law enforcement have also laid changes in their jurisdiction. What has law enforcement done in Canada over the past 3 years to hold those accountable for the death of this family? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

If you wanted to reduce drug addiction, do you go after the users or the dealers? The dealers obviously. How many police resources go into pursuing the dealers and the drug traffickers? The vast majority of resources would be my guess. How would the public react if they focused on the users and just left the drug dealers to go about their business out in the open with minimal legal consequences? Of course, what they did was regulate the sale of controlled substances and limit those with permission to provide those substances.

To address these issues, I can offer 3 concrete recommendations. I have to give credit to Ravi Jain. He has been raising the alarm for years (decades?) and he has given this problem significant attention. Full disclosure: Ravi and I worked together at an immigration firm in Toronto. He has extensive experience advocating for accountability and he has given testimony on this issue to many committees. Here are his recommendations and I agree 100%:

  1. Amend A91 to prohibit immigration consultants from providing legal advice or representation. This recommendation is based on the American model where immigration consultants (or their equivalents) work under the supervision of lawyers.
  2. Launch an extensive education campaign for the public. This will be extremely challenging as immigration issues are constantly in the news and it is very difficult to pierce through the misinformation. For example, IRCC published a blanket warning on all agents in India in 2019. I have shown this warning to dozens of victims of scams and none of them had heard of this warning.
  3. Amend A91 to allow individuals in NGOs and/or community clinics to provide immigration advice under the supervision of lawyers.

Interestingly, the above recommendations were delivered before the House of Commons Citizenship and Immigration Committee back in April 2017. Arguably, the situation in 2017 was much worse. Since then, they have created a new system to become an accredited RCIC and the new system is much stricter. In my view, it is still not strict enough and the number of ghost representatives who simply bypass the whole system is out of control.

UPDATE: Recently, I attended a presentation by Will Tao at Heron Law Offices on AI tools that are being used at IRCC. His presentation, “101 on Automated Decision-Making in Canadian Immigration” was excellent and it included significant research on how IRCC Officers are processing applications. Will noted that IRCC has started to keep track of Visa/ Mastercard and other payment methods to link applications to shady agents and ghost representatives. In cases where the ghost representative is not listed or included in the application, the Officer may have other tools to make that connection. So maybe they are taking steps to address this problem with the use of AI tools.

Post Script

Why am I even raising this issue? At our firm, many clients who are victims retain our services to clean up the mess. In fact, I know immigration lawyers whose entire practice focuses on fixing these messes and charging exorbitant fees to get the applicants out of a jam. This is an extremely lucrative line of business. If clients retained immigration lawyers at the onset, we would not have a mess to clean up and we could not justify high fees. That lucrative line of business would dry up. To an extent, the current system benefits immigration lawyers; however, it does not benefit Canada and it certainly does not benefit the public.

In future, who knows how immigration applications are going to be affected by AI tools when they are used in automated decision-making. Will we see applicants scan their documents directly to an AI agent at IRCC and get a decision on the spot? Are the AI tools going to improve the system and, perhaps, decrease the number of victims? I have no idea. One point is clear: our current immigration system is ripe for disruption and most victims do not have the time or resources to seek compensation through litigation.

Success: Entering @ POE

/in , , , , /by

Crossing the USA/ Canada border may be very stressful. The laws and regulations at a POE are complex and Officers have broad discretionary powers. The current political environment and the hostility with American Officers has compounded the stress and anxiety.

CIL was retained by an American who was denied entry to Canada. He has a Canadian spouse. He tried to enter Canada to be with his family. He had a stressful experience at the POE and the CBSA Officer did not accept his reasons for entering Canada. He was denied his request to enter Canada as a Visitor and the CBSA Officer issued an Allowed to Leave (ATL).

After our client was issued the ATL by the CBSA Officer at the POE, he contacted our office and he retained our services. The team at CIL provided guidance on Canadian immigration laws, including the concept of Dual Intent. After significant work, our client was granted entry on July 18, 2025, and issued a six-month Visitor Record. Normally, individuals from visa-exempt countries do not require a Visitor Record. In this case, however, that was the solution.

This was a complex case requiring thorough preparation, legal submissions, and a clear explanation of the applicant’s genuine temporary intent alongside future plans for spousal sponsorship.

In June 2025, the client, who has strong ties to the U.S., attempted to enter Canada to reunite with his Canadian spouse. Unprepared for the border interview, he was unable to fully explain his intent and was issued an ATL by CBSA.

Recognizing the risks, he sought legal counsel. We advised him on the dual intent principle under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which allows a person to enter Canada temporarily while intending to apply for permanent residence.

With supporting documentation prepared and clear re-entry guidance provided, he returned to the border in July 2025 and was successfully admitted.

Brief timeline of events

  • Fall 2022 – 2025: The applicant maintained a committed relationship with their Canadian spouse, culminating in marriage in early 2025.
  • June 2025: Attempted to enter Canada at a port of entry but was denied entry and issued an “Allowed to Leave” (ATL) by CBSA.
  • Early July 2025: The client contacted CIL for assistance. Our team worked closely with both the applicant and sponsor to develop a re-entry plan and long-term immigration strategy based on the principle of dual intent.
  • July 18, 2025: The applicant successfully re-entered Canada and was issued a Visitor Record valid for six months.

This was not just a matter of reapplying, but it was about presenting the applicant’s case clearly, within the scope of Canadian immigration law, and ensuring CBSA had a full and accurate understanding of the situation.

Key elements that contributed to this outcome:

  • Clear demonstration of dual intent, in line with IRPA and updated policy guidance.
  • Strong supporting documentation, including evidence of ties to the U.S. and the genuine nature of the applicant’s relationship.
  • Proactive handling of the prior refusal, showing accountability and steps taken since.
  • Careful preparation for re-entry, including timing and presentation.

Every immigration case is unique. This one required clarity, persistence, and a well-prepared approach, and we are proud to see this family reunited in Canada.

 

 

Success: MPNP PFL re IES

/in , , , /by

The MPNP program may be the best way of getting PR status in Canada. We have clients from around the world who come to Manitoba. We love helping our clients and we love helping local businesses. Winnipeg needs highly skilled workers in various categories and the program is regularly updating and changing. Through our MPNP Representative Portal, we are able to guide our clients through all the steps. If an MPNP Officer has a concern regarding an application, they must give the applicant a chance to respond to their concerns. In cases of misrepresentation, the application may be banned for 2 years (this is different from the federal ban of 5 years per A40 of IRPA). We have never had a client banned by MPNP.

In this case, our client applied to MPNP by himself. He graduated from a study program in Manitoba and he got a 1 year PGWP. If you have read our previous posts, you will know that we do not recommend short study programs. It can be very difficult to go through all the necessary steps on a short work permit. In general, we recommend a minimum 2 year study program. 

Our client came to us last year with a serious situation. He submitted his MPNP EOI by himself and he was quickly selected within the IES category. In this situation, that is the best chance at being selected as he did not have to wait for 6 months of work experience. He was selected based on the connection between his studies and his work experience. After he was selected and he received his LAA, he thought he was on a path to PR status.

Unfortunately, the MPNP Officer who was in charge of his case disagreed. The Officer did not see the connection between his studies and his work experience and decided that he may not be eligible within the IES category. Our client received a PFL and he had 30 days to respond to the Officer’s concerns.

Our client made the very good decision to immediately contact CIL for help. We reviewed all the documents submitted to MPNP. We contacted his employer in Winnipeg. We reviewed his studies and all the courses which he completed as part of his study program. We worked with our client to draft a detailed explanation to the Officer to explain the connection between his studies and his work experience to show that, in fact, he was eligible within the IES category.

As you can see from the title, this is a success story. After many hours of work, we submitted the package and the Officer agreed. We addressed each of the Officer’s concerns and we clearly showed that our client qualified for this category.

Congratulations to our client!

After fixing this situation, our client was both relieved and excited to go to the next step. He was back on track to get PR status. He is, of course, very thankful for all the work done by our office. He provided a 5 STAR review on Google.

We look forward to working with our client in the future so he can achieve his immigration dreams!

Victims of Fake Immigration Consultant

/in , , /by

Choosing a representative may be the most important decision for the applicant. Canadian immigration officers and Federal Court justices are, in general, not sympathetic to applicants who hire representatives and those representatives mess up their application. A40 is very clear that the actions and decisions of the agent are squarely on the shoulders of the applicant. We have helped many, many (MANY!) applicants respond to A40 concerns by IRCC Officers and CBSA Officers. These cases are extremely serious and we may have to deal with potential consequences to all family members. Many potential victims.

In Winnipeg, the Nigerian community has been rocked by the criminal actions of Chinenye Alozie who was convicted of acting as an unauthorized immigration consultant and misrepresenting facts. He was sentenced to 2 years house arrest for actions he took between 2014 to 2019 – five (5) years of messing up applicants’ files. The damage from Mr Alozie’s criminal actions are widespread. Families are at risk of deportation. Applicants are suffering from mental health issues. CBSA has been systematically going through old files and investigating folks – even if they have since become Permanent Residents or Canadian citizens.

NOTE: Misrepresentation can be an issue at the federal level as well as the provincial level. We have also helped clients deal with this issue re MPNP. 

Criminal Actions

Full disclosure: CIL has represented individuals who were formerly assisted by Mr Alozie and we have been helping our clients. Our goal is to help clients respond to the Officer’s concerns. Thus far, none of our clients who were assisted by Mr Alozie have been deported from Canada. We have been successful with all these files and we will continue to help victims who made the mistake of hiring Mr Alozie.

As reported by the Winnipeg Free Press, Mr Alozie owned a restaurant in Winnipeg and he received significant funds from individuals as part of this scam:

Chinenye Alozie pleaded guilty to acting as an unauthorised immigration consultant and misrepresenting or withholding facts on immigration applications. (Supplied)

Alozie “is not a licensed immigration consultant, nor is he a lawyer,” Crown attorney Matthew Sinclair told provincial court Judge Stacy Cawley at a sentencing hearing Tuesday. “He is not entitled to represent people with respect to their applications.”

A look into Alozie’s bank records found deposits of $90,000 in 2016 and $120,000 in 2017 from people believed to be foreign nationals, Sinclair said. An investigation by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada found 52 deposits were from people applying to come to Canada as temporary students, workers or visitors.

As noted above, WFP reports that at least 52 deposits were found on various applications. In our conversations with CBSA, CIL learned that more than 200 individual victims may be investigated. These victims are not only the applicants who hired Mr Alozie. That group also includes family members of those applicants who may also be inadmissible to Canada.

Criminal Agents in Winnipeg

This is not the first shady agent in Winnipeg, of course. Mr. Alozie is part of a group of criminals who have created victims in the immigration system. Also in 2020, Mr Zhihao Jia was also criminally charged for unlawfully representing people applying for immigration, misrepresenting facts on immigration applications, and communicating false or misleading information with the intent of inducing immigration to Canada. This is an offence under IRPA.

Jiatoo Immigration Consulting has closed and many Chinese families are facing investigations by CBSA. They are also at risk of losing their status and being removed from Canada. Thankfully, we have helped both Nigerian clients who made the mistake of hiring a shady agent as well as Chinese clients who made the same mistake. None of our clients have lost their status.

Helping Victims of Scams

As noted above, we have helped many victims of these scams. In one example, we met with the CBSA Officer many times with our client. He explained the scam and he explained how our client may have benefited from the scam. In one case, our client was able to find her financial documents from the period of her initial application to come to Canada to show the Officer that she actually qualified for the program at that time.

CBSA Officers have broad powers to deal with A40 issues. As noted in IRPA:

Misrepresentation

  • 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

    • (a) 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;

    • […]

Indirectly misrepresenting means that the applicant may hire a shady agent (eg Mr Alozie, Mr Jia, etc) and they, the applicant, are responsible and may be punished for the actions of these shady agents – even if they had nothing to do with the mistake.

In one case, we got this warning letter from CBSA (see photo). This is the best possible result. Congratulations to our client. She was extremely grateful for the services at CIL. I believe Naomi worked many hours on this file to help this family.

Victims of scams suffer greatly. I cannot overstate the ripple effect of these mistakes. If one (1) family member is inadmissible per A40, then ALL family members are inadmissible. This means the whole family may be forcibly removed from Canada and they all lose status. One mistake from many years ago can come back to bite the whole family.

Further Information

Here are some of the cases the Team at CIL have handled over the years related to misrepresentation:

Federal Court Success re MPNP and Misrepresentation

Success: Client gets Warning Letter from CBSA

Victims of Fraud in 2022

 

Success: Warning Letter

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Everyone makes mistakes. In some cases, we deal with situations where our client has made a serious mistake or many mistakes. In other cases, our client has made a minor mistake. In these types of situations, depending on the mistake and the consequences, it may go to an IRCC Officer or a CBSA Officer to review. These Officers have broad discretionary powers to take various types of action against the individual. In some cases, the entire family may be punished. In other cases, the individual may simply get a warning.

Today, we will share a case that involved a mistake by our client that occurred many years ago. She used a shady agent to apply for a Study Permit to Canada based on fraudulent financial documents. The shady agent did not tell her that he added these fraudulent documents to her application. She had no idea. She never got a copy of the package. She didn’t ask questions. She trusted the agent. And she got her Study Permit.

Based on the work of the shady agent, our client got the Study Permit and came to Canada. She finished her studies and she got her PGWP. She was successful with her studies and her career. She got married and had children. She was granted PR status. Everything was going smoothly and, even after many years, she had no idea that the actions of that shady agent may come back to bite.

CBSA caught the shady agent and reviewed all his past applications – going back years. They launched an investigation into many applications and contacted our client regarding her past Study Permit. During an interview with a CBSA Officer in July 2023, our client was served with an A44 Report based on allegations of misrepresentation. The Officer explained Section 40(1)(a) (Misrepretation) of IRPA:

Misrepresentation

40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

    • (a) 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;

As you can read from the above, Section 40(1)(a) (Misrepretation) of IRPA is extremely broad and it may include any mistakes made by a shady agent. The potential punishment for a person who has violated A40 of IRPA:

(2) The following provisions govern subsection (1):

  • (a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of five years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced

This means that our client was at risk of losing her PR status, being removed from Canada, being banned from Canada for 5 years and being separated from her family in Winnipeg. Very serious consequences.

She immediately came to CIL for help. Over a 3 month period, we were in contact with the CBSA Officer. We reviewed her documents. We researched the shady agent. We prepared her defence, with reference to relevant caselaw from Federal Court.

In the end, our client got a “warning letter”. You can see a redacted version of this document. This was the best possible result. Our client’s PR status is no longer at risk. She clearly regrets using a shady agent to do her Study Permit. She now knows that was a big mistake. The Officer accepted her explanation and he accepted that her regret is genuine. The agent has been punished.

I wish I could tell you that these cases are rare. They are not. I cannot even count the number of A44 Reports that we have dealt with over the years. Individuals may get a A44 Report for any of the IRPA sections for inadmissibility. Typically, we look at sections 33 through 43 of IRPA in these types of cases. The most common sections that we deal with are misrepresentation (A40), medical inadmissibility (A38), and criminal inadmissibility (A36). 

In every case, we want to give our client the best chance at a warning letter. If the Officer is not satisfied, then the case is referred to the tribunal for an Admissibility Hearing. They can then give testimony and call witnesses. This can take a lot of work and it can be costly – both in terms of money and stress. In certain cases, the individual may appeal to the IAD for an appeal. Finally, if the IAD is not available for an appeal, we may have to go to Federal Court to fight for our clients. 

CIL has handled all the situations noted above, many times. If you are dealing with this type of situation, give us a call and we will do our best to guide you through the process. 

Warning: Agent in India Causes Deportation Order

/in , , /by

Yet another victim of an immigration scam. Yet another case of an Indian applicant who paid significant money for a Study Permit, only to face a Deportation Order. Yet another international student who is desperately trying to stay in Canada and IRCC is not sympathetic to her situation. I wish I could say this was an isolated case. It is not. These scams are common. Too common. The Government of Canada has released public warnings for years (and years) and CBC News even sent reporters to India to investigate the reasons these applicants continue to fall prey to these scams.

This most recent case involved an international student in Edmonton, Ms. Karamjeet Kaur. As reported:

Even though Karamjeet Kaur, 25, proved not to know the letter was fraudulent, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has ruled that she be deported by May 29.

That decision will likely have implications for possibly hundreds of other international students in Canada who reportedly received similar fake admission letters from the same education agent in India — a situation that shows lack of accountability by border and immigration authorities, according to lawyers and activists who spoke with The Canadian Press.

Kaur, whose poor, rural Indian family spent their life savings so she could be the first among them to study and work abroad, now works as a supervisor for a company in Edmonton. She’s married to a Canadian citizen, frequently volunteers, has a work permit valid until November and was on the path to becoming a permanent resident.

From a legal standpoint, it is not clear how she “proved” that she did not know the letter was fraudulent. That is not something that can be proven. Perhaps in the future, we may have technology that may scan our brains to determine when and how we “know” things. As far as I know, that technology does not exist.

Misrepresentation, which is defined by A40 of IRPA, states:

Misrepresentation

  • 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

    • (a) 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;

    • (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;

    • (c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their claim for refugee protection or application for protection; or

    • (d) on ceasing to be a citizen under

      • (i) paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 8 of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before that coming into force,

      • (ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act, or

      • (iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act.

  • Application

    (2) The following provisions govern subsection (1):

    • (a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of five years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced; and

    • (b) paragraph (1)(b) does not apply unless the Minister is satisfied that the facts of the case justify the inadmissibility.

The key words are highlighted above in bold.

Basically, ignorance is not an excuse. Blaming your agent is not an excuse. Blaming a shady consultant is not an excuse. Not understanding the law is not an excuse.

As stated by CBSA, this is a big problem and this is not an isolated case. As stated:

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) confirmed in an email to The Canadian Press that “there are a number of active Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) investigations into cases of misrepresentation, including those related to study permits.”

This point is highlighted by another CBC News article from last week: Dozens of students who could be kicked out of Canada say they were duped by immigration agents in India. As reported:

Singh said he didn’t do anything wrong and was unaware that his immigration agent in India used those papers for his student visa application.

“I didn’t know that a fake document was used in my student visa application,” Singh told The Fifth Estate in an interview. “It wasn’t until after I received that notice from the [Canada Border Services Agency] that I found the letter was fraudulent.”

Indeed, here at CIL, we have met with many clients who have faced similar circumstances. Notably, we were successful at Federal Court with a Ukrainian client who also faced deportation when an agent provided a fake IELTS result and he submitted the document to IRCC. As noted by Justice Ahmed in Agapi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2018 FC 923:

I agree with the Applicant that the Manager failed to consider whether the Applicant honestly and reasonably believed he was not withholding material information. The Applicant’s response to the procedural fairness letter explains, in detail, the reasons for which he could not provide an original copy. For example, it explains that he relied upon the results as presented, because the procedure was consistent for those outside Kiev. It explains that he was not suspicious of the copy he obtained, because he had no need for originals. Finally, it explains that he took measures to obtain explanations from the language school. Yet the Global Case Management System notes are brief and only state that PA was given an opportunity to respond to our concerns via [a procedural fairness letter], but the information PA provided failed to alleviate my concerns.  None of the Applicant’s evidence is addressed in the reasons.

[…]

As such, the Manager’s decision is unreasonable.

We were able to win this case, despite the strict laws. We were able to successfully argue the “honestly and reasonably” exception to A40 of IRPA to get a positive result.

Our client, Mr Agapi, is still in Canada and he was not deported.

Hopefully Ms Kaur is able find a good lawyer who can help her stay in Canada.

CBC NEWS: Indian died at border re fake documents

/in , , , /by

One year ago, an Indian family died at the border, trying to cross from Canada into the USA. This family had come to Canada on a Study Permit, after using an agent in India. Over the past year, law enforcement in Canada, the USA and India have been investigating this tragic event that led to the death of 2 adults and 2 children. They have discovered the Study Permit was obtained by submitting fake documents to the Canadian Visa Office in India.

CBC News has reported many details on these preventable deaths. As reported by CBC News:

The man’s plan to cross into the U.S. illegally was set in motion a year earlier, when someone who frequented his father’s shop in India offered to help send his son to a foreign country, according to the police report, which was filed following a preliminary investigation.

The man’s father told police he agreed to pay that person 6.5 million Indian rupees — over $106,000 Cdn at current exchange rates — in return for getting his son a Canadian study permit and helping him get into the U.S., the report says.

Alastair Clarke was interviewed as part of the investigation and he provided insight on these issues. Clarke Immigration Law has assisted many people navigate the immigration system with similar circumstance.

As noted in the article, if an application for a Study Permit includes fraudulent or fake documents that were included as supporting documents, the Applicant is 100% liable/ responsible, in almost every case. This is a serious problem, and unfortunately, it is quite common in many jurisdictions. The Government of Canada issued a blanket warning in 2019, for example, based on the serious nature of this problem.

At CIL, we have dealt with many cases where the Applicant’s shady agent submitted fake documents, without their knowledge. This can lead to the Applicant, as well as all the Applicant’s family members, being inadmissible to Canada per A40 (misrepresentation). As stated by IRPA:

Misrepresentation

  • 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

    • (a) 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 key language above is “directly or indirectly”. The “indirectly” part of the section refers to all documents that were submitted by an agent, by a family member, by a lawyer, by any other type of representative or by any volunteer. A40 is extremely broad, by definition and when Parliament drafted the language of this section, they intended A40 to capture any and all types of behaviour that may be fraudulent.

CIL successful represented an Applicant who faced A40 misrepresentation. Our legal arguments were accepted by Federal Court Justice Ahmed, based on the facts of that case:

[14]  The Applicant [CLARKE IMMIGRATION LAW] points out that section 40 of the IRPA does not apply to misrepresentations made honestly by an applicant who reasonably believes they did not withhold material information (Medel v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 FC 345, Baro v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1299 at para 15, and Goudarzi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 425 at para 33). The Applicant submits that his response to the procedural fairness letter provided evidence that this exception applies to his alleged misrepresentation; he explained that the knowledge of the potential fraud was beyond his control and in his view he reasonably and honestly believed that he was not misrepresenting any material facts. Despite his response to the procedural fairness letter, the Applicant submits the Manager failed to consider whether any alleged misrepresentation was honestly and reasonably made.

The Court accepted that our client was not inadmissible even though his agent submitted fake IELTS results.

This is a very serious issue and there are many applicants who are victims of shady agents/ consultants. Please contact our office if you a facing this type of situation.

Federal Court Success re MPNP and Misrepresentation

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Congratulations to our client Ievgen Agapi, a truck driver from Ukraine, and all the supporting people who assisted with this case. Justice Ahmed of the Federal Court of Canada agreed with our arguments that the Visa Officer in Kiev failed to consider whether the alleged misrepresentation was honestly and reasonably made. Click here to read the full decision.

This is a significant decision in the jurisprudence of misrepresentation, as well as the processing of MPNP applications.

In the words of Justice Ahmed:

14]  The Applicant points out that section 40 of the IRPA does not apply to misrepresentations made honestly by an applicant who reasonably believes they did not withhold material information (Medel v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 FC 345, Baro v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1299 (CanLII) at para 15, and Goudarzi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 425 (CanLII) at para 33). The Applicant submits that his response to the procedural fairness letter provided evidence that this exception applies to his alleged misrepresentation; he explained that the knowledge of the potential fraud was beyond his control and in his view he reasonably and honestly believed that he was not misrepresenting any material facts. Despite his response to the procedural fairness letter, the Applicant submits the Manager failed to consider whether any alleged misrepresentation was honestly and reasonably made.

[15]  The Respondent submits that the Applicant is merely “blaming” a third party for his misrepresentation and argues that efforts to get the original results were not before the decision-maker. The Respondent acknowledges that there is a “narrow exception” for innocent misrepresentation, but reiterates that it only applies in exceptional and narrow circumstance. The Respondent cites a line of jurisprudence for the proposition that misrepresentation made by a non-party to an application, without the applicant’s knowledge, does not save an application from an inadmissibility finding under section 40 of the IRPA. The Respondent also takes the position that the Applicant’s response to the procedural fairness letter did not meet the high standard to warrant such an exception.

[16]  I agree with the Applicant that the Manager failed to consider whether the Applicant honestly and reasonably believed he was not withholding material information.

CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS POSITIVE DECISION!