Archive for category: Misrepresentation

You are here: / Misrepresentation

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!