Let’s take a closer look.

Time is passing by, and we are now seeing a wave of refusals based on misrepresentation which is the deliberate withholding of facts that does influence immigration decisions.

When applying for Permanent Residency, your application package must align with all previous submissions and match the information you’ve declared in every past application.

For a huge number of applicants, the CUAET visa was prepared by one person, the extension in Canada by another, the removal of conditions by a third person etc. So when I ask the client for copies of their earlier applications, they simply don’t have them.

When it’s finally time to apply for PR, the applicant suddenly receives a letter accusing them of withholding information (in other words being caught in fraud). The applicant is usually given 30 days to respond.

Most people say: “I didn’t know what was in there, someone else filled it up for me, I didn’t pay attention.” I ask them for contact details of the previous consultant or lawyer...but there are none, because it was a volunteer or “helper” who filled it up for a small fee.

And the famous saying pops up here right away: ignorance of the law does not exempt you from responsibility.

According to Canadian law, it’s not enough to simply say “I didn’t know”. An applicant must prove that they genuinely had no idea that their representative submitted incorrect information. In any case of unintentional misrepresentation or omission of facts, it’s crucial to prove an innocent mistake.

So, what’s exactly considered as an innocent mistake?

Remember the high-profile 2023 case involving the deportation of 700 Indian students due to fake college admission letters? One student filed a lawsuit with the Federal Court of Canada, claiming he was unaware of the fraud he was involved in. The court rejected the case based on the following:

· The applicant had voluntarily transferred responsibility for the entire process to an unauthorized immigration representative and didn’t even attempt to verify if the representative was legally allowed to handle the case (“blind faith”).

· Despite the lack of proper communication between the student, the college, and the so-called “simplified” admission process, the applicant failed to take adequate steps to verify his actual enrolment, for example, by contacting the college directly.

Now, if we apply this to CUAET immigration and PR submissions, the pattern looks like this: the client willingly placed full responsibility in the hands of a volunteer (“helper”) and did not verify what was actually submitted.

Furthermore, the Federal Court upheld the previous decision of the Appeal Tribunal which states the following:

“Even though the applicant was not directly involved in the fraud, the misrepresentation cannot be considered unintentional, because the applicant could have contacted the college, checked the representative’s credentials, asked more questions about their file, and asked why so many students had their studies delayed.”

Applied to our compatriots, very few people can actually claim their mistake was unintentional, since in most cases, they could have verified what was submitted, how, and on what grounds.

A separate comment must be made about “shadow helpers” offering assistance for a very small fee. If they made mistakes in your previous applications, you cannot shift the blame onto them because by using unauthorized services, you forfeit the right to hold them accountable. The Canadian legal system is built on the principle that if you use the services of unlicensed individuals, you take full responsibility for everything they do on your behalf. However, if your application was incorrectly submitted by a licensed professional, you may be allowed to reapply, since this would be considered a professional error of a regulated representative.

And now, here is the key statement often used by the court system in such cases:

Ignoring facts that would cause doubt in a reasonable person in a reasonable situation, no longer allow the applicant to claim that they “didn’t know” since it was their responsibility to verify what would cause doubt in a reasonable person.

Examples of “discrepancies” from real-life sad cases:

· Previous refusals of visas and/or extensions

· Conflicting work experience in different applications

· Declaring or failing to declare additional citizenships

· Claimed vs. unclaimed military service

· “Forgetting” to declare a previous marriage, and then later listing it

· “Forgetting” to declare a child (either earlier or now)

· Different lengths of employment listed

· Different countries of residence and different timeframes in different applications

Be very attentive and stay informed!