Time is passing, and we are now seeing a wave of refusals based on misrepresentation — that is, the deliberate withholding of facts that 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 — and when I ask the client for copies of their earlier applications, they simply don’t exist.
Then comes the moment when the client applies for PR — and suddenly receives a letter accusing them of withholding information (in plain language, 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 out 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 out for a symbolic fee.
And this is where the age-old truth surfaces: 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 they genuinely had no idea that their representative submitted incorrect information. In any case involving unintentional misrepresentation or omission of facts, it’s crucial to prove it was an innocent mistake.
So, what exactly qualifies 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 (placed “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 enrollment — 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 a previous ruling from the appeals tribunal, which stated 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 why so many students had their studies delayed.”
Applied to our community, 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 symbolic fees. 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 phrase often used by the court system in such cases:
Ignoring facts that would raise red flags for a reasonable person in a reasonable situation prevents the applicant from claiming they “didn’t know” — because it was their responsibility to verify anything that a reasonable person would question.
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 vigilant and informed!
Oleksandra Melnykova, Immigration and Refugee Consultant in Canada.
Copyright 2024 “SKI Immigration Inc.” All rights reserved.
