Sponsoring my wife with previous rejected visa application (with a twist)

[arian.seyedi]

I am sponsoring my wife who had a failed visitor visa attempt 4 years ago. The decision was made based on a lack of convincing evidence that she would return home before the visa expired. Here is where it gets complicated:

At the time she had trusted a local agency to apply on her behalf (which we NOW know well was a mistake since they were not really "representing" her legally and were not professionally certified to represent immigration applicants). She later found that the individual in charge of her application included false information in her application without her knowing. The forms had included lies such as her having a husband and an infant which were totally false. She hired a lawyer and sued the person and we have the documents showing that she took legal action at the time. She also got her ATIP which is where/how we knew about these falsehoods.

My question is more about the looming effects of these misrepresentations in her visa application on the sponsorship application. The thought that she might be deemed inadmissible and cannot enter Canada for something so stupid that could affect our marriage is beyond stressful. I welcome questions and any suggestions from the readers. Thank you

 

[Hummingbird89]

Tell them everything.
They may request an interview.

 

[arian.seyedi]

Tell them everything.
They may request an interview.

What do you mean by that exactly? We are going to be truthful about this of course but we don't know what awaits us in a situation like this or what the likely path will be.

 

[YVR123]

What do you mean by that exactly? We are going to be truthful about this of course but we don't know what awaits us in a situation like this or what the likely path will be.

No one knows. If she never get a 5 year ban, then just apply with the truthful information and see.

 

[canuck78]

Would suggest working with an immigration lawyer. It will be important to address the incorrect information. That may need to happen before applying for sponsorship. You should hire an immigration lawyer who will be able to advise you on the beat way to address the situation.

 

[armoured]

At the time she had trusted a local agency to apply on her behalf (which we NOW know well was a mistake since they were not really "representing" her legally and were not professionally certified to represent immigration applicants). She later found that the individual in charge of her application included false information in her application without her knowing. The forms had included lies such as her having a husband and an infant which were totally false. She hired a lawyer and sued the person and we have the documents showing that she took legal action at the time. She also got her ATIP which is where/how we knew about these falsehoods.

Something I don't understand here: she signed the documents filed for the visa, correct? Did she not read them? Or just signed a blank form?

You say she hired a lawyer and sued the person. What was the result of that?

 

[arian.seyedi]

I would agree with Sonikell. Although, what you say is true and most of us have the similar thoughts while reading yet another case of "my agent is bad now I'm trouble", but your post serves hardly any purpose.

okay.

Something I don't understand here: she signed the documents filed for the visa, correct? Did she not read them? Or just signed a blank form?

You say she hired a lawyer and sued the person. What was the result of that?

no, she did not sign anything. I personally saw the ATIP attachment. Signatures were electronic only and she had no idea these forms were filled with wrong information. She provided her passport and other documents needed to fill out all the forms. This agency was among many who did this sort of thing. It's immoral, I know. She should not have done it. I know that too. This was the infinitely stupid and wrong move to make. And we have to suffer the consequences. I am not posting this to get a logical analysis of the past. I am here precisely for useful tips and any past experiences anyone might have that are relevant.

 

[armoured]

no, she did not sign anything. I personally saw the ATIP attachment. Signatures were electronic only and she had no idea these forms were filled with wrong information. She provided her passport and other documents needed to fill out all the forms. This agency was among many who did this sort of thing. It's immoral, I know. She should not have done it. I know that too. This was the infinitely stupid and wrong move to make. And we have to suffer the consequences. I am not posting this to get a logical analysis of the past. I am here precisely for useful tips and any past experiences anyone might have that are relevant.

-So while this is not a perfect 'defense', per se, this is useful - if, in fact, the representative signed on her behalf without her knowledge, that is possibly a forged signature. You'd need a better knowledge than I have of the specific order in which things happen and the legal aspects to make that argument strong from a legal perspective, but if she can truthfully say that she was not aware of the content (and note - this part has to be rock solid, i.e. actually perfectly clear that she did not know and could not have known) - then the explanation can be that she was not aware, did not know, and advised when she did find out. (Although I'm guessing she didn't advise when she found out, if she advised when it became relevant, arguably that is a bit stronger than not being forthright about it).

-Similar point about why I asked what was the result when she sued. Since you didn't answer, is the actual answer that she didn't really actually sue?

-Seems to you like people are quibbling about the 'logical analysis of the past.' But my points are specific and factual. Bring up points that aren't supported in fact, you will make things worse.

 

[arian.seyedi]

-So while this is not a perfect 'defense', per se, this is useful - if, in fact, the representative signed on her behalf without her knowledge, that is possibly a forged signature. You'd need a better knowledge than I have of the specific order in which things happen and the legal aspects to make that argument strong from a legal perspective, but if she can truthfully say that she was not aware of the content (and note - this part has to be rock solid, i.e. actually perfectly clear that she did not know and could not have known) - then the explanation can be that she was not aware, did not know, and advised when she did find out. (Although I'm guessing she didn't advise when she found out, if she advised when it became relevant, arguably that is a bit stronger than not being forthright about it).

-Similar point about why I asked what was the result when she sued. Since you didn't answer, is the actual answer that she didn't really actually sue?

-Seems to you like people are quibbling about the 'logical analysis of the past.' But my points are specific and factual. Bring up points that aren't supported in fact, you will make things worse.

Really appreciate the unopinionated and helpful points. She did in fact sue the firm and her point of contact with the full story of what happened attaching the agreement she signed (that directly instructed the representative to only act on her behalf using the documents she provided only!). We were told by the lawyer that this is a good piece of evidence. If an agency goes ahead and breaks all kinds of moral and legal codes you can think of, it should not ultimately affect someone else (my wife in this example) and that's a human right Canada respects, thank god for that. So that's that.


PS
Unfortunately, those who lash out at stories like this do not fully understand the situation in 3rd world countries and have no clue what they're lashing out about. The part I mentioned about 'logical analysis of the past' was regarding some insensitive responses that honestly do not warrant a response from me or anyone for that matter. All I care about is how to not be bitten by this because first of all it was not something we or even her alone chose to do and secondly it is something in the past and has nothing to do with me! Agencies who put fake documents in others' applications do that because they want their success rate to go up and since they have 0 stake in the game, if shit hits the fan it's not them who burn. So immoral of them. I know at least one person who had the same thing happen to them in the exact same way. When we talked to a lawyer, he said that he defended so many of these cases. So it's real!
Besides, we have been and will always be truthful. Anyways! Thanks for reading.

 

[armoured]

Really appreciate the unopinionated and helpful points. She did in fact sue the firm and her point of contact with the full story of what happened attaching the agreement she signed (that directly instructed the representative to only act on her behalf using the documents she provided only!)

So what happened when she sued?

We were told by the lawyer that this is a good piece of evidence. If an agency goes ahead and breaks all kinds of moral and legal codes you can think of, it should not ultimately affect someone else (my wife in this example) and that's a human right Canada respects, thank god for that. So that's that.

My caution on this is primarily because I thought that the applicant had to see the final version before signing.

PS
Unfortunately, those who lash out at stories like this do not fully understand the situation in 3rd world countries and have no clue what they're lashing out about.

It's not cut and dry either way, honestly. I do understand what you're saying - there are completely dishonest reps out there.

On the other hand - from personal experience - a lot of applicants want only the results, and do not care at all about the means used to get them. And it is an asymmetric bet if they can always say "it's my lawyer's fault."

The larger issue, that is not straightforward, is that in many societies, sticking to the 'moral requirements' expected of eg Canadian society (and i use this term advisedly, let's just say, what Canadian society would like to believe about itself is not always the same as what Canadian society actually does) is not always possible in many other countries, or at least not always compatible with surviving.

Anyway, good luck. I have no further commenht about your particular case except to say that it still may not go the way you'd like.

 

[arian.seyedi]

So what happened when she sued?

When she sued them the judge initially sided with her and other complainants for a hefty amount, but soon turned his vote and voted in favor of the criminal agency. My wife's lawyer speculates that the agency bought the judge by offering a portion of what they would otherwise have to pay the court as a result of losing the case (again, something you'd be more familiar with in a country where morality does not really help you survive!)

 

[canuck78]

When she sued them the judge initially sided with her and other complainants for a hefty amount, but soon turned his vote and voted in favor of the criminal agency. My wife's lawyer speculates that the agency bought the judge by offering a portion of what they would otherwise have to pay the court as a result of losing the case (again, something you'd be more familiar with in a country where morality does not really help you survive!)

You didn’t mention that she lost the case. If she had won the case then she would have had a stronger case when approaching IRCC. Even though Canada is aware that courts are corrupt in many locations when you sign a document it is hard to know who has submitted the false information. You need to consult a Canadian immigration lawyer about what should be done in your situation.

 

[armoured]

Even though Canada is aware that courts are corrupt in many locations when you sign a document it is hard to know who has submitted the false information.

Are you 100% certain that the applicant has to physically sign or confirm [at a keyboard, separate from the rep]?

Yes, applicants are responsible for the representatives they hire. But there is also - I believe - a legal concept of having some ability to rely on non-fraudulent behaviour of one's agents, within reason (with complicated related concepts such as whether you can check what is filed on your behalf creating a presumption of reliance, etc). [sure I"m not using terminology correctly here, too lazy to look it up.]

Anyway: we can argue about the legal details here, but if the visa applicaiton process does not provide the applicant with copies of what's been filed, doesn't require them to check it, and does not even provide an ability to check that info after filed, it's more than a grey area. And one I'm not comfortable being 'preachy' about.

 

[armoured]

When she sued them the judge initially sided with her and other complainants for a hefty amount, but soon turned his vote and voted in favor of the criminal agency. My wife's lawyer speculates that the agency bought the judge by offering a portion of what they would otherwise have to pay the court as a result of losing the case (again, something you'd be more familiar with in a country where morality does not really help you survive!)

When you say the judge initially sided with her, was that in writing? Was eg there an interim published judgment?

I at any rate would have no issue with providing the info that she did sue. And mention that courts are problematic.

The point being that going out of your way to sue - at some cost - when there was little or no prospect it was going to help the visa application (the trv that is) is at least some prima facie evidence or at least a plausible argument that your spouse was NOT a party to the submitting-false-info scheme. (Why would she sue otherwise?)

 

[canuck78]

Are you 100% certain that the applicant has to physically sign or confirm [at a keyboard, separate from the rep]?

Yes, applicants are responsible for the representatives they hire. But there is also - I believe - a legal concept of having some ability to rely on non-fraudulent behaviour of one's agents, within reason (with complicated related concepts such as whether you can check what is filed on your behalf creating a presumption of reliance, etc). [sure I"m not using terminology correctly here, too lazy to look it up.]

Anyway: we can argue about the legal details here, but if the visa applicaiton process does not provide the applicant with copies of what's been filed, doesn't require them to check it, and does not even provide an ability to check that info after filed, it's more than a grey area. And one I'm not comfortable being 'preachy' about.

Even if there was a way for you to sign without seeing the documents you are normally liable if you sign a document which is why you should always ask to see what you are signing. This is a complex situation which is why consulting a lawyer about how to address the issue with IRCC would probably be best.