A couple we know got a visitor visa to canada based on an invitation letter from someone they don't know saying they're coming to their wedding. They never came as visitors but just got their permanent residency. What's the risk of that invitation letter coming back to bite them in the behind at some point?
Lie on invitation letter?
- Thread starter hamgha
- Start date
@albloshi_sa is wrong. Lying on any application is misrepresentation and can get the person a 5 year ban if they are caught. Is that worth it? Chances are slim it will come back on them but you never know.
yeah they've been pulling stunts like that for a few years now. unfortunately can't choose your family members. we'll see i guess
The family member providing the invitation letter has the best chances of seeing any repercussions when trying to invite other family members if there are any repercussions. Other family members may struggle to get TRVs especially if the family member claimed asylum.
the person who provided the invitation letter doesn't even know them. they applied for a visitor visa despite their pnp application being in process. but they are related to us. we refused to provide them with one as they wanted to come here and work on a visitor visa and we didn't want to get involve. they're dumb but we still care about them not getting screwed over. what i'm worried about is their PR or future citizenship getting revoked over this
The TRVs are issued based on the visitor's own circumstances , ties to home country, finances etc. The invitation letter doesn't hold a high weight in visitor TRV application. This is why you see many refusals for Visitor and Super visas even when the inviter has a brilliant profile but the applicant's own circumstances are weak.
By law, I have my rights to invite whoever I want to my wedding party.
If I have invited someone (a friend, relative, known-person or just anyone) to my wedding and he got a visa , it doesn't mean I undertake that he will leave Canada at end of his trip. There is no misrepresentation here.
The onus is on the Applicant to proof that he is socially, financially stable and will leave the country on completion of his trip.
And if someone came to my wedding and after the event never left Canada, the repercussions will follow the applicant not the inviter.
There should not be any issues for the inviter whatsoever.
For the applicant, I cannot say anything as it is at the interpretation of IRCC, how they interprets his action. They may and may not cause a issue for him.
At the end of the day, it is legal for a visitor to apply for other applications once entered legally in Canada. And if the other applications are accepted, they can process it inside Canada. As long as they remain in status and don't go out of status, there should not any issue.
So, in summary, did they do anything illegal? NO. were they honest, and their actions were in good faith? NO.
By law, I have my rights to invite whoever I want to my wedding party.
If I have invited someone (a friend, relative, known-person or just anyone) to my wedding and he got a visa , it doesn't mean I undertake that he will leave Canada at end of his trip. There is no misrepresentation here.
The onus is on the Applicant to proof that he is socially, financially stable and will leave the country on completion of his trip.
And if someone came to my wedding and after the event never left Canada, the repercussions will follow the applicant not the inviter.
There should not be any issues for the inviter whatsoever.
For the applicant, I cannot say anything as it is at the interpretation of IRCC, how they interprets his action. They may and may not cause a issue for him.
At the end of the day, it is legal for a visitor to apply for other applications once entered legally in Canada. And if the other applications are accepted, they can process it inside Canada. As long as they remain in status and don't go out of status, there should not any issue.
So, in summary, did they do anything illegal? NO. were they honest, and their actions were in good faith? NO.
Your analogy would be fine if there was an actual wedding for the invitee to attend, and you are correct that the person giving the invite isn't responsible for what the person does once they come to Canada, whether they leave when they are supposed to or anything else. The OP said that there was no wedding, the invitation was bogus. If the invitee used that bogus letter as being part of their app for a TRV then they are misrepresenting themselves by using a fake document and could face consequences.
As I said the chances are slim of it coming back on them in the future but the fact, as mentioned by the OP, is the person used a fake document in their application for the TRV. Whether or not that letter had any effect on the approval of the TRV is not what we are discussing.
You even said it yourself, "were they honest? No."
correct the "invitee" doesn't know them at all so im not even sure on what basis he accepted to issue it (maybe through the agency they've been working with?)
and yes, what i'm worried about is by getting themselves involved in that (+ they're currently at the moment in the US working on a visitor visa....) that it backfires on their status in canada.
no wedding, the invitation was bogus
Oh Sorry, I didnt catch this. I thought it was a real wedding event.
Anyway, This action will keep haunting them for life, both the invitee and invitor. But chances are rare that it will cause any big issue.
Oh Sorry, I didnt catch this. I thought it was a real wedding event.
Anyway, This action will keep haunting them for life, both the invitee and invitor. But chances are rare that it will cause any big issue.
Both the inviter and invitee in this matter have committed a serious crime and I would not feel sorry to see either in jail.
For starters, we have the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provisions:
Misrepresentation
127 No person shall knowingly
128 A person who contravenes a provision of section 126 or 127 is guilty of an offence and liable
If that is not enough, we also have this Criminal Code provision:
368(1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing or believing that a document is forged, (a) uses, deals with or acts on it as if it were genuine; (b) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act on it as if it were genuine; (c) transfers, sells or offers to sell it or makes it available, to any person, knowing that or being reckless as to whether an offence will be committed under paragraph (a) or (b); or (d) possesses it with intent to commit an offence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Here is a fair explanation of how s. 368 is applied:
https://www.criminal-code.ca/criminal-code-of-canada-section-368-1-use-trafficking-or-possession-of-forged-document/index.html
Section 368 should be read and understood in conjunction with the forgery provisions:
366. (1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.
Making false document
(2) Making a false document includes
(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;
(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or
(c) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.
When forgery complete
(3) Forgery is complete as soon as a document is made with the knowledge and intent referred to in subsection (1), notwithstanding that the person who makes it does not intend that any particular person should use or act on it as genuine or be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or refrain from doing anything.
Forgery complete though document incomplete
(4) Forgery is complete notwithstanding that the false document is incomplete or does not purport to be a document that is binding in law, if it is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted on as genuine.
Here, the invitation to a non-existent wedding, extended by someone the TRV applicants did not even know, was, in law, a forgery. It was uttered with the intention that the IRCC would act on it, by granting a TRV. It was plainly intended to influence the outcome of the application, knowing it was a complete lie.
I am much offended by the conduct described here. My wife and I tried openly and honestly 3 times in 3 years to get her a TRV and were denied each time. One reason for that is because there is a surfeit of devious types out there who will lie, cheat and misrepresent to achieve what we were denied, while we paid meticulous observance to the rules. So, the IRCC tends to view many applications with a jaundiced eye and the cheaters make it harder for the honest people to succeed. Many of the cheaters come here, fully intending to overstay. They lie about their intention to return home. All of those hurt the honest applicants. It is insidious, criminal behaviour that should, in fact, be taken more seriously and punished accordingly.
For starters, we have the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provisions:
Misrepresentation
127 No person shall knowingly
- (a) directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
- (b) communicate, directly or indirectly, by any means, false or misleading information or declarations with intent to induce or deter immigration to Canada; or
- ...
128 A person who contravenes a provision of section 126 or 127 is guilty of an offence and liable
- (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both; or
- (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both.
If that is not enough, we also have this Criminal Code provision:
368(1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing or believing that a document is forged, (a) uses, deals with or acts on it as if it were genuine; (b) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act on it as if it were genuine; (c) transfers, sells or offers to sell it or makes it available, to any person, knowing that or being reckless as to whether an offence will be committed under paragraph (a) or (b); or (d) possesses it with intent to commit an offence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Here is a fair explanation of how s. 368 is applied:
https://www.criminal-code.ca/criminal-code-of-canada-section-368-1-use-trafficking-or-possession-of-forged-document/index.html
Section 368 should be read and understood in conjunction with the forgery provisions:
366. (1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with intent
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.
Making false document
(2) Making a false document includes
(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;
(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or
(c) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.
When forgery complete
(3) Forgery is complete as soon as a document is made with the knowledge and intent referred to in subsection (1), notwithstanding that the person who makes it does not intend that any particular person should use or act on it as genuine or be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or refrain from doing anything.
Forgery complete though document incomplete
(4) Forgery is complete notwithstanding that the false document is incomplete or does not purport to be a document that is binding in law, if it is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted on as genuine.
Here, the invitation to a non-existent wedding, extended by someone the TRV applicants did not even know, was, in law, a forgery. It was uttered with the intention that the IRCC would act on it, by granting a TRV. It was plainly intended to influence the outcome of the application, knowing it was a complete lie.
I am much offended by the conduct described here. My wife and I tried openly and honestly 3 times in 3 years to get her a TRV and were denied each time. One reason for that is because there is a surfeit of devious types out there who will lie, cheat and misrepresent to achieve what we were denied, while we paid meticulous observance to the rules. So, the IRCC tends to view many applications with a jaundiced eye and the cheaters make it harder for the honest people to succeed. Many of the cheaters come here, fully intending to overstay. They lie about their intention to return home. All of those hurt the honest applicants. It is insidious, criminal behaviour that should, in fact, be taken more seriously and punished accordingly.