Misrepresentation in an old abandoned PR card renewal application:
There is a recent Federal Court decision in a case about misrepresentation made in a PR card application, made in 2008, where that application was deemed abandoned after the PR failed to provide a requested residency questionnaire, and then more than SIX years later IRCC investigated the PR and issued a Section 44(1) inadmissibility report on the grounds of making a misrepresentation in the 2008 PRC application.
See http://canlii.ca/t/hpdvf Zhangli Geng and Minister Public Safety or
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/303880/index.do
It is noteworthy that among factors triggering or propelling further investigation of the PR and, in effect, prosecution of the PR, is that the PR was identified in the course of a CBSA investigation into a particular immigration consultant . . . albeit that happened in 2012. Whereas it was not until after the PR applied for a new PRC in 2015 and that application was "re-examined" in 2016, that IRCC proceeded to issue the 44(1) Report against the PR.
It appears there was an egregious effort to defraud CIC in 2008, and that was facilitated by a crooked consultant, so this case may not be representative of most cases in which a PR fudged the facts some.
But it illustrates that withdrawing or allowing an application to be deemed abandoned will not insulate the PR from any misrepresentation made in a PRC application.
It illustrates that once the PR has made a misrepresentation, that can hang over the PR's head for a very, very long time.
And it illustrates the extent to which IRCC and CBSA are keeping records which can flag a PR in the future.
In other words, it is a cautionary tale.
Edit to add:
I neglected to note another recent Federal Court decision related to misrepresentation made in a PRC application, for which the PR was actually criminally prosecuted. See https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/304076/index.do
There is a recent Federal Court decision in a case about misrepresentation made in a PR card application, made in 2008, where that application was deemed abandoned after the PR failed to provide a requested residency questionnaire, and then more than SIX years later IRCC investigated the PR and issued a Section 44(1) inadmissibility report on the grounds of making a misrepresentation in the 2008 PRC application.
See http://canlii.ca/t/hpdvf Zhangli Geng and Minister Public Safety or
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/303880/index.do
It is noteworthy that among factors triggering or propelling further investigation of the PR and, in effect, prosecution of the PR, is that the PR was identified in the course of a CBSA investigation into a particular immigration consultant . . . albeit that happened in 2012. Whereas it was not until after the PR applied for a new PRC in 2015 and that application was "re-examined" in 2016, that IRCC proceeded to issue the 44(1) Report against the PR.
It appears there was an egregious effort to defraud CIC in 2008, and that was facilitated by a crooked consultant, so this case may not be representative of most cases in which a PR fudged the facts some.
But it illustrates that withdrawing or allowing an application to be deemed abandoned will not insulate the PR from any misrepresentation made in a PRC application.
It illustrates that once the PR has made a misrepresentation, that can hang over the PR's head for a very, very long time.
And it illustrates the extent to which IRCC and CBSA are keeping records which can flag a PR in the future.
In other words, it is a cautionary tale.
Edit to add:
I neglected to note another recent Federal Court decision related to misrepresentation made in a PRC application, for which the PR was actually criminally prosecuted. See https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/304076/index.do
Last edited:
