Misrepresentation what to do next

[Bellacoola]

Hi all,

I know someone who was included as dependant to their parent, was issued a visa yet prior to landing, secretly (without The family knowing) had gotten married.


Now, I know from the threads I had read that this person committed Misrepresentation and that his sspouse can never be sponsored.

Question is:

1.) How will this impact the (parent) principal application and the other dependants?

2.) Can he still apply for PR after the 5 year ban?


I badly need your response as this is a very stressful and depressing situation... thank you

 

[dpenabill]

Hi all,

I know someone who was included as dependant to their parent, was issued a visa yet prior to landing, secretly (without The family knowing) had gotten married.


Now, I know from the threads I had read that this person committed Misrepresentation and that his sspouse can never be sponsored.

Question is:

1.) How will this impact the (parent) principal application and the other dependants?

2.) Can he still apply for PR after the 5 year ban?


I badly need your response as this is a very stressful and depressing situation... thank you

UPFRONT CAUTION: This individual should obtain the assistance of a qualified Canadian immigration LAWYER unless they plan to leave Canada with NO plans to so much as visit Canada for many years and accept they will have very little, very, very little chance of obtaining any future residency status in Canada.

I do not know how these situations tend to go in actual cases, but my sense is this situation may be approached somewhat differently than misrepresentation by a principal applicant or misrepresentation in the forms submitted. Thus, for example, it may make a difference if the marriage was before the applications were made, after the applications were made but before the PR visas were issued, or after the PR visa was issued but before the individual landed. I do not know for sure this makes a difference. My sense is that it might . . . along with a number of other facts as well, such as the individual's age, the individual's understanding of the process, and other circumstances. In particular, it appears to me that while this individual will almost certainly be forever barred from sponsoring the spouse, it might be possible to keep PR status. Again, a LAWYER can at least go over all the circumstances and offer a far better overview of what is at stake, what the prospects are, what options there might be.

And a LAWYER could better answer these questions as well . . . not just the technical answers, but practical answers with an explanation of prospective contingencies and the parameters of possible options.



That said, my observations:

This should have no impact on the principal applicant/PR nor any other accompanying applicants (now PRs). So long as they did not participate or encourage the fraud, or otherwise deceive or conceal information from CIC, IRCC, or CBSA.

As I understand things, this will NOT forever ban the individual who landed without informing CIC/IRCC or a CBSA landing officer of their marital status. BUT of course it is likely to forever affect how IRCC perceives the credibility of this individual in any future transactions or applications.

For example, not many employers will rehire an employee fired for stealing from the employer, because they do not trust the individual, not because there is some rule prohibiting the employer from hiring that person again.

And of course, at the least, the individual would have to qualify for a PR visa. Outside the family sponsored class (and this individual is NOT likely to be eligible for this class of immigration), qualifying for and being granted a PR visa is a more and more difficult hurdle. And, again, any such application will encounter at least some elevated burden due to compromised-credibility.

In other words, in response to Q1, there should be minimal if any impact on the principal applicant or other accompanying family members. In response to Q2, yes, this individual should be able to apply for future status like any other Foreign National, after the ban period, BUT with a looming caveat, a credibility dark-cloud overhead.

 

[Bellacoola]

Thank you for taking time to respond.

With that being said,

1.) Is it worth trying to hire an immigration lawyer if we know in fact that this person already committed a mistake?

2.) I know this may sound Insane but would it change a thing if this person informs the CIC about the misrepresentation?

3.) Have you seen other cases like this? Do you know what happened to them after the ban?

Thank you

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Thank you for taking time to respond.

With that being said,

1.) Is it worth trying to hire an immigration lawyer if we know in fact that this person already committed a mistake?

2.) I know this may sound Insane but would it change a thing if this person informs the CIC about the misrepresentation?

3.) Have you seen other cases like this? Do you know what happened to them after the ban?

Thank you

1. No lawyer can change the situation. Note that it was not a "mistake"; it was immigration fraud.

2. No.

3. At this point, there is no ban.


What exactly does this person want to do? Does he want to be with his spouse? If so, either he stays quiet about the misrepresentation and the spouse qualifies on her own to immigrate to Canada or he renounces his PR status and returns to his home country. If he renounces, he can do so without declaring the misrepresentation and there will not be a ban.

 

[Bellacoola]

1. No lawyer can change the situation. Note that it was not a "mistake"; it was immigration fraud.

2. No.

3. At this point, there is no ban.


What exactly does this person want to do? Does he want to be with his spouse? If so, either he stays quiet about the misrepresentation and the spouse qualifies on her own to immigrate to Canada or he renounces his PR status and returns to his home country. If he renounces, he can do so without declaring the misrepresentation and there will not be a ban.

This person was actually a female, I just made it as a “he” for confidentiality. Now the person she married was harrassing both her and her family, telling them that they won’t be able to have a good life in Canada since he was not declared , thus, the root cause of misrepresentation etc. and alot more that is much upsetting to say. I know its stupid to marry a person like this right but anyways, that being said was the reason she does not want to sponsor him anymore as he finally showed his true skin.

Questions are:

1.) if there is no ban, then what would likely happen if she got caught?

2.) Once you renounce, are you still able and eligible to apply from sratch?

Thank you

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you for taking time to respond.

With that being said,

1.) Is it worth trying to hire an immigration lawyer if we know in fact that this person already committed a mistake?

2.) I know this may sound Insane but would it change a thing if this person informs the CIC about the misrepresentation?

3.) Have you seen other cases like this? Do you know what happened to them after the ban?

Thank you

Whether to pay for a lawyer is largely a question about what the individual can afford. This is a situation in which, at the least, a lawyer should be consulted. But sure, of course, and unfortunately, lawyers are expensive and many cannot afford a lawyer.

Note, however, this individual could pay for a CONSULTATION without hiring a lawyer for representation. This is expensive enough (free consultations are worth what you pay for them, little or nothing). But the costs can be capped . . . last I knew, a good, informative consultation would cost $300 to $700. To get one's money worth, however, it is imperative to do as much homework as possible, to get as well informed about the issue as possible, BEFORE the consultation . . . so you are not paying the lawyer for a lot of time to explain the basics and, more importantly, so the individual can better understand and put the lawyer's information and advice into context.

Consider your question about informing IRCC (CIC is the former name of IRCC) of the misrepresentation. When and how loom just as large. This is a question which is not insane but, rather, both complicated and dependent on the specific facts as well as personal priorities.

And no one here can offer any reliable advice about this. Again, a lot of personal matters need to be considered. For example, perhaps this individual could renounce PR status and that might be the better route to go, for this particular individual. I DO NOT KNOW this is a better approach. Not by a long shot. I am NO expert. BUT just as importantly, I do NOT know and CANNOT know enough of the individual circumstances to form a reliable opinion about how to deal with this, even if I was qualified to offer personal advice, which to be clear I am NOT qualified (and no one else here should be considered qualified to give personal advice). THIS IS PRECISELY THE SORT OF QUESTION A LAWYER CAN HELP ANSWER.

As for experience with this: I know no one personally. In contrast, there is a good chance an immigration lawyer will have had some experience with this, or at least related experience and have learned about how these things go in the course of his or her practice.

Anecdotal reports about this tend to be few, fleeting, sporadic, and even when there is some anecdotal reporting about this here, it tends to be rather sketchy, and especially lacking in details about the ultimate outcome.

In terms of IAD panel decisions discussing actual cases, this is a particular issue I have NOT researched. IAD panel decisions can be researched at this site: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/

Federal Court decisions can also be researched, at this site: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/ BUT there are few decisions in actual cases involving this issue.

There are, of course, more than a few cases in which PRs have lost PR status based on misrepresentation related to marital status. While researching the IAD decisions is not exactly easy, it is something many people can do. The main thing to avoid is selectively reading bits which support a favourable interpretation . . . the decisions should be read as OBJECTIVELY as possible, to learn as much as one can, and then use that information to ask better questions of a lawyer and to facilitate better understanding a lawyer.

No lawyer can change the situation.

To be clear: while a lawyer cannot change the facts, there are reasons why lawyers get paid as much as they do.

In particular, the consequences, the outcome, will vary considerably depending on many individual factors, and it can depend a great deal on how the individual proceeds from here. A lawyer's assistance at this stage could have a BIG IMPACT.

If someone in this situation can afford a lawyer, this is precisely a situation in which it is important to at least consult with a lawyer. For information. For advice. And, perhaps, for representation.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

This person was actually a female, I just made it as a “he” for confidentiality. Now the person she married was harrassing both her and her family, telling them that they won’t be able to have a good life in Canada since he was not declared , thus, the root cause of misrepresentation etc. and alot more that is much upsetting to say. I know its stupid to marry a person like this right but anyways, that being said was the reason she does not want to sponsor him anymore as he finally showed his true skin.

Questions are:

1.) if there is no ban, then what would likely happen if she got caught?

2.) Once you renounce, are you still able and eligible to apply from sratch?

Thank you

If you want proper advise, post the full situation upfront. Otherwise, there really is no point in asking.

Tell her to keep a record of his harassment, file for divorce and keep her mouth shut. He can make a report to IRCC about the marriage but they likely won't take any action.