fbpx
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
_pods_template
lawyer
acf-field-group
acf-field
Hiring Foreign Workers Labour Assessment (LMIA)

Best Vancouver Surrey Immigration Lawyers Tips are provided today by Manbeen Saini of our Vancouver and Surrey immigration lawyers law office.

People from all over the world move to Canada for various reasons including working, studying, visiting, and/or permanently settling. Regardless of the reason, the first thing to consider is the application process. People may choose to self represent but generally, people chose an expert to assist them with all the required paperwork to ensure that their application is proper and follow the rules under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA”). Our best Vancouver Surrey immigration lawyers tips are designed to maximize your chances of success in coming to live in Canda.

Moving to Canada, let MacLean Law experts assist you with all your immigration needs.

Best Vancouver Surrey Immigration Lawyers Tips

1 877 602 9900

Under IRPA only lawyers licensed by a law society of Canada or consultants licensed by the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council are authorized to assist individuals in the preparation of their immigration applications for a fee or other consideration.

Selecting the right representative is crucial to avoid the consequences of improper, false, or misleading applications. Section 40 of IRPA deals with inadmissibility (not allowed entry into Canada or removal from Canada) due to misrepresentation. It states,

Misrepresentation

40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

    • (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
    • (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
    • (c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their claim for refugee protection or application for protection; or
    • (d) on ceasing to be a citizen under
      • (i) paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 8 of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before that coming into force,
      • (ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act, or
      • (iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act.

The section applies both to permanent residents and foreign nationals. A foreign national is a defined term under IRPA and refers to a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, and includes a stateless person.

Best Vancouver Surrey Immigration Lawyers Tips – Misrepresentation Has Serious Consequences

1 877 602 9900

The general effect of misrepresentation is that a person who is found to have misrepresented is inadmissible to enter Canada for five (5) years. In terms of removal, people who are removed from Canada for misrepresentation are also barred from making an application to return to Canada for five (5) years as indicated in section 40 (2) and (3) of IRPA:

40 (2) The following provisions govern subsection (1):

    • (a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of five years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced; and
    • (b) paragraph (1)(b) does not apply unless the Minister is satisfied that the facts of the case justify the inadmissibility.

(3) A foreign national who is inadmissible under this section may not apply for permanent resident status during the period referred to in paragraph (2)(a).

How does all this apply to choosing the right consultant? 1 877 602 9900

Section 40(1)(a), uses the term “directly or indirectly,” meaning that misrepresented information can be provided (or omitted) by the main applicant, a family member, or the applicant’s representative. Regardless of who provides the information, the main applicant suffers the consequences, even if they did not know about misrepresentation. 

In Tofangchi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FC 427 (“Tofangchi”), the applicant was found to be inadmissible because of a misrepresentation of material fact in the applicant’s application for permanent residence. In this case, an unlicensed immigration consultant (hired by the applicant) submitted false English test results in support of the applicant’s application. The applicant claimed that he was unaware that his immigration consultant included false English test results. The courts found that providing false documents constituted misrepresentation and that the applicant could be found inadmissible for misrepresentations made by another without the applicant’s knowledge.

33      …Rather, the general rule is that a misrepresentation can occur without the applicant’s knowledge, as noted by Justice Russell in Jiang, above, at paragraph 35:

[35] With respect to inadmissibility based on misrepresentation, this Court has already given section 40 a broad and robust interpretation. In Khan, above, Justice O’Keefe held that the wording of the Act must be respected and section 40 should be given the broad interpretation that its wording demands. He went on to hold that section 40 applies where an applicant adopts a misrepresentation but then clarifies it prior to a decision. In Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1059, this Court held that section 40 applies to an applicant where the misrepresentation was made by another party to the application and the applicant had no knowledge of it. The Court stated that an initial reading of section 40 would not support this interpretation but that the section should be interpreted in this manner to prevent an absurd result.

(Emphasis added.)

38      It must be kept in mind that foreign nationals seeking to enter Canada have a duty of candour…Section 16(1) of the Act reads that “[a] person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.”

40      In keeping with this duty of candour, there is, in my opinion, a duty for an applicant to make sure that when making an application, the documents are complete and accurate. It is too easy to later claim innocence and blame a third party when, as in the present case, the application form clearly stated that language results were to be attached, and the form required signature by the applicants. It is only in exceptional cases where an applicant can demonstrate that they honestly and reasonably believed that they were not withholding material information, where “the knowledge of which was beyond their control”, that an applicant may be able to take advantage of an exception to the application of section 40(1)(a). This is not such a case.

47      Furthermore, it seems to me that when a consultant, like in the present case, provides information that does not coincide with the instructions provided with an application, an applicant should be alerted to the possibility that the consultant’s advice may not be accurate and should inquire with officials to make sure that what the consultant said was accurate.

In holding that subjective intent or knowledge is irrelevant, the court stated,

49 …There can thus clearly be no subjective intent or knowledge requirement to section 40: this would be contrary to the broad interpretation that the wording and purpose of the provision requires.

The recent case of Zhou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 880 in applying Tofangchi, confirmed that it is no defence to an inadmissibility hearing that the applicant was duped by a fraudulent immigration consultant.

Best Vancouver Surrey Immigration Lawyers Tips – Hire A Good Immigration Lawyer From The Start

Therefore, since applicants are held responsible for whatever is included in their applications, it is crucial to be represented by experienced, licensed and knowledgeable representatives. We at Maclean Law are licensed to represent you with all your immigration needs and urge you to contact us. We hope these Best Vancouver Surrey Immigration Lawyers Tips have helped you understand how to increase your chances of success in immigrating to Vancouver, Surrey or other places in Canada.