Context:
- PA is from a large country in South America. PA arrived in Canada with only dependent via a visitor visa, and we met a few months later, in early 2019.
- we got married, and I agreed to sponsor PA and the dependent. We submitted an SCLPC, which was confirmed received in early 2021, and we waited.
- the SCLPC application was transferred to Etobicoke in mid 2021.
- in the summer of 2021 we received invites for Canada medicals and biometrics, which were completed without issue.
- during early 2022 we received an email which requested we provide a lot of information again, presumably for the purpose of proving the relationship was still real and ongoing. This information was supplied by the due date set out in the email.
- in July 2022 we received the refusal for PR. We are devastated.
Regarding the refusal letter to our SCLPC sponsorship application:
- ‘You have not satisfied me that you can be considered under the FC1 spousal class as your lack of status in Canada cannot be exempted under the current public policy in place under A25(1) of IRPA as you have been found to have misrepresented yourself on your previous TRV application.’
- the TRV misrepresentation came as a surprise, but on further investigation, PA yelling into phone in native tongue to friends and family back home, we learned that the TRV was not completed by an English-speaking family friend as promised, but it was seemingly given to a pro; it’s completely bogus, an unnecessary exaggeration for both PA and the dependent.
- we have an explanation, which includes lack of any travel outside of home country, home city is small and sheltered, basically, they knew nothing of the real world in terms of travel, they signed blank TRV apps, trusted the wrong person, and lost chain of custody of the TRVs; there’s slightly more but that’s irrelevant here.
- we understand the difference between direct and indirect misrepresentation.
- we are aware of Haque v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2011 FC 315.
- the SCLPC application contains no known misrepresentations.
Within a week of the refusal we:
- with the help of counsel, submitted an ALJR, stated no reason(s) given; we are waiting for the rule 9 response.
- submitted an ATIP for all GCMS notes for PA and dependent. We received a response to the ATIP a few weeks later.
Regarding the GCMS notes:
- the notes indicate an investigation into the misrepresentation taking place at approximately the same time as the file was transferred to Etobicoke, but we have no PFL.
- in the reasons for the refusal, the IRCC officer refers to a finding of misrepresentation, and that an exclusion will be forthcoming, but once again, no PFL.
- we have visited an immigration lawyer high up on the Google search responses. The lawyer advised us to proceed with the judicial review. Of course, the lawyer warned us about a difficult road ahead, but the lawyer indicated that procedural fairness is an issue, since no PFL. Additionally, the lawyer points to a future event, the forthcoming exclusion, that should not have impacted the officer’s decision prior to its arrival regarding an otherwise valid SCLPC application.
Questions:
- I understand that misrep is a serious issue for IRCC, but are we up against an impenetrable brick wall here?
- why would a lawyer from a leading firm advise us to proceed with the judicial review based on no apparent procedural fairness regarding the misrep, if the underlying issue is likely to be more of an problem (Haque v Canada)?
- we believe we still have the option to proceed with an H&C-SCLPC since there has been no exclusion yet, could this be true?
- should we proceed ASAP with H&C rather than with the judicial review, can we try both?
- please provide any other comments you believe may be helpful.
Thanks in advance.
- PA is from a large country in South America. PA arrived in Canada with only dependent via a visitor visa, and we met a few months later, in early 2019.
- we got married, and I agreed to sponsor PA and the dependent. We submitted an SCLPC, which was confirmed received in early 2021, and we waited.
- the SCLPC application was transferred to Etobicoke in mid 2021.
- in the summer of 2021 we received invites for Canada medicals and biometrics, which were completed without issue.
- during early 2022 we received an email which requested we provide a lot of information again, presumably for the purpose of proving the relationship was still real and ongoing. This information was supplied by the due date set out in the email.
- in July 2022 we received the refusal for PR. We are devastated.
Regarding the refusal letter to our SCLPC sponsorship application:
- ‘You have not satisfied me that you can be considered under the FC1 spousal class as your lack of status in Canada cannot be exempted under the current public policy in place under A25(1) of IRPA as you have been found to have misrepresented yourself on your previous TRV application.’
- the TRV misrepresentation came as a surprise, but on further investigation, PA yelling into phone in native tongue to friends and family back home, we learned that the TRV was not completed by an English-speaking family friend as promised, but it was seemingly given to a pro; it’s completely bogus, an unnecessary exaggeration for both PA and the dependent.
- we have an explanation, which includes lack of any travel outside of home country, home city is small and sheltered, basically, they knew nothing of the real world in terms of travel, they signed blank TRV apps, trusted the wrong person, and lost chain of custody of the TRVs; there’s slightly more but that’s irrelevant here.
- we understand the difference between direct and indirect misrepresentation.
- we are aware of Haque v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2011 FC 315.
- the SCLPC application contains no known misrepresentations.
Within a week of the refusal we:
- with the help of counsel, submitted an ALJR, stated no reason(s) given; we are waiting for the rule 9 response.
- submitted an ATIP for all GCMS notes for PA and dependent. We received a response to the ATIP a few weeks later.
Regarding the GCMS notes:
- the notes indicate an investigation into the misrepresentation taking place at approximately the same time as the file was transferred to Etobicoke, but we have no PFL.
- in the reasons for the refusal, the IRCC officer refers to a finding of misrepresentation, and that an exclusion will be forthcoming, but once again, no PFL.
- we have visited an immigration lawyer high up on the Google search responses. The lawyer advised us to proceed with the judicial review. Of course, the lawyer warned us about a difficult road ahead, but the lawyer indicated that procedural fairness is an issue, since no PFL. Additionally, the lawyer points to a future event, the forthcoming exclusion, that should not have impacted the officer’s decision prior to its arrival regarding an otherwise valid SCLPC application.
Questions:
- I understand that misrep is a serious issue for IRCC, but are we up against an impenetrable brick wall here?
- why would a lawyer from a leading firm advise us to proceed with the judicial review based on no apparent procedural fairness regarding the misrep, if the underlying issue is likely to be more of an problem (Haque v Canada)?
- we believe we still have the option to proceed with an H&C-SCLPC since there has been no exclusion yet, could this be true?
- should we proceed ASAP with H&C rather than with the judicial review, can we try both?
- please provide any other comments you believe may be helpful.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
