HELP TO INTERPRETE

[Larryray]

Hello people, kindly assist in interpreting these sentences from the GCMS note and what can be done. I was banned not for my mistake but for my agent fraud act. When ICRC asked for the Use of a representative, me and my wife provided the details in the form and yet we were banned.

DETAILS FROM THE GCMS NOTE ONLINE:

DOCUMENT ISSUANCE: 1
Created Date: 2023/04/24 Updated Date: 2023/05/08 UCI: XXX
ClienUParty: PA Document#: XX Document: Counterfoil / Vignette Status: Cancelled
Valid To: 2025/02/26.
You have been found inadmissible to Canada in accordance with paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) 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 the IRPA. In accordance with paragraph A40(2)(a), you will remain inadmissible to Canada for a period of five years from the date of this letter or from the date a previous removal order was enforced.
REFUSAL LETTER DETAILS: 1
Created Date: 2017/05/24 Created By: Updated Date: 2022/06/09 Updated By:
Description: Thank you for your interest in coming to Canada. I have reviewed your temporary resident visa (visitor visa) application and supporting documentation to assess whether you meet the requirements for a visitor visa (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees citizenship/services/visit-canada/eligibility.html). This includes assessing whether you are coming to Canada temporarily for the reason(s) you describe in your application. I have determined that your application does not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/index.html) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc. ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/index.html). I am refusing your application.
NOTES: 1
Created Date: 2023/07/06 Updated Date: 2023/07/06 Restricted: N
Label: General
Office: Lagos
Text: I have reviewed PA's response regarding the concern that they did not declare the use of a representative to facilitate the submission of their application. PA's response does not overcome concerns presented in PFL.

As a result, I am satisfied that the applicant has misrepresented or withheld material facts relating to a relevant matter which could have induced an error in the administration of the Act. Therefore, based on the information on file, I am satisfied that the PA is inadmissible under A40, misrepresentation and is inadmissible to Canada for a period of 5 years as a result.

 

[Naturgrl]

Hello people, kindly assist in interpreting these sentences from the GCMS note and what can be done. I was banned not for my mistake but for my agent fraud act. When ICRC asked for the Use of a representative, me and my wife provided the details in the form and yet we were banned.

DETAILS FROM THE GCMS NOTE ONLINE:

DOCUMENT ISSUANCE: 1
Created Date: 2023/04/24 Updated Date: 2023/05/08 UCI: XXX
ClienUParty: PA Document#: XX Document: Counterfoil / Vignette Status: Cancelled
Valid To: 2025/02/26.
You have been found inadmissible to Canada in accordance with paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) 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 the IRPA. In accordance with paragraph A40(2)(a), you will remain inadmissible to Canada for a period of five years from the date of this letter or from the date a previous removal order was enforced.
REFUSAL LETTER DETAILS: 1
Created Date: 2017/05/24 Created By: Updated Date: 2022/06/09 Updated By:
Description: Thank you for your interest in coming to Canada. I have reviewed your temporary resident visa (visitor visa) application and supporting documentation to assess whether you meet the requirements for a visitor visa (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees citizenship/services/visit-canada/eligibility.html). This includes assessing whether you are coming to Canada temporarily for the reason(s) you describe in your application. I have determined that your application does not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/index.html) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc. ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/index.html). I am refusing your application.
NOTES: 1
Created Date: 2023/07/06 Updated Date: 2023/07/06 Restricted: N
Label: General
Office: Lagos
Text: I have reviewed PA's response regarding the concern that they did not declare the use of a representative to facilitate the submission of their application. PA's response does not overcome concerns presented in PFL.

As a result, I am satisfied that the applicant has misrepresented or withheld material facts relating to a relevant matter which could have induced an error in the administration of the Act. Therefore, based on the information on file, I am satisfied that the PA is inadmissible under A40, misrepresentation and is inadmissible to Canada for a period of 5 years as a result.

You have a 5 year ban. IRCC clearly states that you are responsible for your own application. You signed off on what the agent submitted. Saying the agent did it is not an excuse.

 

[Larryray]

You have a 5 year ban. IRCC clearly states that you are responsible for your own application. You signed off on what the agent submitted. Saying the agent did it is not an excuse.

Can any appeal be done and will it work?

 

[Naturgrl]

Can any appeal be done and will it work?

Did you respond to PFL? If so what did you say? It is extremely difficult to overturn a ban. You will need to hire a Canadian immigration lawyer to review your case and take the government to court. You are looking at a lot of money, and ban may still enforced. Even if you win doesn’t mean a visa will be approved.

 

[Larryray]

Did you respond to PFL? If so what did you say? It is extremely difficult to overturn a ban. You will need to hire a Canadian immigration lawyer to review your case and take the government to court. You are looking at a lot of money, and ban may still enforced. Even if you win doesn’t mean a visa will be approved.

Only the agent had access to the application. They sent the PFL to us but we were only asked to fill the use of rep form, which we did and sent to the agent.
It was after we were banned that the agent released our application details to us. I don't really think the PFL required a response except for the use of representative form sent to us to fill.

 

[Naturgrl]

Only the agent had access to the application. They sent the PFL to us but we were only asked to fill the use of rep form, which we did and sent to the agent.
It was after we were banned that the agent released our application details to us. I don't really think the PFL required a response except for the use of representative form sent to us to fill.

A PFL requires a response from you. The PFL will say you have 15 or 30 days to respond. You would have written a letter to say in detail why you should not be banned with documentation. All you did was sign the rep form for the agent to reply on your behalf but never asked the agent what the response to PFL would be. What was reason for PFL? You now have a 5 year ban and saying it was my agent’s fault is not a reason.

 

[scylla]

Can any appeal be done and will it work?

You would need to hire an immigration lawyer in Canada to try to appeal the decision. It's impossible for any of us to say if that appeal will be successful or not.

 

[scylla]

Only the agent had access to the application. They sent the PFL to us but we were only asked to fill the use of rep form, which we did and sent to the agent.
It was after we were banned that the agent released our application details to us. I don't really think the PFL required a response except for the use of representative form sent to us to fill.

The PFL required you to explain why you failed to declare you representative in your original application.

 

[Kaibigan]

Is there something I am missing here? It appears that the OP and his wife submitted a TRV application with someone's help. That person came to be viewed as "representative". The application was legitimate and truthful in every way, but nothing was said about having a rep. On that thin ground, they were given a 5-year ban. Seems harsh.

But, the OP also said:

.... I was banned not for my mistake but for my agent fraud act. When ICRC asked for the Use of a representative, me and my wife provided the details in the form and yet we were banned.

What was the agent's fraudulent act? Not declaring themselves as rep? Is that fraud? This whole thing strikes me (but apparently only me) as a bit strange.

 

[Naturgrl]

Is there something I am missing here? It appears that the OP and his wife submitted a TRV application with someone's help. That person came to be viewed as "representative". The application was legitimate and truthful in every way, but nothing was said about having a rep. On that thin ground, they were given a 5-year ban. Seems harsh.

But, the OP also said:



What was the agent's fraudulent act? Not declaring themselves as rep? Is that fraud? This whole thing strikes me (but apparently only me) as a bit strange.

OP used an agent as said in the first post. I don’t think OP knows what agent submitted. OP says they filled out the rep form. However they don’t know if it was submitted by agent. Then they received PFL for using an ”undeclared” agent but agent didn’t seem to tell them so no letter was written and submitted to refute the claim. Or agent said it was taken care of. Then agent finally gave them the response to PFL which is a ban. OP hired a really bad agent.

 

[scylla]

Is there something I am missing here? It appears that the OP and his wife submitted a TRV application with someone's help. That person came to be viewed as "representative". The application was legitimate and truthful in every way, but nothing was said about having a rep. On that thin ground, they were given a 5-year ban. Seems harsh.

But, the OP also said:

What was the agent's fraudulent act? Not declaring themselves as rep? Is that fraud? This whole thing strikes me (but apparently only me) as a bit strange.

It isn't uncommon and is not unusual. There have been many instances on this forum where someone has used an agent but not declared the use of an agent in the application. This is misrepresentation, punishable by the 5 year ban. If you use representation, you are required to declare this. It's cut and dry. OP is held responsible for what is in the application. They can certainly try to appeal.

 

[Kaibigan]

It isn't uncommon and is not unusual. There have been many instances on this forum where someone has used an agent but not declared the use of an agent in the application. This is misrepresentation, punishable by the 5 year ban. If you use representation, you are required to declare this. It's cut and dry. OP is held responsible for what is in the application. They can certainly try to appeal.

I suppose this is what I am getting at. The IRCC says "A representative is someone who provides advice, consultation, or guidance to you at any stage of the application process". So, many here are "representatives" of members here who post questions. The IRCC definition is broad in the extreme. Many on this forum should be in line for 5-year bans.

 

[Kaibigan]

It isn't uncommon and is not unusual. There have been many instances on this forum where someone has used an agent but not declared the use of an agent in the application. This is misrepresentation, punishable by the 5 year ban. If you use representation, you are required to declare this. It's cut and dry. OP is held responsible for what is in the application. They can certainly try to appeal.

I have come back to this because, although the issue of one of no moment to me personally, I see something wrong here. I cannot agree that it's "cut and dry". Not at all.

As noted, the IRCC says "A representative is someone who provides advice, consultation, or guidance to you at any stage of the application process". That casts a pretty wide net. The rep form itself goes on to say: Following the submission of your application, that person may conduct business on your behalf with the IRCC and CBSA if you appoint them as representative by filling out this form (emphasis added).

The form itself suggests, strongly, that you are free to get all the outside help you like and that person will become rep only if you fill out the form appointing them. You are at liberty to refrain from filing out the form. However, what I am reading here suggests that, if you have had any outside help whatsoever, paid or unpaid, then you MUST appoint that person as representative, whether you want a rep or not. If the OP did not "declare" the use of a rep, apparently because they wanted to deal on their own with the IRCC, too bad. By getting some help, they were deemed to have appointed a rep and failed to fill out the form, thus earning a 5-year ban.

Perhaps someone here can direct me to it, but if what happened to be the OP is to be cloaked with any air of legitimacy, there must be stern warnings in the application instructions and documents to the effect that one must "declare" those outsiders who gave the slightest bit of "advice, consultation, or guidance" at any stage and, as well, appoint them as rep(s). Are those warnings given? Maybe I have overlooked them, because in the cases where I have helped I have, in fact, been appointed rep and the rep form duly filled out.

While I do not see as as changing the above analysis at all, it seems there is more to the OP's story that I, at least, have missed. The OP speaks of being "banned not for my mistake but for my agent fraud act." What was the "fraud act"? Was it not formally signing on as rep? Regardless, the rep form itself would seem to create a pitfall for the unwary. It lulls one into believing that there is no need to complete the form if you do not want to appoint a rep, even if someone helped out. Yet, what I am being told here is that it's open and notorious that a rep must be "declared" any time one has had help and a 5-year ban for failing to obey the rule is entirely just.

The ban seems just a tad punitive. It's well understood that one is responsible for the contents of one's application, so, even if competed by someone else, so what? I am a complete loss to see how having an undisclosed rep can fairly be said to have "misrepresented or withheld material facts relating to a relevant matter which could have induced an error in the administration of the Act." Sure, false contents in the documents can amount to those things, but the applicant will be answerable for those contents regardless of their origin or authorship.

There must be a grave lacuna in my understanding and I would appreciate someone here filing that in.

 

[Larryray]

A PFL requires a response from you. The PFL will say you have 15 or 30 days to respond. You would have written a letter to say in detail why you should not be banned with documentation. All you did was sign the rep form for the agent to reply on your behalf but never asked the agent what the response to PFL would be. What was reason for PFL? You now have a 5 year ban and saying it was my agent’s fault is not a reason.

The reason for PFL is because some information were not disclosed which includes the use of representative.
Like said I wasn't privy to my information and can't even say if a response was written back to IRCC. It's so hurting am in this position.

 

[Larryray]

OP used an agent as said in the first post. I don’t think OP knows what agent submitted. OP says they filled out the rep form. However they don’t know if it was submitted by agent. Then they received PFL for using an ”undeclared” agent but agent didn’t seem to tell them so no letter was written and submitted to refute the claim. Or agent said it was taken care of. Then agent finally gave them the response to PFL which is a ban. OP hired a really bad agent.

It was after the PFL came that we were asked to fill the use of representative form. The PFL states that we failed to mention that we used a rep.
My agent said she submitted the Use of rep form we submitted within the stipulated days which I can't authoritatively confirm.
I mentioned fraud here cause my money was involved in all of this and I felt I was defrauded. It was months after we got a ban and agent refused to inform us early until someone who discovered escalated it on social media.