did not declare some criminal charges
This is probably the first or second most common potential revocation scenario. Residency or presence fraud (failing to disclose some time actually outside Canada, or related facts) is the other.
In the past week or so, for example, I have received multiple queries about
what-happens-now, scenarios in which applicants were charged with an offence while their application was in process, they attended the interview and did not disclose the charge, and subsequently received a Finger Print request signaling, rather obviously, that IRCC has nonetheless learned of it. Their worry, of course, is facing an allegation of misrepresentation. At least two of the three queries I have addressed recently should be OK, if their version of things is close to reality (charges withdrawn in short order).
It is common. But it is also stupid. Really. The misrepresentation voids the grant of citizenship and, in itself, can potentially be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Since criminal charges result in an official record, proof of the fact is a
no-brainer. Since IRCC has, for more than two years now, been required to do a GCMS check before taking any action on a citizenship file, and the GCMS check ordinarily will flag any criminal charges made (in at least the U.S. or Canada), the window for an applicant to slip through and take the oath is dramatically smaller than it was in the past . . . and even if the applicant slips through and obtains a grant of citizenship, if anything (or anyone) later triggers an inquiry it is a
no-brainer case, as already noted.
The fact this can also result in a separate criminal prosecution elevates the risks involved. If the undisclosed offence itself might not trigger inadmissibility proceedings, being convicted of another crime for which a significant jail term can be imposed dramatically elevates the risk of inadmissibility proceedings against the individual once citizenship is lost and he or she has PR status again. Meaning the fact that the direct effect of the misrepresentation, revocation of citizenship and a prohibition for ten years (or, if discovered and processed prior to the grant of oath, denial of citizenship and a prohibition for five years), results in the restoring of PR status, might not save the individual from subsequent inadmissibility proceedings based on the criminal charges, which could result in the loss of PR status, deportation, and being barred from Canada altogether for a period of years.
CAUTION: More than a few who get tangled in such scenarios are tempted to hang their hat on some version of
I-did-not-know-or-understand, and are tempted to avoid the expense of a good lawyer. Ultimately some version of that may be the best defense, but it is best to get lawyered-up first, as soon as practical. Any sort of misrepresentation or fraud allegation tends to involve a very slippery slope fraught with pitfalls. The importance of a lawyer's help is only in part due to the lawyer's expertise and experience. A key, key part of why a lawyer can help is that the individual can meet with the lawyer and go over all the facts in detail,
CONFIDENTIALLY. The crucial importance of this cannot be overstated. The last thing the client wants to do is downplay or obscure the bad parts, to in any way conceal the bad side from the lawyer. The client needs to make sure the lawyer is advised of all the worst parts and potentially bad parts.
Like so much information available online about revocation of citizenship, this too is
out-of-date. Both as to potential grounds for revocation, and importantly as to the procedure. For example, this page discusses the role of the Governor in Council whereas the Governor in Council has NOT had a role in the process since . . . I forget whether those changes took effect in August 2014 or May 2015. A good long while ago anyway, which illustrates the extent to which the information is out-of-date. (And reminder, as again the IRCC webpage, which is a PDI, is linked again above, it too is out-of-date in multiple respects.)
Additionally, this site refers to a Federal Court referral process which no longer applies; there is no referral to the Federal Court merely on request of the targeted individual for Section 10 cases (
ordinary fraud cases, which includes most scenarios involving a failure to disclose criminal charges in the citizenship application process). I expect this is still the subject of litigation, challenged on fair procedure grounds, but I do not know the status of those challenges.
There really is NO substitute for finding a lawyer who is familiar with this process and misrepresentation cases generally.
