A rejected citizenship application case spread online

[MB@@]

How do you know who your immigration officer is and what they can do?

At initial transition of applying pnp , i used to speak with over the email whereas nominee officer asked me questions so from their signature i got his name
Besides when i landed i reported them and back and forth i used to communicate

then he is the one who said since you have pr no job and getting job from other province you can move out so therefore im surprised why so much drama on this after reading this above rumor

 

[CaBeaver]

At initial transition of applying pnp , i used to speak with over the email whereas nominee officer asked me questions so from their signature i got his name
Besides when i landed i reported them and back and forth i used to communicate

then he is the one who said since you have pr no job and getting job from other province you can move out so therefore im surprised why so much drama on this after reading this above rumor

It's probably not true. As a PR you can move anywhere in Canada. I was just curious about the immigration officer part, and whether we can reach to ours for other reasons. I believe this is not possible in most cases. No one knows the officer who handles their files. So, I asked

 

[dpenabill]

no , i had email from province that i can move out , IRCC also confirmed i am free to go so i dont know from where such rumors comes

then he is the one who said since you have pr no job and getting job from other province you can move out so therefore im surprised why so much drama on this after reading this above rumor

It's probably not true. As a PR you can move anywhere in Canada.

Not sure why so many keep circling back to questions about moving out of province and the Charter mobility rights. NOT relevant.

While the OP's post quotes an anecdotal report which, as many anecdotal reports in a forum like this tend to be, is not particularly well written, we know what the rules are and how they work. It is easy to understand what it is really about. There is no doubt that the SINP nominee involved has been accused of misrepresentation in the process of obtaining status in Canada. The short stay in Saskatchewan and absence of effort to find employment there is merely EVIDENCE which corroborates the allegation.

I realize that the source of this report says "they want to reject my application. Their reasoning is that i did not stayed in the province that was nominate me for pr." But the totality of what is in that post clearly shows it falls in line with the TYPICAL misrepresentation case. These are real. Not rumours. Not made up.

To Be Clear: What is behind this is NOT about revoking a PR's status because the PR was a PNP nominee who moved out of the nominating province, but about the nominee's behavior, including leaving the province so soon, among other facts, evidencing misrepresentation of intent in the application for PR through the PNP. Otherwise called immigration fraud.

The fairness letter (which is precisely the process in such cases, which tends to corroborate this is a true report) was 6 pages long. The report here poorly states (no special insight necessary, for example, to know that the letter did not say this applicant "did not stayed") only a small portion of what that letter contained; I am not pointing at this to focus on the mangled grammar itself, but to highlight this clearly is not a verbatim representation of what the fairness letter said, but what the affected individual interpreted.

It also warrants noting that a fairness letter does not need to detail all the evidence supporting the allegation of misrepresentation, but just enough of the basis for the allegation to give an applicant fair notice of what they are being accused of.

Which is to say there is almost certainly more in what the fairness letter said than is reflected in the OP's post, and in addition to that, more facts and circumstances IRCC is aware of and relying on in proceeding with the misrepresentation allegation.

Efforts to dismiss this as a non-existent issue, as mere rumour to be off-handedly dismissed, are off-base, off-the-mark.

But efforts to claim this is not true because PRs have Section 6(2) mobility rights that allow them to move anywhere in Canada is plainly wrong. Yes, of course, the Charter protects a PR's right to move to another province. BUT there is NOTHING about a PR's Charter mobility rights which would in anyway limit or preclude IRCC from considering a move out of province as relevant evidence in a misrepresentation case.

What This Means For Other PNP PRs:

What this means for other PNP PRs is a tricky question. More than a few forum participants report knowing many PNP PRs who did not stay long at all in the nominating province, and who have not had a problem. This includes a significant number of anecdotal reports (or rumours some might describe them) of several applying for and being granted citizenship.

That suggests there are good odds there will not be a problem for a PNP PR who does not stay long in the nominating province.

And that makes sense. Behavior after the fact is not conclusive evidence of intention before the fact. As more than a few have said, plans change. Just because a PNP PR does not stay long in the nominating province does not prove that PR misrepresented their intentions during the application process.

That is NO guarantee there will not be a problem for any PNP PR who did not really intend to settle and work in the nominating province, and whose behavior before and after landing fails to show a good faith intention to find work and settle in the province. The details matter, as they almost always do. So the RISK will vary a lot depending on the particular facts and circumstances.

So, to be clear, behavior after the fact can be and actually quite often is evidence, including as to intent before the fact. Thus, depending on the situation, the circumstances, in due consideration of other factors, behavior after the fact can be evidence which supports an inference about the person's intentions before the act. Which, in these cases, is about the PNP nominee's intentions expressed in both the application documents themselves and (if applicable) representations made during the landing interview. But there is always more to it than that, because there are always many other facts and circumstances to be considered. Leading to . . .

. . . she got misrepresentation because she didnt disclose her family members living in Canada and thats the reason she got revoke orders

This is in reference to the Navkiran Kaur Dhanoa case here https://canlii.ca/t/jcm9c

That is an incomplete description, in a very important respect. That was just ONE of the allegations of misrepresentation in the 44 Report. In particular, the 44 Report also alleged misrepresentation in that she "Did not disclose her intention to move to British Columbia after becoming a PR to the MPNP." And the IAD decision focused far more on the misrepresentation of intent. The Panel specifically stated:

"I find that the Appellant had no intention of living in MB and was intent on living with her family. In her interview at the POE, it is clear that Appellant believed that once she received her COPR that she was free to live wherever she wanted and that she wanted to be with her family."​

It warrants noting with some emphasis that the IAD Panel went on to rule that the "misrepresentations in this case are egregious."

It also warrants noting and emphasizing that this case is just ONE example. The details vary from case to case. In many of the cases there are, as in the Dhanoa case, additional discrepancies in facts supporting the misrepresentation allegation (the problem getting away with fraud is that there are so many ways to slip). There are many varieties of misrepresentation allegations made against PNP applicants, more related to misrepresentations as to work experience, but the variations are many. Most appear to be interdicted during the application phase or otherwise prior to the formal landing (see Singh case here https://canlii.ca/t/j6c1c for example), or as in the Dhanoa case attendant the landing.

But as I have previously noted, if there was misrepresentation in the application process, if discovered, and subject to matters of proof, that can be grounds for loss of status in Canada basically for the rest of the individual's life, even long after the individual has obtained citizenship in Canada. This is not the trifling matter some so casually dismiss.

I found this line from point [25] interesting:

Had she waited to move until after her landing, she would have been free to live where she wished, despite making the obligation to the MB government.

It says despite the obligation to the province.

This is what lawyers and judges refer to as "dicta," meaning a remark or comment in a decision (usually referring to judicial decisions, but here it is a quasi-judicial decision by an IAD Panel) that is not necessary to the ruling in the case.

Since the decision itself was based on misrepresentations, including especially as to intent, that comment does not illuminate much. What we know, of course, is that indeed, if after she landed she CHANGED her mind about where she was going to live, she could move out of province without restraint. In contrast, if her plan was to pretend to intend to live in Manitoba, and she engaged in some pretense to mask her plans to actually move to BC, the question is whether or not she would, as I previously described, get-away-with-it. Which is not about getting-away-with-moving-out-of-province, but rather about getting-away-with-misrepresentation-of-intent, that is getting-away-with-fraud, pretending to intend on settling in Manitoba but actually planning to live in BC.

 

[dpenabill]

@rajkamalmohanram . . . did not mean to disregard your post and questions. The reference and link to the government "Charterpedia" webpage discussing Section 6 of the Charter is appreciated. It appears to be a very good resource. While a significant portion of it is indeed in-the-weeds, for purposes of this question I thought it to be fairly clear.

And there are, indeed, potential questions which involve balancing Charter mobility rights versus POSSIBLE limitations on mobility attendant provincial programs. But it is really, really important to recognize, distinguish, and primarily focus on this subject, which is about how moving out of province might impact a PNP PR, to be about MISREPRESENTATION.

In particular, as a practical matter, for the most part Charter mobility rights are NOT implicated here (with some possible exceptions), since the risk a PNP nominee has of losing PR status, in anyway related to moving out of province, is almost exclusively focused on whether the government will see cause to pursue a MISREPRESENTATION case and be able to establish (prove) the misrepresentation. No misrepresentations made, odds are very high there is no problem moving out of province.

Even when there is misrepresentation, even for those who pursue a PNP nomination with no real plans to settle or work in the nominating province, unless they blunder, like Dhanoa (landing in BC after traveling to India, rather than flag-poling to do the landing in Manitoba), or Singh (living and working in a different province on a work permit pending landing), it appears most have good odds of getting-away-with-it.

On the other hand, however, for those who do this, for those who cavalierly plan to use the PNP process to obtain PR status without intending to stay in the nominating province, getting caught has severe consequences. As I have noted, this is no trifling matter. Misrepresentation is serious. Serious enough there is, in effect, no statute of limitations. MOREOVER, there are hints here and there, some rumbling and mumbling, along with quite obvious trends like the expansion of scrutiny and record capturing facilitated by enhanced technology, suggesting that no one should be surprised if the government moves toward more extensive and strict enforcement in this area.

Assuming the report shared by the OP is an actual case (and contrary to a number of views expressed in this thread, it appears likely to be about an actual case), that individual did not encounter a problem for at least five and a half years, or so, until long after the move out of Saskatchewan (at least three to qualify for citizenship, and then getting the fairness letter nearly 2.5 years after applying for citizenship). So more than a few who think they are OK now might be unpleasantly surprised down the road.

But we really do not know what the odds are or what the trend is in terms of the government looking for this let alone pursuing misrepresentation cases based on it.

So . . .

I know a bunch of friends who all applied for PNP programs from other provinces but they lived there for a week or a month (tops) and then moved to Toronto.

Whether one or none or all or most was scamming the province, for those who had real, actual plans to settle in the nominating province, and made concrete efforts to do that, and CHANGED their plans after landing, they almost for sure are going to be OK. For those who were scamming, odds are good they too will be OK, but depending on the facts and circumstances they might not be. Depends.

Technically, you are signing a commitment when you apply for Provincial Nominee Program and you, in good faith, INTEND to try and establish yourself in the province and fill a market need there. However, at first glance of Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is nothing in there that suggests that section 6 doesn't fully apply to provincial nominees. While I have heard stories of provinces revoking the nomination ( at least 1 case seemed to be legitimate), my understanding was this kind of revocation was very rarely enforced.

On one hand this reminds me of the Harper era "intent to reside" in Canada requirement for citizenship, which aroused an intense backlash. It was a bad idea on many levels and deserved to be repealed forthwith, as it was. But the backlash was mostly based on a mischaracterization of the requirement, claiming it would hinder the mobility rights of citizens. Actually that provision had ZERO impact on naturalized citizens. Once they took the oath, they had the same mobility rights as any other citizen. Like here, it was about what the applicant's intent was at the time of applying and throughout the application process. Like here, once status was obtained (citizenship then, PR in the PNP context here), there was no restriction on mobility.

The comparison is also relevant in regards to whether moving after status is obtained could be an evidentiary basis for the government to allege misrepresentation as to intent during the application process. Threats of government overreach were widespread and grossly exaggerated. But in contrast, of course, if a new citizen sold his house in Canada and arranged to take employment abroad BEFORE taking the oath of citizenship, it might indeed be easy for the government to find sufficient evidence to revoke citizenship for fraud, for misrepresenting an intent to continue residing in Canada when in fact the individual was making concrete plans to move abroad.

Somewhat similarly here, in regards to PNP PRs. While the "intent to reside" requirement for citizenship was repealed and is not in any respect applicable to citizenship applicants now, as you reference, the typical PNP application requires the applicant, in one way or another, to represent they intend to live and reside in the nominating province upon being granted PNP PR status.

The key to all this is to recognize that the intent to live and work in the nominating province, even when phrased in terms of a commitment, does NOT restrict or prohibit the PNP PR's mobility AFTER landing and becoming a PR.

But that does not excuse or release those scamming the system from the potential consequences if the government discovers their fraud and can prove it. And a move out of province soon after landing might be what triggers IRCC and CBSA attention and investigation.

And those who game-the-system in this way should be aware that for all those who succeed in doing this, many others will slip here or there, especially those who engage in overt planning toward obtaining work or a place to live, before they have even landed, outside the nominating province. If CBSA picks up a scent on that, their hounds may soon be on their way.

None of which addresses the fact that the government appears to have the view that the subject-to-limitations clauses in the Charter would allow for restrictions on mobility even AFTER landing. Note, for example, that the webpage you linked also says:

It is possible to waive one’s section 6(2) rights prior to becoming a citizen or permanent resident of Canada. A foreign national who agrees to practice medicine in a specific province in Canada for 5 years in order to obtain a work permit cannot subsequently claim rights under section 6 once he becomes a permanent resident since his section 6 rights have already been waived.​

Some law firm websites have suggested this means that provinces could require a binding commitment to stay in the province, a waiver of mobility rights as a condition to obtaining PR status through PNP. So far as I have seen, the provinces have not attempted to do this (though one or more sites may have suggested New Brunswick might have had or plans to have something akin to this, but I do not know anything at all about that provinces PNP).

So for now, the PNP PR is not bound to stay in the province. The only risk is if there was fraud, or misrepresentation. The latter, however, again, is no trifling matter.

 

[justanotherguy28]

I and my friend spoke to nominated province immigration, she sent an email we are good to move as long as we have our PR, however we need to check with IRCC, I called IRCC they said you can move however check with the province but you are PR, you are free to move

I don't know about other cases, but if I were you, I wouldn't worry. You have written correspondence documenting your nominating province had no issues with you leaving which means they're satisfied with your effort to establish yourself. It was actually a very smart move on your part to let your province know at that time. You've fulfilled your commitment under the PNP program. As long as you still have all those emails, I wouldn't talk to the original province now. I'd just file for citizenship when eligible and wait.

Now, looking at PNP generically outside your case. Irrespective of whether that anonymous case is real or fake, I'm not so sure as others are about all the charter rights and PNP. The contract between the applicant and the nominating province is that the applicant will try to establish oneself in that province. In exchange they get nominated by, lets say, a province with a low economic growth. Now if you visit the province, live there only for like a week and don't make any effort to get a job or create jobs, and then move to another province and settle, it's definitely a breach of contract. We can talk about mobility rights all day long but covid kinda showed all rights can be restricted even for citizens. Also there are a million programs like PNP. They give land for free in some provinces upon agreement you have to build a house and live there. You can't go around claiming charter rights. A contract is a contract and the enforcing party can start enforcing it anytime they want irrespective of whether they're a government, a corporation or a private individual. Obviously we don't know if IRCC is enforcing it or not but they have a strong case if they want to.

That being said, I wouldn't worry one bit if I were you, given your solid case.

 

[MB@@]

I don't know about other cases, but if I were you, I wouldn't worry. You have written correspondence documenting your nominating province had no issues with you leaving which means they're satisfied with your effort to establish yourself. It was actually a very smart move on your part to let your province know at that time. You've fulfilled your commitment under the PNP program. As long as you still have all those emails, I wouldn't talk to the original province now. I'd just file for citizenship when eligible and wait.

Now, looking at PNP generically outside your case. Irrespective of whether that anonymous case is real or fake, I'm not so sure as others are about all the charter rights and PNP. The contract between the applicant and the nominating province is that the applicant will try to establish oneself in that province. In exchange they get nominated by, lets say, a province with a low economic growth. Now if you visit the province, live there only for like a week and don't make any effort to get a job or create jobs, and then move to another province and settle, it's definitely a breach of contract. We can talk about mobility rights all day long but covid kinda showed all rights can be restricted even for citizens. Also there are a million programs like PNP. They give land for free in some provinces upon agreement you have to build a house and live there. You can't go around claiming charter rights. A contract is a contract and the enforcing party can start enforcing it anytime they want irrespective of whether they're a government, a corporation or a private individual. Obviously we don't know if IRCC is enforcing it or not but they have a strong case if they want to.

That being said, I wouldn't worry one bit if I were you, given your solid case.

Well ive documented all my efforts while living in nominated province , infact in nominated province i had driving license , health cards , bought car ,house lease, nominee officer , ircc on call they confirmed to go anywhere as long as ive pr cards
Ive also written email confirmation from my friend who sent email to nominee officer and describe his situation same like me and got reply too , I kept that email also for my reference , in case settlement agency in nominated province said you are free to go if u dont have job
understand the logic, pnp ask u to sign intention document , they didnt ask u to sign you must reside , these two different things, they said they have ur occupation on demand , if its on demand then why hell there are no openings, if there are opening why so limited , how nominated province will justify this dont u think its kind of bait to attract immigrants? Furthermore nobody can live with no job to feed his family to exhaust all his savings, infact im still trying to grab job in that province but i couldnt
For me i reside three months and then ive been trying till now , infact nominated province removed my occupation from demand

canada is the lovely country and respect human rights, once you are PR and struggling and sustaining under nominated province , its uour human right toget job and feed ur family as long as you tried

as i said no legal obligation its intention and you should have enough proof to show u tried hard

 

[umanitoba]

Well ive documented all my efforts while living in nominated province , infact in nominated province i had driving license , health cards , bought car ,house lease, nominee officer , ircc on call they confirmed to go anywhere as long as ive pr cards
Ive also written email confirmation from my friend who sent email to nominee officer and describe his situation same like me and got reply too , I kept that email also for my reference , in case settlement agency in nominated province said you are free to go if u dont have job
understand the logic, pnp ask u to sign intention document , they didnt ask u to sign you must reside , these two different things, they said they have ur occupation on demand , if its on demand then why hell there are no openings, if there are opening why so limited , how nominated province will justify this dont u think its kind of bait to attract immigrants? Furthermore nobody can live with no job to feed his family to exhaust all his savings, infact im still trying to grab job in that province but i couldnt
For me i reside three months and then ive been trying till now , infact nominated province removed my occupation from demand

canada is the lovely country and respect human rights, once you are PR and struggling and sustaining under nominated province , its uour human right toget job and feed ur family as long as you tried

as i said no legal obligation its intention and you should have enough proof to show u tried hard

Don’t worry. The original story posted in this thread was originally posted exactly as a forwarded message in 2019 in a very small immigration forum and then posted once in feb 2021 and now here. Please stop worrying and no need to follow up or posting in this thread. This is just misinformation and replying and spreading this will flag it. No such case has been reported during the citizenship application.

 

[dpenabill]

Don’t worry. The original story posted in this thread was originally posted exactly as a forwarded message in 2019 in a very small immigration forum and then posted once in feb 2021 and now here. Please stop worrying and no need to follow up or posting in this thread. This is just misinformation and replying and spreading this will flag it. No such case has been reported during the citizenship application.

"No such case has been reported during the citizenship application."​

Well, except the OP's post is precisely a report of a PNP nominee who was facing denial of a citizenship application for misrepresentation. And there are several elements in that post which tend to corroborate its likely authenticity. Not the least of which is the description of the fairness letter, which is precisely the process when this happens.

Misrepresentation of intent is one of the most difficult misrepresentation cases to make, so it is no surprise that scores get away with it. Not much of a surprise that this particular type of misrepresentation is common and works, and among those who do get caught that is usually very early in the process, mostly before they are issued a PR visa or at least prior to landing.

The important information here is that whether or not the immigrant engaged in MISREPRESENTATION is what makes the difference. Make no mistake:

NO Misrepresentation . . . NO Problem.

Misrepresentation . . . Maybe NO Problem or Maybe Big Problem

Or, for those who engaged in misrepresentation, maybe somewhere in-between. Like those cases where the citizenship applicant's address and work history triggers suspicion, further inquiry identifies further concern, there is a referral to CBSA, which in turn refers the case to its NSSD to investigate, and the applicant is scratching their head when their application is not getting processed as fast as others and GCMS notes do not reveal this is what is slowing down the process because any information about that investigation is redacted (confidential methods and means of investigation). Most of these likely to result in a conclusion there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a fraud case, UNLESS the investigation discovers other discrepancies in the facts, so ultimately this individual's background investigation is cleared and they are scheduled to take the oath. In the meantime they have come into this forum and bitterly complained about arbitrary and abusive delays, irresponsible and irresponsive "agents," and spread disinformation or at least misinformation, confusing the formal background clearances (from RCMP and CSIS) with investigations by CBSA/NSSD which are not revealed to applicants.

My BG status also just turned to completed. So it took around 8 months to become completed. I did not receive any FP request. So, I would say based on my experience wait for 8 months. Also, it is clear now that CBSA is not involved in this process.

So for citizenship applicants such as @MB@@ . . . again, NO misrepresentations in application process, NO PROBLEM.

But that is what this topic is really about: whether IRCC might suspect PNP nominees who do not stay long in the nominating province of having engaged in FRAUD in the process of applying for and obtaining their PR status, and thus engage in an investigation, and whether such an investigation will come up with enough additional evidence to conclude there was fraud, and if so, to allege misrepresentation and impose the consequences for that, consequences which, make no mistake, are severe.

I will not try to second-guess the motives of those who try to suppress this discussion, to brush it off as unfounded.

I will, however, remind forum participants that misrepresentation is a serious subject. Even the kinds of misrepresentation for which getting caught is unlikely. Others can talk about the morality of it. My perspective is about what the rules are and how the system works and what that means for those who are trying to navigate the system.


Example of How Serious This Is, How Long Misrepresentation Can Haunt an Immigrant:

While it has nothing to do with PNP nominees, a very, very recent Federal Court decision (just last week, the 20th of October) illustrates how misrepresentations made in the process of becoming a PR can haunt a person for a long, long time, long after they became a Canadian citizen. This is the Xu v. Canada decision by Justice Norris, 2021 FC 1102 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jjs9c . . . and while Cecille Jiajia Xu has not lost her Canadian citizenship, as of now, the final outcome is still pending.

Highlights:

-- became PR as sponsored spouse 2006​

-- became Canadian citizen 2010​

-- Canadian authorities discovered the marriage was a sham in 2013​

-- Minister's delegate revoked her citizenship January 8, 2020 "due to her misrepresentation on her permanent residency application"​

-- Justice Norris set that aside last week, October 20, 2021, based on IRCC's failure to properly consider whether special relief should be allowed​

-- case remitted for redetermination by a different decision-maker​

Overall: misrepresentation as to genuineness of marriage in 2006 still hangs over this individual, her citizenship and possible deportation still in process.

Conclusion: Misrepresentation Is a Serious Issue . . . and if anything deserves to be ignored here, it is those efforts to understate or dismiss this.

 

[henryahmed]

This is a discussion that most PNP applicants don't want to have or avoid to have mainly because a large percentage of PNP applicants end up leaving the province within the first few months. I talk from personal experience. I arrived to SK on 2016 and knew at least six other SINP nominees that arrived to Canada at around the same time as me. ALL of them left to other provinces. Out of those six, there were two that stayed in SK for less than 2 months. One was here for less than 3 months and there was one THAT DIDN'T COME HERE AT ALL. Not even for 24 hrs. If you asked these nominees they will tell you that they couldn't find work, which I have firsthand knowledge that it is bullshit. All of them were applying for jobs at other provinces way before even landing in Canada. Why are you applying for jobs in Ontario, FROM YOUR HOME COUNTRY ,if you have the intention of living in SK? Are these nominees REALLY putting an effort to find work or are they just waiting for an employer to knock at their door and offer them a manager's role? I have seen people say, "I didn't come to Canada to do an entry level job", but then they move to another province and do exactly that. I know that there are legit situations where people really struggle for a long time to find the IDEAL job (I say ideal because any decent job is easy to find) and is completely valid to move and be successful and happy somewhere else... But , in my opinion, that is exception rather than the norm. Most people leave SK within the first few months because their true intentions always were to live in a more popular province. I have had SINP applicants from my home country call me for advise on how to apply to SINP and when I tell them that I have been living in SK for over 5 years they get surprised...like there is something wrong with me for staying here... I stayed in SK and I am very proud of it and very pleased with the decision I made. I started with an entry level job and worked my way up to the same level I had in my home country. I bought a house and recently became a Canadian citizen. If the future brings an opportunity at another province that benefits my family, I am open to relocating somewhere else (I am an immigrant after all). However, I feel proud of myself that I acted in accordance to my commitment and that I have contributed to this province according to the expectations that the province had when they selected me as a nominee.

 

[MB@@]

This is a discussion that most PNP applicants don't want to have or avoid to have mainly because a large percentage of PNP applicants end up leaving the province within the first few months. I talk from personal experience. I arrived to SK on 2016 and knew at least six other SINP nominees that arrived to Canada at around the same time as me. ALL of them left to other provinces. Out of those six, there were two that stayed in SK for less than 2 months. One was here for less than 3 months and there was one THAT DIDN'T COME HERE AT ALL. Not even for 24 hrs. If you asked these nominees they will tell you that they couldn't find work, which I have firsthand knowledge that it is bullshit. All of them were applying for jobs at other provinces way before even landing in Canada. Why are you applying for jobs in Ontario, FROM YOUR HOME COUNTRY ,if you have the intention of living in SK? Are these nominees REALLY putting an effort to find work or are they just waiting for an employer to knock at their door and offer them a manager's role? I have seen people say, "I didn't come to Canada to do an entry level job", but then they move to another province and do exactly that. I know that there are legit situations where people really struggle for a long time to find the IDEAL job (I say ideal because any decent job is easy to find) and is completely valid to move and be successful and happy somewhere else... But , in my opinion, that is exception rather than the norm. Most people leave SK within the first few months because their true intentions always were to live in a more popular province. I have had SINP applicants from my home country call me for advise on how to apply to SINP and when I tell them that I have been living in SK for over 5 years they get surprised...like there is something wrong with me for staying here... I stayed in SK and I am very proud of it and very pleased with the decision I made. I started with an entry level job and worked my way up to the same level I had in my home country. I bought a house and recently became a Canadian citizen. If the future brings an opportunity at another province that benefits my family, I am open to relocating somewhere else (I am an immigrant after all). However, I feel proud of myself that I acted in accordance to my commitment and that I have contributed to this province according to the expectations that the province had when they selected me as a nominee.

true , well it depends on the person to person, the person who has decent qualifications and rich work experience won't sacrifice to work as bartender though just to get settled in the nominated province whereas other popular provinces have the job as per his experience and that was the reason PNP applicants come to Canada under occupation demand with the perception that province has the jobs as per the occupation he/she applied for

you feel that way you live in SK and you arent good enough , all provinces has their own values and working and living in other provinces wont make you underplay

 

[MB@@]

"No such case has been reported during the citizenship application."​

Well, except the OP's post is precisely a report of a PNP nominee who was facing denial of a citizenship application for misrepresentation. And there are several elements in that post which tend to corroborate its likely authenticity. Not the least of which is the description of the fairness letter, which is precisely the process when this happens.

Misrepresentation of intent is one of the most difficult misrepresentation cases to make, so it is no surprise that scores get away with it. Not much of a surprise that this particular type of misrepresentation is common and works, and among those who do get caught that is usually very early in the process, mostly before they are issued a PR visa or at least prior to landing.

The important information here is that whether or not the immigrant engaged in MISREPRESENTATION is what makes the difference. Make no mistake:

NO Misrepresentation . . . NO Problem.

Misrepresentation . . . Maybe NO Problem or Maybe Big Problem

Or, for those who engaged in misrepresentation, maybe somewhere in-between. Like those cases where the citizenship applicant's address and work history triggers suspicion, further inquiry identifies further concern, there is a referral to CBSA, which in turn refers the case to its NSSD to investigate, and the applicant is scratching their head when their application is not getting processed as fast as others and GCMS notes do not reveal this is what is slowing down the process because any information about that investigation is redacted (confidential methods and means of investigation). Most of these likely to result in a conclusion there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a fraud case, UNLESS the investigation discovers other discrepancies in the facts, so ultimately this individual's background investigation is cleared and they are scheduled to take the oath. In the meantime they have come into this forum and bitterly complained about arbitrary and abusive delays, irresponsible and irresponsive "agents," and spread disinformation or at least misinformation, confusing the formal background clearances (from RCMP and CSIS) with investigations by CBSA/NSSD which are not revealed to applicants.

So for citizenship applicants such as @MB@@ . . . again, NO misrepresentations in application process, NO PROBLEM.

But that is what this topic is really about: whether IRCC might suspect PNP nominees who do not stay long in the nominating province of having engaged in FRAUD in the process of applying for and obtaining their PR status, and thus engage in an investigation, and whether such an investigation will come up with enough additional evidence to conclude there was fraud, and if so, to allege misrepresentation and impose the consequences for that, consequences which, make no mistake, are severe.

I will not try to second-guess the motives of those who try to suppress this discussion, to brush it off as unfounded.

I will, however, remind forum participants that misrepresentation is a serious subject. Even the kinds of misrepresentation for which getting caught is unlikely. Others can talk about the morality of it. My perspective is about what the rules are and how the system works and what that means for those who are trying to navigate the system.


Example of How Serious This Is, How Long Misrepresentation Can Haunt an Immigrant:

While it has nothing to do with PNP nominees, a very, very recent Federal Court decision (just last week, the 20th of October) illustrates how misrepresentations made in the process of becoming a PR can haunt a person for a long, long time, long after they became a Canadian citizen. This is the Xu v. Canada decision by Justice Norris, 2021 FC 1102 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jjs9c . . . and while Cecille Jiajia Xu has not lost her Canadian citizenship, as of now, the final outcome is still pending.

Highlights:

-- became PR as sponsored spouse 2006​

-- became Canadian citizen 2010​

-- Canadian authorities discovered the marriage was a sham in 2013​

-- Minister's delegate revoked her citizenship January 8, 2020 "due to her misrepresentation on her permanent residency application"​

-- Justice Norris set that aside last week, October 20, 2021, based on IRCC's failure to properly consider whether special relief should be allowed​

-- case remitted for redetermination by a different decision-maker​

Overall: misrepresentation as to genuineness of marriage in 2006 still hangs over this individual, her citizenship and possible deportation still in process.

Conclusion: Misrepresentation Is a Serious Issue . . . and if anything deserves to be ignored here, it is those efforts to understate or dismiss this.

I agree but the misrepresentation you referred for PNPs were different either it was from the employer, spouse or didn't disclose correct information,
I'm not sure how you can justify misrepresentation for the person on his intentions who landed in the nominated province and become PR, everybody has the intentions if people started being punished/misrepresented on their intentions so the whole world is gonna be in jail

and this is the reason they cant replace INTEND word with MUST reside in nominated province form because they have charter rights in place to protect PR , it doesnt matter how they get it , down the line they are PR , we have PR asylum seeker , refugees are free to move, Canada is the welfare country, and it has the most favourably human rights constitution which protects Canadians rights regardless of their status, intentions and race etc. of course not misrepresentation , false information

 

[novascotia27]

This is a discussion that most PNP applicants don't want to have or avoid to have mainly because a large percentage of PNP applicants end up leaving the province within the first few months. I talk from personal experience. I arrived to SK on 2016 and knew at least six other SINP nominees that arrived to Canada at around the same time as me. ALL of them left to other provinces. Out of those six, there were two that stayed in SK for less than 2 months. One was here for less than 3 months and there was one THAT DIDN'T COME HERE AT ALL. Not even for 24 hrs. If you asked these nominees they will tell you that they couldn't find work, which I have firsthand knowledge that it is bullshit. All of them were applying for jobs at other provinces way before even landing in Canada. Why are you applying for jobs in Ontario, FROM YOUR HOME COUNTRY ,if you have the intention of living in SK? Are these nominees REALLY putting an effort to find work or are they just waiting for an employer to knock at their door and offer them a manager's role? I have seen people say, "I didn't come to Canada to do an entry level job", but then they move to another province and do exactly that. I know that there are legit situations where people really struggle for a long time to find the IDEAL job (I say ideal because any decent job is easy to find) and is completely valid to move and be successful and happy somewhere else... But , in my opinion, that is exception rather than the norm. Most people leave SK within the first few months because their true intentions always were to live in a more popular province. I have had SINP applicants from my home country call me for advise on how to apply to SINP and when I tell them that I have been living in SK for over 5 years they get surprised...like there is something wrong with me for staying here... I stayed in SK and I am very proud of it and very pleased with the decision I made. I started with an entry level job and worked my way up to the same level I had in my home country. I bought a house and recently became a Canadian citizen. If the future brings an opportunity at another province that benefits my family, I am open to relocating somewhere else (I am an immigrant after all). However, I feel proud of myself that I acted in accordance to my commitment and that I have contributed to this province according to the expectations that the province had when they selected me as a nominee.

Good for you but the truth of the matter is that those who relocated outside of SK, rightfully and legally did so.

 

[dpenabill]

SUMMARY: For those potentially affected, in regards to PNP applicants and PNP PRs, the main thing to understand is that the SAFE approach is

(1) only apply for PNP participation if you actually qualify, including having the requisite intent,​

(2) make NO misrepresentation in the application process (including as to intentions),​

(3) make NO effort to find employment or a place to live in a different province BEFORE landing​

(4) make a real, sincere effort to settle in the nominating province AFTER landing, and ​

(5) before even seeking out-of-province employment, let alone actually moving, be cognizant of the optics, how appearances can influence decision-makers, and make prudent choices accordingly, taking into consideration what authorities might perceive and how that can influence things​

Many will nonetheless otherwise pursue the PNP path to obtain PR status in Canada. Anecdotal reports and rumours of successfully gaming the system abound. The risks of something going awry depend on the details in their particular situation, their facts, including the nature and extent to which they deviate from what I just outlined.

The prudent PNP applicant will recognize and understand that the odds of getting-away-with-something always involve some odds of getting-caught, that there is a downside risk no matter how good the odds of succeeding are. And not be confused or distracted by messaging mischaracterizing what the rules are, how they work, or how the system works.

It is especially important to understand that misrepresentation is serious. There is NO statute of limitations. The consequences can be severe. And even the suspicion of misrepresentation can affect how things go later, including in processing a citizenship application, which might not change the outcome (noting, though, if authorities conclude there was misrepresentation, that could change the outcome) but which can affect things like causing processing delays.

As much as several here attempt to focus on the lawfulness, the right to move to a province other than the nominating process, that is a distraction, it is largely if not entirely irrelevant. The key is whether or not there has been misrepresentation, and whether the PNP PR's actions otherwise indicate the probability of misrepresentation.

. . . but the truth of the matter is that those who relocated outside of SK, rightfully and legally did so.

Not sure how you know that based on a barebones sketch of general information regarding multiple individuals, but that is of no import.

Assuming all those individuals did indeed rightfully and legally move out of the nominating province, that is NOT relevant, at least NOT under the current law and rules (with the possible exception of the News Brunswick program).

With the possible exception of the News Brunswick program (subject to the precise terms governing participation in that program, which I am not familiar with), there's plenty of information supporting the conclusion that PNP participants, PNP nominees, are NOT bound to stay in the nominating province AFTER they have landed and are Canadians, having the status of a Permanent Resident.

That is, PNP PRs can indeed rightfully and legally move out of the nominating province. But so what? That is no defense to an allegation of misrepresentation. That does not guarantee IRCC or CBSA officials will not perceive the move to indicate possible or even probable misrepresentation. That does not preclude authorities from using the circumstances as evidence to support an inference there was misrepresentation.

The important thing to understand is that for the PNP participant the circumstances attendant a move out of province (depending on the particular details) can:

-- trigger suspicion of misrepresentation, and​

-- constitute evidence corroborating an allegation of misrepresentation​

Understanding this, including understanding that even if it is not likely the government will pursue a misrepresentation case, there is no statute of limitations and the potential consequences are severe, are important considerations for any prospective PNP applicant, and important considerations for a landed PNP PR considering if, when, and how to seek and obtain employment or a place to live outside the nominating province.

This is about navigating the system. This is about navigating the system understanding what the rules are, how the system works, what pitfalls there are and where, what the RISKS are, all in due consideration of not just what might be the most serious impact but what other collateral consequences there might be. This is about making prudent decisions that can have a significant impact on one's life, and the information needed to make prudent decisions.

This is a discussion that most PNP applicants don't want to have or avoid to have mainly because a large percentage of PNP applicants end up leaving the province within the first few months.

I do not know that this is true. I do understand that burying one's head in the sand tends to undermine prudent decision-making. You mention a couple salient examples of particularly poor decision-making increasing the risk of negative consequences related to PNP PRs:

-- PNP nominees that did not go to the nominating province at all​

-- prospective PNP nominees who engage in job searches in other provinces BEFORE they have landed and are a Canadian (a PR)​

The first of these leaves a very plain, easy to follow trail tending to demand IRCC or CBSA at least make some inquiry into whether they made misrepresentations in the PNP application process. Later if not sooner. Where that might lead will, of course, depend on the particular circumstances and what else the authorities uncover.

The second is creating direct evidence of intention contrary to what most PNP applications require. If, when, or how such evidence will be discovered by government authorities, and what they do with it if, say, a PNP PR's disgruntled or jealous colleague or former lover informs authorities about it using a fraud tip line, is very, very difficult to forecast. This gets into the realm of what-are-the-chances-of-getting-caught.

In the meantime, the prudent PNP applicant and PR should be very wary of messaging here suggesting that just because they can legally move out of province that is any assurance they are not at risk if

(1) they misrepresented their intentions in the process,​

(2) they misrepresented any factual details in the process (including landing interviews), or​

(3) their actions upon becoming a PR invite suspicions about whether they misrepresented their intentions or any other facts​

In regard to risks, and calculating them in the course of making prudent decisions, it is not just about the odds of getting-caught, but also the nature and probabilities of consequences. I doubt anyone is confused about the risk of being prosecuted for misrepresentation in these situations; it's low. Absent significant evidence corroborating the allegation of misrepresentation, significantly more than just the fact of a move out of province after a short stay, sure, the odds are quite good that IRCC will not initiate inadmissibility proceedings against the PR on the grounds of misrepresentation.

Which brings up

. . . but the misrepresentation you referred for PNPs were different either it was from the employer, spouse or didn't disclose correct information,
I'm not sure how you can justify misrepresentation for the person on his intentions who landed in the nominated province and become PR, everybody has the intentions if people started being punished/misrepresented on their intentions so the whole world is gonna be in jail

Yes, every case is different. NO, not every PNP nominee has misrepresented their intentions (so no, enforcement is not going to send the "whole world" to jail). But yes, make no mistake, misrepresentation of intention is a misrepresentation of fact (as it was found to be in the Dhanoa case here https://canlii.ca/t/jcm9c and considered be an egregious misrepresentation). And, IF and WHEN caught, and it is proven, that is grounds for all the negative consequences I previously outlined. Of course the odds of getting caught depend on whether or not, and to what extent, the person engaging in fraud has left other clues, other evidence. Those who perfectly cover-their-tracks, so to say, will almost certainly succeed, get-away-with-it. The problem with fraud, however, is there are so many ways to slip and leave a clue here, some evidence there . . . which warrants some further attention.

 

[dpenabill]

The previous post brought up

. . . but the misrepresentation you referred for PNPs were different either it was from the employer, spouse or didn't disclose correct information,
I'm not sure how you can justify misrepresentation for the person on his intentions who landed in the nominated province and become PR, everybody has the intentions if people started being punished/misrepresented on their intentions so the whole world is gonna be in jail

The particular evidence of misrepresentation will of course be different in regards to different individuals. As I have made an effort to clearly delineate, nonetheless, the main DIFFERENCE, and one that ultimately determines the outcome, is whether or not the PNP nominee has, in fact, made misrepresentations. NO MISREPRESENTATION, NO PROBLEM. It really is that simple. As is the other side of this equation: for the PNP nominee who misrepresents any facts, including the applicant's intentions, odds are probably still very good there will be NO problem, but for these individuals (and of course they know who they are), there is a chance of getting-caught, so MAYBE there will be a problem.

To the extent applicants make representations about their intent, as part of the application process, their intent is a matter of fact, and if they were misrepresenting their intentions (be that by providing misleading information, or by omissions, or any form of deception), that constitutes misrepresentation of fact which can be grounds for all the potential consequences applicable to misrepresentation . . . and again, there is NO statute of limitations in terms of the potential impact on their status in Canada.

Yes, indeed, misrepresentation of intention is a tough case to make. Even if authorities very much suspect the PNP PR engaged in misrepresentation as to intent in the PNP application process, prosecution for misrepresentation is NOT likely unless there is additional evidence supporting the allegation . . . like a digital trail showing the individual was seeking employment or arranging a place to live in another province BEFORE landing . . . or the absence of facts indicating the PNP nominee made at least a significant effort to settle in the nominating province . . . or information provided by a vengeful former spouse or colleague at work who has some evidence and offers it through a fraud tip line (which can happen many, many years later) . . . or . . . what will support the misrepresentation case varies from person to person, case to case.

For those who obtained PNP PR with no intent to make a reasonably diligent effort to settle in the nominating province, and have already moved out of the province, what's done is done. However much evidence there is, however little evidence there is, is what it is. Even if there was outright fraud, no intent at all consistent with the program, sure, this one is still fairly easy to get away with. No need to commit the perfect fraud to have a good chance of sliding by here. But the odds are it was not perfect. Odds are there was some evidence left along the way. Whether the fraud will catch up and bite, that remains to be seen. And even though there is no statute of limitations, the longer it goes, and especially if one succeeds in becoming a citizen, the more likely it is that it will not catch up. But once the player has placed a bet, the game is on, the gambling game. Most of us have been there, done that, in some regard in the course of our life. In effect, singing "luck be a lady tonight . . . " I'd confess I have but I am allergic to making confessions.

Trying to take cover in Charter protected mobility rights ain't gonna change the odds.

As illuminated, Charter mobility rights are NOT relevant under the current scheme in which PNP operates. The mobility rights of PNP PRs are not restrained by these programs.

But it is a mistake to overstate the nature and extent of a Canadian's mobility rights, to underestimate the extent to which they can be limited.

Leading to this

. . . the reason they cant replace INTEND word with MUST reside in nominated province form because they have charter rights in place to protect PR , it doesnt matter how they get it , down the line they are PR , we have PR asylum seeker , refugees are free to move, Canada is the welfare country, and it has the most favourably human rights constitution which protects Canadians rights regardless of their status, intentions and race etc. of course not misrepresentation , false information

The government disagrees with the proposition that these programs cannot be conditioned on a requirement to remain in the province for a specified period of time. That is, the government has said these programs could, in effect, replace "INTEND" with "MUST."

@rajkamalmohanram referenced and linked the government's explanation of Section 6 Charter mobility rights . . . here https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art6.html

In particular, see the discussion (about half way through) where it talks about how it "is possible to waive one’s section 6(2) rights prior to becoming a citizen or permanent resident of Canada." It further states, as an example:

A foreign national who agrees to practice medicine in a specific province in Canada for 5 years in order to obtain a work permit cannot subsequently claim rights under section 6 once he becomes a permanent resident since his section 6 rights have already been waived.​

I have tried to steer wide of this discussion because it is about what the law could be, might be, and for some, what it should be. There is already enough confusion about what the current law actually is, about what the current rules are, about how the system currently works. For clarity, most of my attention has been, as it usually is, on the way it is . . . not the way it could be or should be.

The current rules (again, with the possible exception, according to some law firm websites, of New Brunswick programs) do NOT require PNP applicants to waive their Section 6(2) mobility rights. As previously noted, CURRENTLY those participating in PNP are NOT bound to stay in the nominating province AFTER they have landed and are Canadians (having the status of a Permanent Resident). Comments in this thread about mobility rights are a distraction, not relevant, because the current system does not implicate any restriction on a PR's mobility rights.

But, it could. As the government observes (at the linked site), a person can waive their mobility rights. Moreover, the Charter includes multiple provisions allowing for limitations on mobility rights, specifically as provided in Section 1 and Section 6(3) and 6(4). It is not as if there is an absolute right to move freely. Mobility rights can be limited, even drastically restricted, for a wide range of reasons. There are, after all, tens of thousands of Canadians whose mobility rights are currently confined to very limited spaces within highly secure facilities, the kind with bars on the windows, to the extent there are windows. Some might shrug, of course convicted criminals can be confined to a jail or prison, how is that relevant? It illustrates that there is a balance between Charter rights and government interests which can override those rights. It is not a question of whether the government can restrict a Canadian's mobility, IT CAN, but rather the question is in what circumstances and on what basis and to what extent can the government limit a Canadian's mobility.

For purposes of PNP there is no need to wander into those weeds. The current system does not implicate any limitations on mobility rights.

But anyone asserting that a PR's actions after landing cannot trigger suspicion and investigation, and cannot be used as evidence against them in a misrepresentation case, is either mistaken or gaslighting.

 

[BDABCD2009]

I don't know what to say about it, but it's my story so far
I landed in Canada with my family on PNP, asked the border officer the day I landed that if I dont get the job , can I live somewhere else, he said you are PR, you can live anywhere you want in Canada

after spending three months in the nominated province, exhausting all my money i couldn't get the job , I've documented every damn application 300+, didnt get even a single reply , right after I applied for jobs outside the province, in a week I got response and three offer letters, How can nominated province justify this, they mentioned my profession was on-demand list and i couldn't get the job neither openings and right after they removed my profession 2171 from their demand list

I and my friend spoke to nominated province immigration, she sent an email we are good to move as long as we have our PR, however we need to check with IRCC, I called IRCC they said you can move however check with the province but you are PR, you are free to move

now after 3 years I read this news that due to misrepresentation citizenship got rejected after 7 years, well he didn't stay long enough though 1 week but how the province can justify this its misrepresentation , we have completed survey by unisities why immigrants dont stay in their nominated province and move out , survey clearly states because not enough jobs so how profession is in demand list then ? which means its the misrepresentation by province ?

trust me you can challenge provinces in court for that, to bring people in their province while posting false job demands to attract immigrants

Infact after reading this rumor that the guy got rejected for his citizenship i called back to my nominated province somehow my immigrant officer wasnt in , they will call me back

we all have intention to live in nominated province to start out lives from as scratch as an immigrant but we cant be starve to death and exhaust all our life savings if we cant find the job , Canada is the beautiful country and every province has their own values , but how can you settled and keep your intentions if provinces have no jobs?

these are my thoughts , rest i leave it on you guys

You made a good point MB. that story is indeed a hoax. did you apply for citizenship. can you post IRCC and PNP office contact. best to post their letter. I know that hoax letter takes off many PNP applicants sleeps.