Putting address of an unauthorized consultants on form proves you've taken their help and not completing the " use of representative" form clearing indicates that you've hided that fact thus Misrepresented ( Not Certainley, Keep reading ). CIC is very strict on their authorized representative issue. it's their business... We can't blame them. So better to stick together and face this issue & at the same time take action to those agency who've misguided you. Raise your voice.nightbuzzard007 said:
My guess is, those whoever mentioned unauthorized representative address on their visa application are on flag for further investigation which may cause delay. Be patient. Is there anyone who recently got visa despite of mentioning unauthorized representative address on form? Still the visa officer must be confirmed about the misrepresentation or using of a unauthorized representative before taking an action. That can mean that you still has a hope. I've indicated that point in red for your convenience. Refer to this:
IP 9 – Use of Representatives
an address search reveals multiple cases going to the same mailing address.
When an officer is satisfied, on the basis of specific evidence, that an applicant is concealing a representative, the application can be returned to the applicant's home or mailing address along with the letter in Appendix E explaining the reason for the application's return.
To return an application in this manner, an officer must have sufficient evidence. Evidence could include confirmed information from the public, admission by the applicant, or confirmation as a result of an investigation. When returning the application it is preferable that the applicant's address be used, as there is no guarantee that the unauthorized representative will contact the applicant. However, there may be times when the only address available is that of the unauthorized representative. In this case, the application should be returned to the unauthorized representative. See Section 8 and Section 9 for details on how to report concerns.
When an officer becomes aware of a number of applications being submitted by the same unidentified third party, either through evidence of the use of the same organization, style of presentation of the application, or contact information (e.g. addresses, email addresses, fax numbers), then a program integrity review may be required. Other program integrity issues, such as the use of fraudulent documents, could also be involved. Officers should be guided by the same program integrity standards and procedures that are adhered to in administering all citizenship and immigration programs.
Below are three scenarios and suggested courses of action for officers regarding concealed representatives:
If there is insufficient evidence (i.e. a lack of proof) to support their concerns about the use of a concealed representative, officers should process the application.
If there is sufficient evidence (adequate proof which satisfies the officer on a balance of probabilities) of a concealed representative, officers should return the application and the letter shown in Appendix E to the applicant's home address, if available. This sends a strong message that CIC and the CBSA are serious about not conducting business with unauthorized or concealed representatives.
If there is sufficient evidence of the use of a concealed representative during processing, officers should refer to ENF 2 to determine whether they meet the standard of proof and fairness required under A40 of IRPA or s.22(1)(e.1) and (e.2) of the Citizenship Act in order to refuse an application on the basis of misrepresentation. See PDI entitled Assessing Prohibitions under Section 22.
Source: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip09-eng.pdf
