So the first fraudulent citizenship case has been decided by the Federal Court in favor of CIC. It explains why the ME and any associations thereof are such a problem for CIC and why CIC is justified (and will argue the case) in closely scrutinizing applicants with any ties to the area! It also shows that CIC if and when they want to will directly go via the relevant immigration authorities and their in country consular intelligence. CIC will likely be getting more applicants withdrawing their citizenship applications.
To summarize:
1. All applicants were Lebanese Citizens - 2 parents, 2 daughters (of majority age at application)
2. Applicants had UAE residence permits.
3. They claimed to be living in Canada other than short visits to Dubai.
4. CIC proved they actually lived in Dubai and made short visits to Canada.
5. Evidence of UAE residence was provided by employment records, UAE Interior Ministry entry/exit records, school records.
6. Applicants blamed their immigration consultant for the fraud but had no records of their own to prove the truthful facts.
7. Applicants perpetuated the 'place/history' of residence misrepresentation in their Canadian Passport application forms. Court proved this was their own action.
So whose fault - the applicants for chancing/ gaming the system and flipping the bird at the immigration laws, CIC for not having checks and balances to catch out the fraud, CBSA for not recording entry/exit data....does it matter? Herein lies the RQ rationale...expect this case to be widely used as a rallying cause for the RQ...many suffer for the mistakes/fraud of a few!
To summarize:
1. All applicants were Lebanese Citizens - 2 parents, 2 daughters (of majority age at application)
2. Applicants had UAE residence permits.
3. They claimed to be living in Canada other than short visits to Dubai.
4. CIC proved they actually lived in Dubai and made short visits to Canada.
5. Evidence of UAE residence was provided by employment records, UAE Interior Ministry entry/exit records, school records.
6. Applicants blamed their immigration consultant for the fraud but had no records of their own to prove the truthful facts.
7. Applicants perpetuated the 'place/history' of residence misrepresentation in their Canadian Passport application forms. Court proved this was their own action.
So whose fault - the applicants for chancing/ gaming the system and flipping the bird at the immigration laws, CIC for not having checks and balances to catch out the fraud, CBSA for not recording entry/exit data....does it matter? Herein lies the RQ rationale...expect this case to be widely used as a rallying cause for the RQ...many suffer for the mistakes/fraud of a few!