hardness and cruelty of some CIC offciers

[alaabebe]

You are still providing contradictory information and saying nothing about the misrepresentation.

i do not need to respond to CIC agents here

 

[alaabebe]

In a scenario in which two applications were successful but the other two within the same family application were denied with determination of misrepresentation.
Would challenging CIC at Federal level trigger revisiting the successful applications to determine if the alleged misrepresentation apply but were not identified? Are there risks of initiating revoking the successful applications and/ or fine procedures?

yes indeed
that's what we are doing right now

 

[alaabebe]

Well, if they suspect misrepresentation, they can trace back more than that, right?

no it's right?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[alaabebe]

This is a difficult situation.

Assuming the decision itself was indeed unreasonable, it is best to see a qualified, reputable lawyer AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. As others have observed, there is a limited time within which to seek review of this decision, so time is of the essence, and moreover there is no right to appeal so it is really important to get help from a lawyer who knows how to make a proper application to seek leave for judicial review.

That is, judicial review (appeal) is possible, but first one must ask, in effect, for permission from the Federal Court, and this is a technical procedure for which a lawyer's help is a virtual practical necessity.

Obviously the back side to this story is its inherent lesson: how important it is to avoid making mistakes in the information provided to the government. Damaged credibility is perhaps the most difficult problem there is to overcome.



Beyond that, some objective observations:

I am sure this has been a painful experience. I do not know to what extent the OP's post here is about looking for recourse or is an exercise in expressing dissatisfaction. Perhaps some of both?

To seek recourse, as already suggested: lawyer-up, and lawyer-up real soon.

That noted, while some lawyers are perhaps better than others in showing sympathy, the lawyer's job is not about sympathizing. It is about identifying courses of action to rectify wrongs. But a big part of that is also about identifying the issues and assessing the facts and discerning what prospects for recourse there are. That is, objectively looking at what is and why and how it got there, toward identifying where things can go from there.

I am no Canadian lawyer. But I can offer some objective observations about this situation (recognizing as others have, that there are some elements unsaid).

While it involves reading between the lines some, it is fairly obvious the CIC officer determined there was a misrepresentation made to IRCC or CBSA, constituting grounds to deny the citizenship application.

Since this is about misrepresentation, the time span for calculation of residency is not relevant; what is relevant is whether the applicant submitted inaccurate information to CIC, was that information material to the processing of the application, and did it thus constitute a material misrepresentation of fact. How the information is material is important, but the more important aspect is what the inaccurate information itself was, and how and why it was submitted to CIC.

Tough place to be in. Especially with the five year ban. And then there is the worry whether the misrepresentation could also be grounds for initiating proceedings to revoke Permanent Resident status.


Procedure in this case:

No CJ: The only cases Citizenship Judges decide after August 1, 2014, regardless when the application was made, are residency cases or, for applications made after June 11, 2015, physical presence cases. Thus, if the grounds for denying the application are based on any reason other than residency/presence that is not a matter which goes to a CJ. Thus, cases which are denied or rejected on the grounds of misrepresentation do not go to a CJ. This appears, quite clearly, to be a misrepresentation case, thus it was decided by a Citizenship Officer not a Citizenship Judge.

The OP believes they adequately responded and explained the "misrepresentation," but obviously the examining Citizenship Officer reached a contrary conclusion. It would be no surprise to experience an officer's overt dissatisfaction when the officer believes the applicants have engaged in deliberate misrepresentation. So the officer's demeanor is not surprising, even if it was rooted in error.

Whether the officer reached an appropriate or erroneous conclusion can be the subject of an application for leave to obtain Federal Court review. The application must be made timely. While individuals do not absolutely need a lawyer, with the process in place since August 1, 2014, with there being no right to appeal, the process is more complicated and a lawyer's assistance is more or less a practical necessity.

Given the consequences of this decision, if at all possible, a lawyer should be at least consulted.

The burden in making a case on appeal is high and difficult, in this situation practically limited to showing there was a significant breach of fairness in the process. Disagreement with the conclusion itself is not grounds unless the decision was so far outside the bounds of an acceptable outcome that it is unreasonable. In other words, no amount of showing it was wrong will warrant the decision being reversed on appeal; it must be shown to be unreasonable in order to be overturned.

I realize some people might equate a wrong decision with an unreasonable one. As in, isn't an outcome unreasonable if it is shown to be wrong. But no, that is not how it works. Reasonable people can reach very different conclusions. If the decision is within the range of what reasonable persons might conclude, it is not subject to being overturned on the grounds that a reviewing court thinks the decision itself was wrong.

Looks like there was a fairness letter, an opportunity to respond to that, and an opportunity to be heard in person. So it would be difficult to show there was a material denial of fair procedure. The applicant would need to show something akin to the officer failing to so much as consider material evidence, or reaching a conclusion contrary to any reasonable inference from what is clearly shown in the evidence.


Recent Federal Court decision where a Federal Court did reverse based on unreasonableness of the decision-maker's conclusions:

see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/143404/index.do
Justice Marineau's decision in an appeal by NAJLAA LABIOUI, setting aside the decision by a Citizenship Judge

The case I cite is a residency case and is an appeal of a decision by a Citizenship Judge, so it is not the same procedure as the OP's case. If the OP is going to challenge the decision, the OP will have to seek leave for review of the Minister's decision (albeit actually a decision by a Minister's delegate, the Citizenship Officer) rather than a CJ's decision.

But some of the underlying principles of review are similar. On its face, it is largely about challenging the factual conclusions reached. Again, this is very, very difficult to do successfully. As the Minister argued in the case decided by Justice Marineau, this amounts to asking the reviewing court to reweigh the evidence that was before the decision maker (in the cited case, that being the decision by the CJ; for the OP it is the decision by a Citizenship Officer). And that is NOT the role of the court conducting a review.

The specific question asked is whether what the decision-maker decided "falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law."

As noted, these are perhaps among the most difficult cases to succeed in making on appeal. But some are successful, as it was in the case decided by Justice Marineau.


Would have, should have . . . another lesson taught:

I already noted the back side of this being the lesson about how crucial it is to be accurate when submitting information to IRCC.

Another lesson here is recognizing the significance of a fairness letter about misrepresentation. These are not common. There are more than a few probably, but they are not common. Typically IRCC (or CIC as it was before it became IRCC) characterizes discrepancies in terms of compromised credibility, the mistake or misrepresentation being reason to question, or doubt, or challenge the applicant's account of facts. Thus, questions of credibility are usually a factor in weighing the evidence overall, and this is usually about evidence or claims as to residency or presence.

A case which is more or less specifically a misrepresentation case is different. Remember, a finding of misrepresentation is a stand alone ground for denying the application, no matter how qualified for citizenship the PR was otherwise. (Obvious, most cited example, is the applicant who used a Mississauga address, one provided by his consultant, because his consultant said the processing time was much faster in Mississauga; claim is the applicant actually lived in Montreal, so he was still resident and present in Canada, just in a different city. Denied. Did not matter he actually met the residency requirement. The false information submitted was grounds to deny.)

In particular, if IRCC identifies a factual discrepancy as reason to overtly address it as a misrepresentation, this is a big deal. Heads-up: big problem looming. Heads-up: probably time to lawyer-up. Just plain heads-up!

I have not seen one of these letters. My guess is that they look like just about any other communication from IRCC, almost generic. That is, they probably do not give notice, in any print let alone in bold, that they are what is described as a fairness letter. My impression is that they simply notify the applicant of an issue and offer the applicant an opportunity to respond. And do not overtly suggest let alone specify the importance such a letter has.

As the OP here describes, they simply received letters requesting the applicants to "clarify two points of misrepresentation in their applications."

Probably did not look that much different than the letters other applicants sometimes receive, such as a request to submit a copy of a rental lease.

But there is a difference.

If the term "misrepresentation" was explicitly used that is probably more than some in a similar situation might be told. Less salient terms like "discrepancy" might be used. The term "misrepresentation" might not alert many, but to anyone familiar with CIC/IRCC procedure, it is a term which rings bells and flashes lights and waves a huge red flag. Some emphatic expletives come to mind.

And the problem is that by the time this kind of letter is sent to someone, the officer deciding to send the letter has largely already made up his or her mind that this was indeed a misrepresentation. Not a mistake. Not an oversight. A misrepresentation, and that makes it a very big deal.

In any event, while it might not always be easy to recognize a fairness letter as such, anyone who receives a fairness letter which is about misrepresentations or discrepancies needs to take immediate action, and consulting with a lawyer is among the first and more important actions to take. This is serious stuff. The consequences can be severe and go beyond being denied citizenship. Government housing of the not-at-all pleasant sort could be looming in the wings.


The Sad Side:

Even among those who were not altogether innocent, many times these things arise more from misunderstanding rather than an overt scheme to mislead. Indeed, many times mostly innocent persons are persuaded by others to give information or answers which are not accurate because the inaccurate answer will, supposedly, be better. Bad advice. There is a lot of such bad advice.

And then some people have a great deal more difficulty explaining how and why the inaccurate information was given, and the misunderstanding is made worse, the problem is made worse. My impression is that those with fraudulent intent tend to be better prepared to navigate this while those who are confused, and misled by bad advice, are the ones who tend to fall deeper and deeper into a problematic transaction with IRCC/CIC, and end up being punished more than the real culprits.

All I can offer is the typical caution I often give: follow the instructions and do your best to be complete and accurate. Beyond that, if mistakes are made, correct them sooner rather than later; but if there is any sign that IRCC is focusing on compromised credibility and especially if there is any indication IRCC is identifying erroneous information as a "misrepresentation," then it is time to lawyer-up.

hello
need to discuss couple of issues with yourself if you please

 

[dpenabill]

hello
need to discuss couple of issues with yourself if you please

Not sure what I can offer. I am not an expert. I am not qualified to give personal advice.

I offered what observations I could above.

Two aspects of that loom large: the situation clearly calls for the assistance of qualified legal counsel and, secondly, the time to pursue judicial review has passed. Which is to say, if you have not yet filed an application seeking leave to obtain judicial review, and have not obtained legal counsel, there is really not much I could possibly offer beyond that.

Otherwise, if you do have a lawyer, the lawyer can advise you better than anyone here.

I do think you have taken a lot of unfair, irrelevant flak here. That happens in a forum like this. You shared plenty of your information. The idea that you should have given more details so that participants here could better advise you was best ignored. No one here should be offering advice. This is not an appropriate forum for giving advice.

And the more complex the situation the less you should rely on any advice here. The more you need a legal professional, a lawyer.

As I suggested in my previous post, the circumstances at the least suggest the prospect of more problems than merely being denied citizenship. This is a situation in which you need to see a lawyer, not an immigration consultant, a licensed to practice law member of the Canadian Bar Association.

 

[alaabebe]

That's quite interesting - I was under the impression that the only period that could be under review is the 4 year time frame prior to the signing of the application.

alaabee - Did the letter provide a reason for refusal? I wasn't able to tell by your original comment but did your wife and son get to see the judge?

They were supposed to see a judge but the day they went , the same officer met them again and clocked them from seeing the judge as requested and she sent them a letter of refusal only two days after they met her?!!!!!!!
abusive behaviour mingled with prejudices constituted in her mind even before she met them

 

[alaabebe]

In a scenario in which two applications were successful but the other two within the same family application were denied with determination of misrepresentation.
Would challenging CIC at Federal level trigger revisiting the successful applications to determine if the alleged misrepresentation apply but were not identified? Are there risks of initiating revoking the successful applications and/ or fine procedures?

This one of the points that we raised and we rely on into our approach besides
previous two years of investigations taken to renew our PR's
in addition , citizenship applications were submitted on may 2014 , they kept silent till april 2016 and then they send for two specific interpretations which have been done and finally they were supposed to meet with the judge which had not happened because the same officer , met them again and interviewed them and finally she made her decision base don that interview

 

[dpenabill]

This one of the points that we raised and we rely on into our approach besides
previous two years of investigations taken to renew our PR's
in addition , citizenship applications were submitted on may 2014 , they kept silent till april 2016 and then they send for two specific interpretations which have been done and finally they were supposed to meet with the judge which had not happened because the same officer , met them again and interviewed them and finally she made her decision base don that interview

From what you describe, it is apparent this is NOT correct: "they were supposed to meet with the judge"

As I observed previously, ONLY questions about residency or physical presence are decided by a Citizenship Judge. This case was about other issues. No Citizenship Judge.

I do not know why you thought they were supposed to meet with a judge, but it is readily-apparent that impression was wrong.

In any event, again the time that has elapsed since this happened puts it outside the scope of any regular procedure for seeking judicial review.

Moreover, again, it also appears there is a significant risk for further consequences, which could have a big impact, perhaps even affect capacity to live in Canada.

The situation is now outside the scope of what anyone here can really help with. Going forward you need a lawyer, not anonymous back-seat drivers.

 

[nope]

From what you describe, it is apparent this is NOT correct: "they were supposed to meet with the judge"

As I observed previously, ONLY questions about residency or physical presence are decided by a Citizenship Judge. This case was about other issues. No Citizenship Judge.

I do not know why you thought they were supposed to meet with a judge, but it is readily-apparent that impression was wrong.

In any event, again the time that has elapsed since this happened puts it outside the scope of any regular procedure for seeking judicial review.

Moreover, again, it also appears there is a significant risk for further consequences, which could have a big impact, perhaps even affect capacity to live in Canada.

The situation is now outside the scope of what anyone here can really help with. Going forward you need a lawyer, not anonymous back-seat drivers.

Dpenabill, you are normally so precise . . . And yet here you label the participants on this forum 'back seat drivers'! This is clearly incorrect.

The correct term for our ilk is 'kibitzers'.

 

[vic48912]

Sorry to hear about your plight.

Here is what I glimpse from what you have stated so far....

You and your family have been invited for oath ceremony that means citizenship judge has granted citizenship, all your background security check are good and your Citizenship citizenship certificates have been printed. ceremony for oath is just a ceremony!!

The law is very clear, once a citizenship judge have granted citizenship IRRC have no other role to play other than to either swear you in as citizen or appeal citizenship judge decision in a federal court (Old law was within 60 day and 6month for IRRC to complete their investigation, Harper repealed that section but made it 30 days with undermine time for investigation. In your case IRRC never appealed

Get a lawyer and asap and file for mandamus....Send me private message and I will tell you what to do

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc74/2014fc74.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAzQ2FuY2VsbGF0aW9uIG9mIGNpdGl6ZW5zaGlwIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIGJlZm9yZSBvYXRoAAAAAAE&resultIndex=3

 

[screech339]

Sorry to hear about your plight.

Here is what I glimpse from what you have stated so far....

You and your family have been invited for oath ceremony that means citizenship judge has granted citizenship, all your background security check are good and your Citizenship citizenship certificates have been printed. ceremony for oath is just a ceremony!!

The law is very clear, once a citizenship judge have granted citizenship IRRC have no other role to play other than to either swear you in as citizen or appeal citizenship judge decision in a federal court (Old law was within 60 day and 6month for IRRC to complete their investigation, Harper repealed that section but made it 30 days with undermine time for investigation. In your case IRRC never appealed

Get a lawyer and asap and file for mandamus....Send me private message and I will tell you what to do

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc74/2014fc74.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAzQ2FuY2VsbGF0aW9uIG9mIGNpdGl6ZW5zaGlwIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIGJlZm9yZSBvYXRoAAAAAAE&resultIndex=3

Just because citizenship certificates are printed, doesn't mean they have canadian citizenship. They are not granted citizenship until the oath is completed. Ceremony is not just a ceremony. It is the final step REQUIRED before getting citizenship. Once the oath is done, CIC update the system accordingly. Why do you think new naturalized Canadians were told to wait at least 48 hours before they can apply for Canada passport.

BTW: citizenship judge only grant citizenship after the oath is completed at ceremony. Any time before that stage, judges grant the "path to citizenship". Ie: applicant explaining to judge why he/she deserves citizenship despite not meeting residency requirement (basic residency). The judge then open the path to citizenship if approved. Does not give citizenship then.