Is this misrepresentation?

[rand75]

hi all,

for our honeymoon, me and my wife stayed at a hotel for 1 night, we checked in at 10:00 PM on November 10th and then checked out around 11 AM on November 11th the next morning. so i attached a hotel receipt which says we checked in on November 10th and checked out on November 11th, so in my sponsorship application i wrote that we stayed at the hotel for two days. it's a mistake and i should have put one night to be more accurate. is this misrepresentation?

sorry if this is a stupid question, i have already been accused of misrepresentation years ago when i tried to immigrate through the skilled workers program because one of my references give the officer incorrect dates. i don't want to go through that again.

 

[Aquakitty]

1 night in a hotel generally means 2 days , I think you are fine.

 

[sashali78]

I'll give you a 1m$ advice for free. Don't want to be accused of misrepresentation? Start calling things for their names - stayed one night , call it one night.

 

[truesmile]

I'm with aquakitty. Saying "two days" is 100% accurate. You will have NO problem with that. This is the new gimmick (maybe not so new) that travel sites are using to make you think you are staying at their resort longer, i.e. two sounds better than one, right?!

 

[scylla]

Misrepresentation is for big things - like saying you were never married before when you were.

This isn't misrepresentation. At worst, it's a small mistake. Don't worry about it.

 

[rand75]

thank you guys for putting my mind at ease.

I'll give you a 1m$ advice for free. Don't want to be accused of misrepresentation? Start calling things for their names - stayed one night , call it one night.

it was a mistake. it wasn't my intention to mislead, i thought it would be fine to consider it as two days.

 

[Decoy24601]

thank you guys for putting my mind at ease.

it was a mistake. it wasn't my intention to mislead, i thought it would be fine to consider it as two days.

Don't worry about what sashali78 said, they were being unnecessarily rude with their reply.

Scylla is right, it's something much too small to end up causing an issue. And what aquakitty said is right too; You can call it either staying a night or staying two days.

 

[sashali78]

Don't worry about what sashali78 said, they were being unnecessarily rude with their reply.

Scylla is right, it's something much too small to end up causing an issue. And what aquakitty said is right too; You can call it either staying a night or staying two days.

I don't think i was rude. I was practical. From the post it is clear that OP was already refused for misrepresentation before and probably had a 5-year ban. Now OP asks about another issue which may be treated as small mistake or unimportant detail at all for most of the applications, however, in the OP case CIC is going to look through his applications with candles to find anything which is wrong.
The way i look at it , OP should be holy as a pope in order to be successful in this application and my advice was also general in its nature. Don't try to beautify your situation, call it what it really is.
But its your choice whether to give a harsh reality advice today or cheer today and then comfort him in a few months from now.

 

[Decoy24601]

I don't think i was rude. I was practical. From the post it is clear that OP was already refused for misrepresentation before and probably had a 5-year ban. Now OP asks about another issue which may be treated as small mistake or unimportant detail at all for most of the applications, however, in the OP case CIC is going to look through his applications with candles to find anything which is wrong.
The way i look at it , OP should be holly as a pop in order to be successful in this application and my advice was also general in its nature. Don't try to beautify your situation, call it what it really is.
But its your choice whether to give a harsh reality advice today or cheer today and then comfort him in a few months from now.

I won't say that it was untrue, or impractical, but it definitely came off as overly harsh and rude in tone. There's a difference between being blunt and being rude. You could have simply given the information that the OP should have worded it differently, but instead you worded it to where it definitely came off as rude. You can still convey accurate information without being rude.

Also, saying two days is actually more correct now when it comes to hotel booking. Most hotels now call one night "two days" as previously mentioned.

 

[rand75]

I don't think i was rude. I was practical. From the post it is clear that OP was already refused for misrepresentation before and probably had a 5-year ban. Now OP asks about another issue which may be treated as small mistake or unimportant detail at all for most of the applications, however, in the OP case CIC is going to look through his applications with candles to find anything which is wrong.
The way i look at it , OP should be holly as a pop in order to be successful in this application and my advice was also general in its nature. Don't try to beautify your situation, call it what it really is.
But its your choice whether to give a harsh reality advice today or cheer today and then comfort him in a few months from now.

yes you were rude, who said the reason i put "two days" was to beautify my situation? did you know my intention? the reciept is there and the officer can see how long we really stayed. it was just a mistake, i was looking at the dates and at the time it didn't cross my mind to put "one night" because there were 2 dates on the receipt.

 

[sashali78]

yes you were rude, who said the reason i put "two days" was to beautify my situation? did you know my intention? the reciept is there and the officer can see how long we really stayed. it was just a mistake, i was looking at the dates and at the time it didn't cross my mind to put "one night" because there were 2 dates on the receipt.

I am trying to help you and you are still missing my point. When i say what i say I am not playing your friend but how VO may look at your situation/application given your misrepresentation history.

 

[Decoy24601]

I am trying to help you and you are still missing my point. When i say what i say I am not playing your friend but how VO may look at your situation/application given your misrepresentation history.

And you're missing the point that even to a tough VO, calling a stay at a hotel "two days" in length is the same as calling it "one night". This isn't misrepresentation. You can simply word it either way. The fact that the OP was accused of misrepresentation before does not make this misrepresentation, when it flat out isn't.

 

[countrygal]

I'm sure you will be fine! When it came to filling out my past employment I did not know the.m exact dates I worked at certain places , heck I was probably a good month off on some of them! Like others have said it is just for the big things and if you are trying to hide anything and lied about something. You have nothing to worry about my friend.

 

[sashali78]

OK,I'll try one last time and i am off this thread.

Let's assume that i am wrong and all of you are right, then how do you explain that OP was already accused of misrepresentation for some date discrepancy between his submissions and what his references said on his FSW application? I can think of 2 possible reasons:
1. Either OP is not-disclosing some information from this forum OR
2. VO officer applied some personal discretion to count a seemingly not important fact towards misrepresentation. (Seemingly, because I assume it was at least 5 years ago (as 5-year bans are being imposed on misrepresentations), its unlikely that back then it was a CEC application where work/study dates are very important and most probably FSW1-3 where dates of employment are not as crucial ingredient)

Based on CIC operational manual (and i assume all the new advisers here read through it before putting up their advices) there are certain and very strict rules which must be satisfied to call it an act of misrepresentation. Based on the partial information at hand (and contrary to what i was been accused for here, i am not assuming that OP lied or mislead either CIC or forum intentionally) it doesn't look like it applies to OPs case of "date discrepancy".
However, both from my personal and forum history I saw that VO has A LOT of discretion how to apply the rules, including the rules of misrepresentation so things do go south. And that's what i think is the key point here, unrestricted, unlimited and unaccountable VO discretion. Now given the history of misrepresentation and prior trial to get into Canada, CIC just needs an excuse to put a "misrepresentation" stamp again.

That's why, in my 9 year history and half a dozen of applications with CIC, none to be refused btw (oh well, not counting the s87.4 backlog with the rest of 300K) i did more than once contacted visa office after the application and fixed all mistakes/mistypes/discrepancies/etc, no matter how small they were just to show that i am upfront and honest with my information. Perhaps i am a paranoid, but that what happens when you deal with CIC for years and see what happens to people around you.

 

[rand75]

OK,I'll try one last time and i am off this thread.

Let's assume that i am wrong and all of you are right, then how do you explain that OP was already accused of misrepresentation for some date discrepancy between his submissions and what his references said on his FSW application? I can think of 2 possible reasons:
1. Either OP is not-disclosing some information from this forum OR
2. VO officer applied some personal discretion to count a seemingly not important fact towards misrepresentation. (Seemingly, because I assume it was at least 5 years ago (as 5-year bans are being imposed on misrepresentations), its unlikely that back then it was a CEC application where work/study dates are very important and most probably FSW1-3 where dates of employment are not as crucial ingredient)

Based on CIC operational manual (and i assume all the new advisers here read through it before putting up their advices) there are certain and very strict rules which must be satisfied to call it an act of misrepresentation. Based on the partial information at hand (and contrary to what i was been accused for here, i am not assuming that OP lied or mislead either CIC or forum intentionally) it doesn't look like it applies to OPs case of "date discrepancy".
However, both from my personal and forum history I saw that VO has A LOT of discretion how to apply the rules, including the rules of misrepresentation so things do go south. And that's what i think is the key point here, unrestricted, unlimited and unaccountable VO discretion. Now given the history of misrepresentation and prior trial to get into Canada, CIC just needs an excuse to put a "misrepresentation" stamp again.

That's why, in my 9 year history and half a dozen of applications with CIC, none to be refused btw (well not counting the s87.4 backlog with the rest of 300K) i did more than once contacted visa office after the application and fixed all mistakes/mistypes/discrepancies/etc, no matter how small they were just to show that i am upfront and honest with my information. Perhaps i am a paranoid, but that what happens when you deal with CIC for years and see what happens to people around you.

i can explain. the HR contact i provided gave the officer incorrect dates.

im not trying to misrepresent on my sponsorship and that was never my intention... i thought that saying we stayed for 2 days would be accurate, and everyone seems to agree. im confused now. ???