Yeah, this is what I am thinking. Is there any way I can really contact IRCC to see what their stance is? Should email the visa office that handled my application?
I can't wait for two years until 2027 and may risk misrepresentation at that time!
Any more comment/advice??
My overriding comment is you are asking for advice about what is a very personal decision regarding which there are many factors to consider, mostly personal factors (like a big one, where do you want to live? for example), and the potential impact of the omissions made (apparently in multiple transactions with IRCC, not just the PR application), is just one aspect.
So I have no advice. See a lawyer and
pay the lawyer (what lawyers offer is rarely worth any more than what they are paid) to review your situation, in detail, in depth, and give you an opinion. Be sure to provide the lawyer with copies of actual paperwork rather than just your personal narrative (given your tendency, whether by mistake or otherwise, innocent or not, to fudge or omit key information). That said, a lawyer's opinion and advice is not likely to directly address the question you raise, which is a very personal question calling for an exercise of personal judgment based on a lot of personal, many preference factors, not quite so personal as asking what you should eat for breakfast or whether you should have an affair with a married neighbour living next door, but a question beyond the range of legal advice. A lawyer will be able to review your situation, explain what constitutes misrepresentation, explain the potential consequences including some possible procedures, and many lawyers are also likely to offer some opinion about what the risk of legal action is, but the latter would come with a lot of caution rooted in uncertainty as to whether IRCC might allege material misrepresentation and pursue inadmissibility, or even refer the case for criminal prosecution.
It would still be your personal judgment about what to do now. The omission(s) happened. Processing is finished for the application(s). So far no allegations of misrepresentation have been made, no criminal charges filed. It may be that there is a low risk, perhaps a very low risk that IRCC pursues inadmissibility for misrepresentation, an even lower (probably much lower) risk of a referral for criminal prosecution. But that could depend on the particulars of your case. No expertise in law enforcement needed, for example, to apprehend how previous criminal history might influence things, say a conviction for a fraud-like crime (not sure if that's how tax evasion would be categorized).
Of course the obvious advice, whether from a lawyer or a friend (a real friend), would be to get your act together and going forward be more careful, be sure to truthfully, accurately, report the facts.
Leading to . . .
Just recently, I found that I did not enter my second citizenship in my Express Entry profile and I am worried that I committed misrepresentation.
(emphasis added)
In same post:
Indeed, I raised many Webforms since last summer to inform IRCC about this.
Raising some question about what you mean by "
Just recently" finding out you did not disclose citizenship in a second country.
How about a post from the
summer of 2023 . . .
I am already a PR and it was more than 2 years I filled in the Express Entry profile. I am now suddenly worried if I forgot to input my second nationality . . .
. . . do you guys think I will have problem of misrepresentation?
Here's something to consider: when asking for advice the odds are far better of getting useful responses the more accurately the situation is presented. Indeed, advice based on inaccurate information is far more prone to being bad advice. (This is a big part of why it's far better to consult with a lawyer if there are significant risks of legal liability involved: to get good advice the client needs to be fully honest with the lawyer, so the lawyer can assess the real situation, and thus the exchange with the lawyer is confidential, so clients can divulge even inculpatory information without any risk it could be used against them.)
But then there's the materiality factor:
In regards to errors or inaccuracies (including by omission) there are two outs, so to say, two defenses. One is innocent mistake. The other is a lack of materiality.
Innocent mistakes are not misrepresentation. Nonetheless they can have an influence on credibility. After all, the failure to accurately report facts is the definition of being an unreliable reporter of facts. Innocent mistakes are not misrepresentation, not grounds to find inadmissibility.
Whether a mistake or even intentional, to be grounds for inadmissibility proceedings the inaccuracy must be material. If the inaccurate information (including omitted information) could not affect the outcome, it is not material, not culpable misrepresentation. It might affect a decision-maker's assessment of credibility (again, inaccurate reporting means the person is an unreliable reporter, prone to not reporting the facts accurately). But other than the impact it has on the individual's credibility, it will have no substantive consequence. (Obviously any intentional inaccuracy, intentional omission, is likely to have a more negative effect on credibility, even it is not material and thus not actionable misrepresentation.)
Determining whether particular information is material can be tricky. Some information is clearly material, even if it is not directly about eligibility criteria. A lot of information requested is not directly about eligibility criteria, and whether it is material can vary depending on particular circumstances. I do not know for sure, but it is very likely that disclosing citizenship is considered
material information. The materiality question is not about whether the information, if known, would have resulted in a different outcome, but whether that kind of information could influence the outcome. So the question of materiality is not limited to which country's citizenship is undisclosed, but whether the failure to disclose citizenship in any other country could affect the decision being made. Moreover, it is likely this information would be considered material simply because it could be relevant in assessing the applicant's overall history.
The actual impact in a particular case likely varies. What constitutes misrepresentation as a technical matter may not trigger misrepresentation allegations as a practical matter. In this context, even though the materiality issue is
NOT about whether the specific information would have changed the outcome, whether IRCC chooses to pursue inadmissibility for misrepresentation probably depends, in part, on the extent to which the omitted information is likely, or not, to have affected the outcome.
The latter is similar to how many law enforcement prosecutorial decisions are made, including enforcement of the Residency Obligation. Whether a RO breach is small or big, it meets the definition of inadmissible. But the nature and extent of the breach can have a big influence in whether IRCC will proceed with inadmissibility proceedings or not.
It warrants also noting that in terms of how an undisclosed citizenship could affect IRCC decision making, some scenarios are more likely to draw increased scrutiny than others. Some countries do not allow their citizens to have a second citizenship, for example, so if a person has citizenship in one of the countries at the same time they had citizenship in a second country (say a person with Indian citizenship also had and does not disclose UK or US citizenship, or vice versa), that's bound to trigger some head scratching followed by potentially serious inquiries.
Materiality Sidebar For Illustrative Observation:
I undoubtedly made more of
just-recently-found-out fudging than it warrants. It is not "
material," not close, since whether it was in the summer of 2023, or last summer, or just this month, all these are after the fact, after the respective application(s) were fully finalized. That is, in terms of what to do now, to do next, it makes no difference if you just recently found out or knew of the omission two years ago.
But in terms of your credibility, it's a red flag, signaling an approach to reporting facts in a way that is more self-serving than honest. Something we all tend to do. (Yeah, me too, been there, done that, probably too much too often, some lessons learned, adjustments made.) So despite that, that alone plus the omission of a second citizenship itself, would typically evoke little more than a second glance, a bit of elevated scrutiny, ultimately little more than a
so-what-shrug. But yours is not an ordinary situation given the conviction for tax evasion, which even if not considered a type of fraud (which would dramatically elevate credibility concerns), is at least in that ballpark, in the range of what tends to indicate intentional deception.
So, again, I am not offering any what to do advice. Figuring out your preferences and priorities is up to you. Will be a good idea, nonetheless, to get on track being straight-up going forward.
