Possible misrepresentation?

[Rob_TO]

I have not withheld my family information from CIC as i have declared all my family information in my Personal Information Form and Refugee Status Application form. Apart from my family members barred from being sponsored do you think my Permanent Residency could be in jeopardy?

Simple answer is if your children were not medically examined in your own PR application, they can never be sponsored.

In most (not all) cases I've seen of this the PRs status is usually not in jeopardy, CIC simply informs them their family members are ineligible to be sponsored and it ends there.

Totally disagree here. This problem was literally raised with the Standing Committee in December -- CIC agreed it's not misrepresentation. Until the minister corrects CIC's bill, it's still considered such. Watch or listen to the committee and you'll hear it..

As I stated, the reason the OP should contact an MP now, is the rules state its a ban forever and possible misrepresentation. But the admission by CICs director, at the questioning of an MP, means it's possibly in flux.

Hence why an MP should be engaged ASAP.

I have not heard the minister's words you're referencing. If he is stating it's not misrepresentation, then that would seem to protect only the PR in terms of not having their own status revoked.

However I'm not sure if that will help to allow the family members to actually be sponsored. The reason for making them ineligible under family class is not because of misrepresentation, it's because allowing this would circumvent some rules (such as medical inadmissibility) which have very different allowances under family class vs all other classes of immigration streams.

At the end of the day though, until the regulations are officially changed in CIC rules and guidelines, I don't see any family class sponsorship being successful for previously undeclared children.

That being said, by all means he should try to contact his MP as you suggest. Perhaps he'll get lucky.

 

[profiler]

I have not heard the minister's words you're referencing. If he is stating it's not misrepresentation, then that would seem to protect only the PR in terms of not having their own status revoked.

However I'm not sure if that will help to allow the family members to actually be sponsored. The reason for making them ineligible under family class is not because of misrepresentation, it's because allowing this would circumvent some rules (such as medical inadmissibility) which have very different allowances under family class vs all other classes of immigration streams.

At the end of the day though, until the regulations are officially changed in CIC rules and guidelines, I don't see any family class sponsorship being successful for previously undeclared children.

That being said, by all means he should try to contact his MP as you suggest. Perhaps he'll get lucky.

During the same discussion they also talked about other rules that would allow for expansion of "Family Member" as well. I will find it for you, and I will send that to you. The direction was that the MP was to forward the case directly to John McCallum's constituency office.

 

[rasmy]

During the same discussion they also talked about other rules that would allow for expansion of "Family Member" as well. I will find it for you, and I will send that to you. The direction was that the MP was to forward the case directly to John McCallum's constituency office.

I think i got it. Here is the link.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/421/CIMM/Brief/BR8606835/br-external/CanadianCouncilForRefugees-e.pdf

 

[profiler]

I think i got it. Here is the link.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/421/CIMM/Brief/BR8606835/br-external/CanadianCouncilForRefugees-e.pdf

It may have been during that meeting's questioning period. I will be able to tell you for sure when I get into work tomorrow -- I had the discussion open on my workstation.

 

[rasmy]

It may have been during that meeting's questioning period. I will be able to tell you for sure when I get into work tomorrow -- I had the discussion open on my workstation.

Sounds great. Thanks.

 

[Rob_TO]

I think i got it. Here is the link.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/421/CIMM/Brief/BR8606835/br-external/CanadianCouncilForRefugees-e.pdf

Interesting stuff, and should give some glimmer of hope to people in this situation.

However I don't think much can be done until the rules are officially changed to make it more commonplace in allowing H&C reasons to overcome this non-declaration exclusion. What they discuss here may take a long time to implement to the point where visa officers or appeal judges can properly consider it.

At a minimum the services of a good immigration lawyer well versed on these latest updates should be utilized.

 

[rasmy]

Interesting stuff, and should give some glimmer of hope to people in this situation.

However I don't think much can be done until the rules are officially changed to make it more commonplace in allowing H&C reasons to overcome this non-declaration exclusion. What they discuss here may take a long time to implement to the point where visa officers or appeal judges can properly consider it.

At a minimum the services of a good immigration lawyer well versed on these latest updates should be utilized.

Whats is the good lawyer for?

 

[profiler]

I said I would provide links to the discussions of the Committee WRT unintentional misrepresentation. It has been raised with CIC's directorship, and the Committee 4 times since October 4th 2016:

October 4 2016 - Jenny Kwan (MP, Vancouver East): https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/42-1/30/jenny-kwan-1/ Video: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/Redirects/ParlVuMeetingPage?MeetingId=9039187

October 20 2016 - Jamie Liew (Imm. Lawyer): https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/42-1/33/jamie-liew-1/ Audio Recording: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/Redirects/ParlVuMeetingPage?MeetingId=9155113

October 27, 2016 - Vilma Filici (Rep. From CAPIC): https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/42-1/35/vilma-filici-9/ Audio Recording: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/Redirects/ParlVuMeetingPage?MeetingId=9177974

November 24, 2016 - Salma Zahid (MP, Scarborough Centre): https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/42-1/41/salma-zahid-8/ Audio Recording: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/Redirects/ParlVuMeetingPage?MeetingId=9245280

During this meeting, Ms Zahid stated:
"
Right now we understand that children not included in the original immigration applications cannot be sponsored at a future date. This is even if the applicant was not aware of the child or did not intend to hide the child or misrepresent that on the application. Several witnesses raised cases where this rule caused hardships and unfairness. If given the flexibility, do you believe your officials would be able to determine between cases of fraudulent misrepresentation and innocent mistakes?
"

Robert Orr, Asst Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration's response:
"
The excluded family member clause is very much intended to prevent people who are not declared being sponsored at a later stage. It's to encourage full disclosure at the time of application and very much to help to prevent fraud, to protect the health, safety, and security of Canadians, and so on.

For those cases that are exceptional, there is the humanitarian and compassionate application process, which is available to those individuals. That is a safety valve, if you like, for those sorts of exceptional circumstances.
"

All are worth a read. I will re-iterate that visiting the MP's office as soon as possible is the best option. They have free legal counsel in the office, and will be able to act as the most efficient representation to CIC.

 

[Rob_TO]

"
The excluded family member clause is very much intended to prevent people who are not declared being sponsored at a later stage. It's to encourage full disclosure at the time of application and very much to help to prevent fraud, to protect the health, safety, and security of Canadians, and so on.

For those cases that are exceptional, there is the humanitarian and compassionate application process, which is available to those individuals. That is a safety valve, if you like, for those sorts of exceptional circumstances.
"

This sounds like he's saying there is already a H&C route for people who accidentally excluded members. Of course this is not really true as practically all of these cases are refused in appeals no matter the reason for exclusion. It doesn't sound like he's proposing anything new.

Also my impression of the issue is that excluded family members were not considered members of the family class. So one of the reasons H&C request doesn't work is because H&C can only be used on members of the family class living in Canada.

Was there any indication they would actually be changing the rules or wording of the guidelines/operation manuals, etc to allow H&C cases like this to be considered more often?

 

[Rob_TO]

Whats is the good lawyer for?

If you intend to submit a H&C request to sponsor your children, based on any new developments from the minister of immigration's office, you will need a lawyer to guide you through the process and argue your case. You should not attempt this yourself. As mentioned, the MP's office may be able to help with legal services.

 

[profiler]

This sounds like he's saying there is already a H&C route for people who accidentally excluded members. Of course this is not really true as practically all of these cases are refused in appeals no matter the reason for exclusion. It doesn't sound like he's proposing anything new.

Also my impression of the issue is that excluded family members were not considered members of the family class. So one of the reasons H&C request doesn't work is because H&C can only be used on members of the family class living in Canada.

Was there any indication they would actually be changing the rules or wording of the guidelines/operation manuals, etc to allow H&C cases like this to be considered more often?

Other MP's actually continued the questioning. I was providing links to help locate the discussions.

 

[ProCaNaDa-MZ]

It's still considered misrepresentation, as he was responsible for all forms at the time even if they were handled through an agency. The "intent" is impossible to prove now anyways. Else nobody would ever be accused of misrepresentation since everyone would just claim they made unintentional mistakes.

Whether there is talk on changing this rule or not, the truth right now is that if family members are not declared in your own PR app, they are forever banned from being sponsored under family class.

Perhaps some day they will change this rule, but for now this is unfortunately the direction I would expect this case to go if he tries to continue with the sponsorship route.Of course there is no harm in approaching MPs, perhaps he will get lucky and someone higher up will take interest in his case.

Absolutely not true. My wife was in the same situation 2 years ago. She was not aware of the rules or policies, as a lawyer filled out her Refugee Claim. She was approved as eligible to sponsor. And NO CIC did not take action against her. It's actually a good thing he had it filed through an agency as that helps with proving he was not aware of the process and or rules at the time. They shouldn't hold you reliable..."shouldn't"
You will be fine, stay positive. Just like Profiler stated just make sure you let your MP know and let him handle it. Write a brief explanation of the situation as a reference for your MP. He will probably ask for that as ours did.

At the worst, you will appeal if they deny within 30 days. It may take a bit because of your situation however nothing to overthink and go mad over. Just be patient.

Cheers,

 

[ProCaNaDa-MZ]

If you intend to submit a H&C request to sponsor your children, based on any new developments from the minister of immigration's office, you will need a lawyer to guide you through the process and argue your case. You should not attempt this yourself. As mentioned, the MP's office may be able to help with legal services.

Agreed. However, wait until you are denied. If you are denied, make sure to appeal within 30 days with a lawyer about your case. If they deny your appeal, then go through H&C. It is a much longer process, much more expensive but that is another option in case appealing fails. I doubt you will have to.

We did consult with a lawyer if our case was to be denied with our original application about this route H&C route and come to find out this takes much longer. So appealing is your best route if they were to deny you eligible as a sponsor. We did not have to appeal, or go through a lawyer. Just wrote an explanation and told our MP, and sent if off.

 

[profiler]

... They shouldn't hold you reliable..."shouldn't" ...

You signed the paperwork. You should know what you signing. If you don't know, you should ask. That means they can hold you liable.

 

[profiler]

Agreed. However, wait until you are denied. If you are denied, make sure to appeal within 30 days with a lawyer about your case. If they deny your appeal, then go through H&C. It is a much longer process, much more expensive but that is another option in case appealing fails. ...

I disagree here. If you engage the MP's office sooner, then you can avoid the expense, stress, and nonsense of trying to appeal. Far, far better to deal with the matter long before you need to involve a judge/justice/tribunal.