PR revocation

[Ravi1990]

To be clear, misrepresentation is about giving IRCC false information, information known to be false and is something that can influence the outcome of the application.

In a sense, and there have been some such cases, the false information can be the representation that the relationship is a genuine marriage when in FACT the marriage was entered into for the purpose of obtaining status in Canada. That is, the fact of it being a marriage of convenience shows there was misrepresentation, a misrepresentation that the application was based on a genuine marriage.

And, in SOME cases, how quickly the relationship broke down once the individual actually has status in Canada has been both a triggering factor, and indirect evidence of the misrepresentation.

BUT generally misrepresentation cases are based on specific statements of fact which were NOT true when made and were known to not be true.

As I previously observed, if you know someone made material misrepresentations (that is, that they lied) in the process of applying for PR, that should be reported to IRCC. Simply and directly. A report stating that [name] claimed fact XYZ in an application for PR when that fact was not true. The report should be specific, not a generalized complaint about the person, except enough general information to identify who, what, and when. Make the report and then FORGET about it unless IRCC asks for more information or more input.

Anyone involved in the situation should NOT pursue making a report for revenge. It should NOT be about punishing someone for a breakdown or failure in the relationship. Actual FRAUD should be reported, of course. Just like knowledge of any crime should be reported. But an allegation of crime should NEVER be made to punish the other person. An allegation of crime should only be made because there is a good faith belief, based on actual knowledge, that a crime has been committed.

thanks like she had lied about her job and education in the immigration form??

 

[dpenabill]

thanks like she had lied about her job and education in the immigration form??

Mere discrepancies in particular details do not, not ordinarily, amount to misrepresentation constituting fraud.

To be grounds for a finding of inadmissibility on the grounds of misrepresentation, the false facts need to be material . . . which is about information that could influence the outcome of the application. Since there are no qualifications based on education or employment for a person sponsored as a member of the family class, the scope of discrepancies between what was reported and otherwise proven facts, about education or employment, would need to be particularly extensive, enough so to have diverted IRCC from considering or investigating some matter which is more directly related to the requirements.

Frankly, if you are asking these questions to assist searching for, in effect, a reason or excuse to make a fraud report, I'd echo the suggestion offered by @21Goose

Give it a rest.

The motive to pursue this appears to be largely personal. That is NOT an appropriate let alone good reason.

Fraud in these situations tends to be fairly obvious to those involved. If it is not obvious, probably is NOT fraud.

I do not hesitate to encourage reporting known, actual fraud. BUT there is little to be said, other than contempt, for those who would make accusations for personal reasons.

I understand the pain, the hurt, this may have inflicted. And there is nothing admirable about someone who would do something like that. But being a bad person is not a crime. If the substance of a fraud is not obvious, again I'd echo the suggestion offered by @21Goose . . . let it go.

By the way, if there was actual fraud the odds are the person slips up in other ways and IRCC gets on the case anyway. Not unusual for a MOC fraud perpetrator to attempt, later, to sponsor someone they were in a relationship with prior to the MOC . . . and basically document the fraud in their own submissions to IRCC. There is no statute of limitations, so even if it is years later, if IRCC comes across evidence of fraud in the PR application process they can, and often will, pursue Removal proceedings (this can happen even after the person becomes a Canadian citizen, although that is far less common).

There is no good reason to be personally vested in how it goes. Domestic relations law is the appropriate venue for litigating most of these situations, NOT immigration.

 

[Ravi1990]

Mere discrepancies in particular details do not, not ordinarily, amount to misrepresentation constituting fraud.

To be grounds for a finding of inadmissibility on the grounds of misrepresentation, the false facts need to be material . . . which is about information that could influence the outcome of the application. Since there are no qualifications based on education or employment for a person sponsored as a member of the family class, the scope of discrepancies between what was reported and otherwise proven facts, about education or employment, would need to be particularly extensive, enough so to have diverted IRCC from considering or investigating some matter which is more directly related to the requirements.

Frankly, if you are asking these questions to assist searching for, in effect, a reason or excuse to make a fraud report, I'd echo the suggestion offered by @21Goose



The motive to pursue this appears to be largely personal. That is NOT an appropriate let alone good reason.

Fraud in these situations tends to be fairly obvious to those involved. If it is not obvious, probably is NOT fraud.

I do not hesitate to encourage reporting known, actual fraud. BUT there is little to be said, other than contempt, for those who would make accusations for personal reasons.

I understand the pain, the hurt, this may have inflicted. And there is nothing admirable about someone who would do something like that. But being a bad person is not a crime. If the substance of a fraud is not obvious, again I'd echo the suggestion offered by @21Goose . . . let it go.

By the way, if there was actual fraud the odds are the person slips up in other ways and IRCC gets on the case anyway. Not unusual for a MOC fraud perpetrator to attempt, later, to sponsor someone they were in a relationship with prior to the MOC . . . and basically document the fraud in their own submissions to IRCC. There is no statute of limitations, so even if it is years later, if IRCC comes across evidence of fraud in the PR application process they can, and often will, pursue Removal proceedings (this can happen even after the person becomes a Canadian citizen, although that is far less common).

There is no good reason to be personally vested in how it goes. Domestic relations law is the appropriate venue for litigating most of these situations, NOT immigration.

Thanks for reply
I have read this article
https://www.cvimmigration.com/accused-of-a-marriage-of-convenience/
this article is in favor of filling MOC and he is saying that involving IRCC in this can be effective on some extent and how easily you can grab your abandon spouse if he or she has left you just after some time after landing in Canada.

Please present your views on this article also whenever you have time

 

[k.h.p.]

Your case is not a marriage of convenience.

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks for reply
I have read this article
https://www.cvimmigration.com/accused-of-a-marriage-of-convenience/
this article is in favor of filling MOC and he is saying that involving IRCC in this can be effective on some extent and how easily you can grab your abandon spouse if he or she has left you just after some time after landing in Canada.

Please present your views on this article also whenever you have time

The article, of a sorts, is about the risks from the point of view of a sponsored partner targeted for revenge by the sponsoring spouse. Sure, there is some risk there. Especially if, as in the article, the sponsoring spouse is willing to engage in disingenuous machinations to, essentially, wrongfully frame the sponsored spouse.

The article, after all, is a warning to "innocent" sponsored spouses that a vengeful sponsor can, potentially, manipulate the situation and submit misleading information to the government, in which case it can be rather difficult to prove one's innocence. It concludes:

"It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent, it only matters what you can prove!"​

The possible ramifications, when a vengeful spouse is willing to engage in malicious mischief to punish the other, are myriad. Sponsored immigrants are particularly vulnerable. That is why the Trudeau government immediately terminated the two-year conditional PR policy -- it was too easily, too often abused by sponsors.

People get framed for drug offences, theft, even murder. Depending on how malign your motives are, and how willing you are to deceive and abuse the system, sure, it is indeed possible to wreak all sorts of havoc on a former spouse. Ask any divorce lawyer, when the lawyer's guard is down and he or she is willing to openly talk, maybe over some drinks, and the stories they tell are about as chilling as any late night true crime horror story shown on the cable television networks.

The article, in my view, is mostly a reminder to be careful about who you get into relationships with. Especially marital relationships. The human capacity to hurt for vengeance unfortunately appears to be boundless.

All that said, it is also my impression that the article overstates the case rather dramatically. IRCC is not particularly interested in punishing immigrants on behalf of jilted partners.

 

[Ravi1990]

The article, of a sorts, is about the risks from the point of view of a sponsored partner targeted for revenge by the sponsoring spouse. Sure, there is some risk there. Especially if, as in the article, the sponsoring spouse is willing to engage in disingenuous machinations to, essentially, wrongfully frame the sponsored spouse.

The article, after all, is a warning to "innocent" sponsored spouses that a vengeful sponsor can, potentially, manipulate the situation and submit misleading information to the government, in which case it can be rather difficult to prove one's innocence. It concludes:

"It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent, it only matters what you can prove!"​

The possible ramifications, when a vengeful spouse is willing to engage in malicious mischief to punish the other, are myriad. Sponsored immigrants are particularly vulnerable. That is why the Trudeau government immediately terminated the two-year conditional PR policy -- it was too easily, too often abused by sponsors.

People get framed for drug offences, theft, even murder. Depending on how malign your motives are, and how willing you are to deceive and abuse the system, sure, it is indeed possible to wreak all sorts of havoc on a former spouse. Ask any divorce lawyer, when the lawyer's guard is down and he or she is willing to openly talk, maybe over some drinks, and the stories they tell are about as chilling as any late night true crime horror story shown on the cable television networks.

The article, in my view, is mostly a reminder to be careful about who you get into relationships with. Especially marital relationships. The human capacity to hurt for vengeance unfortunately appears to be boundless.

All that said, it is also my impression that the article overstates the case rather dramatically. IRCC is not particularly interested in punishing immigrants on behalf of jilted partners.

that article means a fake case can be filled for revenge .. ok i got your point brother .. thanks

 

[Aftermath21]

Hello I have a question that I’m hoping someone here can answer.
If you sponsored a spouse who was granted their pr, arrives in Canada but later was found inadmissible due to criminal convictions (committed within canada after arrival) and thus removed from Canada , will the sponsor still be responsible or held to the 3 year obligation?

 

[21Goose]

Hello I have a question that I’m hoping someone here can answer.
If you sponsored a spouse who was granted their pr, arrives in Canada but later was found inadmissible due to criminal convictions (committed within canada after arrival) and thus removed from Canada , will the sponsor still be responsible or held to the 3 year obligation?

The sponsor will still be responsible for paying back any welfare the applicant took before he/she was removed, and the three year ban on sponsoring a new spouse will still apply.

 

[Aftermath21]

The sponsor will still be responsible for paying back any welfare the applicant took before he/she was removed, and the three year ban on sponsoring a new spouse will still apply.

Thank you

 

[zardoz]

The sponsor will still be responsible for paying back any welfare the applicant took before he/she was removed, and the three year ban on sponsoring a new spouse will still apply.

I'm not sure that the ban would remain, as at the time of revocation of PR status, the undertaking would also terminate.

 

[21Goose]

I'm not sure that the ban would remain, as at the time of revocation of PR status, the undertaking would also terminate.

Just updating this - the sponsorship remains in effect even if a marriage of convenience is proved.

Source - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/protect-fraud/marriage-fraud.html

Sponsors
Don’t be tempted by offers of money or other rewards to marry a person just so they can immigrate to Canada. If you do this, you may face serious criminal charges. You'll also still have to meet the terms of the sponsorship.

 

[Alhtrek]

Hello guys,

My friend was protected person in Canada. after that he applied for PR for himself and his oversea family. His family arrived to Canada one year ago. know he has problems with his wife and he wants to divorce her. then he wants to marry a new oversea wife.
Does he have to wait three years to apply for new oversea wife or he can apply directly after get divorce from his first wife?

As he was protected person and applied for his oversea family does he represent a sponsor or another category?

Thank you for your help......

 

[scylla]

Hello guys,

My friend was protected person in Canada. after that he applied for PR for himself and his oversea family. His family arrived to Canada one year ago. know he has problems with his wife and he wants to divorce her. then he wants to marry a new oversea wife.
Does he have to wait three years to apply for new oversea wife or he can apply directly after get divorce from his first wife?

As he was protected person and applied for his oversea family does he represent a sponsor or another category?

Thank you for your help......

Yes - he can do that. He will need to be separated from his wife for one year before he can file for divorce. Once the divorce is final, he can marry and sponsor his new wife.

There is no three year rule since they all came together through the refugee program.

He needs to make sure that he does not travel back to his home country while still a PR.

 

[Alhtrek]

Yes - he can do that. He will need to be separated from his wife for one year before he can file for divorce. Once the divorce is final, he can marry and sponsor his new wife.

There is no three year rule since they all came together through the refugee program.

He needs to make sure that he does not travel back to his home country while still a PR.

Sorry, they didn’t come together to Canada. He traveled firstly, then he applied for refugee and became PR while his wife oversea. After that he applied for his family And bring them to Canada.
Now, he wants to marry new oversea wife
Should he have to wait three years or not??

I appreciate your reply
Thank you

 

[scylla]

Sorry, they didn’t come together to Canada. He traveled firstly, then he applied for refugee and became PR while his wife oversea. After that he applied for his family And bring them to Canada.
Now, he wants to marry new oversea wife
Should he have to wait three years or not??

I appreciate your reply
Thank you

Thanks for clarifying. In that case, yes the three year rule applies and he must wait three years from the date they landed before he can sponsor anyone else.