R.O. MISREPRESENTATION INVESTIGATION : NEED URGENT ADVISE!!!
- Thread starter Chrysanthemum
- Start date
Yes i have answer No because at that time i had advise from lawyer in india he advised that if charges are framed by court on you its been consider as been charged with as per indian law.usually happens that police alleged charges prepare chargesheet then first stage is court will review evidence and whether to frame charges or not on accused but before this stage superior court has quashed entire proceedings...so can you let me know that alleged charges are consider under been charged with or its standard framing charges are been charge with as per CBSA?
Hey one thing....
What triggered the misrepresentation issue by IRCC? They were the one to see your files, approved your case and granted you a new renewed pr card. So after they issued you the card and you already received the card, wtf happened ? How did it went through misrepresentation? Do IRCC even after issuing a pr card verifies the case? Wasn't it supposed to be closed?
What triggered the misrepresentation issue by IRCC? They were the one to see your files, approved your case and granted you a new renewed pr card. So after they issued you the card and you already received the card, wtf happened ? How did it went through misrepresentation? Do IRCC even after issuing a pr card verifies the case? Wasn't it supposed to be closed?
Thanks Mandy..I was on open work permit..allegations were by CBSA.I was afraid so I return back to home country and received court order stating there is no criminal case against me.but they says in background question have you ever been charged with? I have answered No.but as before that case was dismissed and I was acquitted discharge.
So does it still be issue? As I have already file PR application which is received at Sydney office PNP PR outland on 15 th June 2018.
Technically things are never closed. If IRCC determines you obtained PR or PR renewal through serious misrepresentation - they can move to revoke your status. This can even happen once someone is a citizen (again, if the misrepresentation is deemed to be serious).
You should have answered yes although the charges were dismissed. The question asks if you have ever been charged (not whether you have any pending charges or convictions). You were in fact charged (so the answer is yes).
No as per glossary of Charged says as if charge has been read out by court to accuse it's called been charged with.as it was not the stage in proceeding at that time when I was on work permit.and it was with issue when I was employed .so I was not withholding material facts of entire case as due to organise privacy policy until matter deposed off.
Chats were not read out against me in court when I filed application in 2016. Later in 2018 stage appear but before that superior court has quashed proceedings
Chats were not read out against me in court when I filed application in 2016. Later in 2018 stage appear but before that superior court has quashed proceedings
I was actually referring to the original poster case.
This one:
""""Need Advise from Senior Members on this Forum, Please:
I became a PR in Feb. 2008. Applied for PR Card Renewal in Dec. 2012 and received the new PR Card by mail in Feb. 2013. I have clearly not met the Residency Obligation, because I was travelling back and forth and working mostly across the border. Yes, I lied in the application about the residency obligation, sorry! However, my husband (we became PRs together at the same time), who lived and worked in Canada, did not get justice he deserved. He applied for Citizenship in late 2011 and went for the test, and later got RQ in the mail. Responded appropriately and still waiting for their response and it has been almost 3 years now! We actually applied for PR Card Renewal at the same time, but he never got his card, instead they wrote requesting more evidence. Still nothing after 2 years! I, on the other hand, also got letters requesting more evidence to prove I lived inside Canada. I sent them what I had. All this is after I received my PR Card in the mail. Did they not know that I was already issued a new PR Card? I wrote them a letter and said I already have the PR Card and hoping the issue is now resolved. They promptly wrote back to say that they are conducting a "Misrepresentation Investigation" and the matter is not resolved yet! That scared me a bit. I do not want any inadmissibility or deportation issues, because I still need to be able to visit my husband in Canada at least once in 3 weeks.
My question is this: Can I relinquish my PR status at this time? I understand that withdrawal of my PR Card Application will not stop investigations. If I were to voluntarily relinquish my PR status, will it affect my husband's applications for Citizenship and PR Card Renewal? I believe both his applications are frozen due to the discrepancy of dates on mine. My husband will be able to sponsor me at a later date.
Please give me some advise. Thanks!""""
Like she said she lied and even though IRCC saw her case, approved it and granted a new pr card upon renewal. So how come they later charged her with misrepresentation after pr card was already issued, mailed and received by the OP.
My question is: How was the misrepresentation triggered on her case? Does IRCC verifies a case even after it's closed and finalized. What was the red flag here?
What I think is she actually mentioned the same dates(which she lied) on her previous pr renewal application. Had she stayed longer in Canada and excluded the previously lied date she wouldn't have been questioned regarding misrepresentation. IMAO Is this what really happened in her case?
This one:
""""Need Advise from Senior Members on this Forum, Please:
I became a PR in Feb. 2008. Applied for PR Card Renewal in Dec. 2012 and received the new PR Card by mail in Feb. 2013. I have clearly not met the Residency Obligation, because I was travelling back and forth and working mostly across the border. Yes, I lied in the application about the residency obligation, sorry! However, my husband (we became PRs together at the same time), who lived and worked in Canada, did not get justice he deserved. He applied for Citizenship in late 2011 and went for the test, and later got RQ in the mail. Responded appropriately and still waiting for their response and it has been almost 3 years now! We actually applied for PR Card Renewal at the same time, but he never got his card, instead they wrote requesting more evidence. Still nothing after 2 years! I, on the other hand, also got letters requesting more evidence to prove I lived inside Canada. I sent them what I had. All this is after I received my PR Card in the mail. Did they not know that I was already issued a new PR Card? I wrote them a letter and said I already have the PR Card and hoping the issue is now resolved. They promptly wrote back to say that they are conducting a "Misrepresentation Investigation" and the matter is not resolved yet! That scared me a bit. I do not want any inadmissibility or deportation issues, because I still need to be able to visit my husband in Canada at least once in 3 weeks.
My question is this: Can I relinquish my PR status at this time? I understand that withdrawal of my PR Card Application will not stop investigations. If I were to voluntarily relinquish my PR status, will it affect my husband's applications for Citizenship and PR Card Renewal? I believe both his applications are frozen due to the discrepancy of dates on mine. My husband will be able to sponsor me at a later date.
Please give me some advise. Thanks!""""
Like she said she lied and even though IRCC saw her case, approved it and granted a new pr card upon renewal. So how come they later charged her with misrepresentation after pr card was already issued, mailed and received by the OP.
My question is: How was the misrepresentation triggered on her case? Does IRCC verifies a case even after it's closed and finalized. What was the red flag here?
What I think is she actually mentioned the same dates(which she lied) on her previous pr renewal application. Had she stayed longer in Canada and excluded the previously lied date she wouldn't have been questioned regarding misrepresentation. IMAO Is this what really happened in her case?
Last edited:
Hard to say for sure. My guess is the spouse's PR card renewal and the RQ triggered the investigation and subsequent misrepresentation finding.
So you only found out about the pending charges against you from CBSA? You didn't get arrested or anything?
Does previous misrepresentation hunt you in the future for citizenship application?
I have some errors in 2016 pr card renewals which looks like a misrepresentation but it was indeed a mistake. Now there is no way for me to correct the error. The 2016 dates mismatched and affected the RO by increasing the time living in Canada. I received the pr card in 2016.
So in the future citizenship application I m gonna completely boycott the dates from 2016. In other words, the eligibility period would be from 2017 March to 2021 March. So in this case the IRCC have to look at the dates from 2017 to 2021 right? Am I correct? Do they have any thing to do with the dates from 2016? Am I still at risk for my citizenship application? It's better to know now than to regret in the future.
Does the 2016 misrepresentation has anything to do with citizenship application if I exclude the dates from 2016 and before?
I have some errors in 2016 pr card renewals which looks like a misrepresentation but it was indeed a mistake. Now there is no way for me to correct the error. The 2016 dates mismatched and affected the RO by increasing the time living in Canada. I received the pr card in 2016.
So in the future citizenship application I m gonna completely boycott the dates from 2016. In other words, the eligibility period would be from 2017 March to 2021 March. So in this case the IRCC have to look at the dates from 2017 to 2021 right? Am I correct? Do they have any thing to do with the dates from 2016? Am I still at risk for my citizenship application? It's better to know now than to regret in the future.
Does the 2016 misrepresentation has anything to do with citizenship application if I exclude the dates from 2016 and before?
ZingyDNA
Champion Member
- Aug 12, 2013
- 185
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 2111
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 28-06-2013
- AOR Received.
- 28-08-2013
- IELTS Request
- Sent with Application
- Med's Request
- 21-02-2014 (principal applicant)
- Med's Done....
- 07-03-2014 (both, upfront for spouse)
- Passport Req..
- 10-04-2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- 22-04-2014
- LANDED..........
- 13-06-2014
As per current rules the eligibility period for citizenship is 5 years, so if you apply in 2021 March, they'll look into 2016 March to 2021 March. I don't know how serious your mistake was for the PR card renewal, as sometimes a simple typo should be OK, but if you made up entry/exit dates it could be serious. Also, even if you wait more and avoid the "disputed" time window, one of the conditions for citizenship is your PR must not be in question. So there IS some chance they'll look into your PR application and PR renewal application, whether it's inside your citizenship eligibility period or before... Just my two cents.
It certainly can, and in some cases (the most serious) can result in the loss of status (both PR and Citizenship). There is no limitation on misrepresentation and investigations can go back years. Leaving out dates in your application doesn't prevent IRCC from reviewing previous applications and renewals. They may only use the last 5 years to determine RO, but there is nothing preventing them from reviewing and investigating potential misrepresentation for as far back as they choose to look.
Some Observations:
The OP's situation is remarkably similar to a case in a recently published decision. Different enough they probably are NOT the same case, but oddly similar nonetheless. Unfortunately I do not recall enough information to quickly find that precise case (so far this year alone there are dozens of Federal Court decisions published about cases which are, at least in part, about immigration related misrepresentation, and scores more IAD decisions). If I recall correctly I probably discussed and cited the case (with link) somewhat recently, in another topic (time flies so I cannot recall how recently).
In any event, a PR made some misrepresentations in an application to renew her PR card but subsequently withdrew that application. Years later she applied for a new PR card. That application was approved and she was in fact delivered the new PR card. In the meantime, however, that process somehow triggered IRCC to do a review of the previously withdrawn application leading to an investigation and allegations of misrepresentation. Unfortunately I do not recall the case well enough to adequately explain what happened in detail. But as I recall, it ended badly for her.
I bring it up at this juncture to emphasize what others have observed about previous misrepresentations: YES, an emphatic YES, previous misrepresentations can surface and be a problem, sometimes a very serious problem, for a long, long time to come. Depending on the seriousness of the misrepresentation. Depending on the context.
And, to I reference that case to illustrate that the issuance and delivery of a new PR card does NOT protect an immigrant from the potential consequences of a prior misrepresentation.
Apart from that, historically the majority of citizenship revocation cases have involved misrepresentations made when the immigrant first applied for status to live in Canada, either in their asylum application or their application for PR. Citizenship revocation cases have been brought as much as a HALF CENTURY later. There is no statute of limitations.
The latter is not to say that any misrepresentation hangs over the immigrant's head for the rest of his or her life. It depends. Any misrepresentation of information material to obtaining status in Canada, however, tends to be a problem which can come back and bite for a long, long time.
What Triggers Later Scrutiny For Previous Misrepresentation?
Obviously, any application to IRCC can trigger inquiry into previous representations which, if identified as suspicious, can in turn trigger a misrepresentation investigation. BUT there are many other things which can trigger inquiry leading to investigation leading to allegations with consequences.
Examples:
-- Clients of crooked consultant. Individuals who were a client, even well in the past, of a consultant who is investigated for fraud, are typically scrutinized. This may not be triggered until there is some interaction with CBSA or IRCC (application for new card, PR TD, or citizenship, or to sponsor family), but it is clear that CBSA and IRCC, even the RCMP, have been investigating thousands of immigrants because those immigrants were, at some point, the client of a crooked consultant. For example, see recent media stories about a B.C. based consultant who spent three years in jail for fraud . . . over a THOUSAND of his former clients have been investigated and targeted for revocation of citizenship or PR, hundreds already deported or otherwise abroad with no status to return to Canada. There is some litigation being pursued by a large number who claim they personally engaged in no fraud or misrepresentation and are being unfairly targeted just because they had, at some point, employed this consultant's services.
-- Fraud tip / poison letter. Someone submits information to CBSA, IRCC, or the RCMP about the immigrant, asserting facts showing there was some misrepresentation in the past. Whether the source is a vengeful former-partner, from a romantic or business relationship, a disgruntled former employee or employer or colleague at work, a mean-spirited neighbour or family member . . . way, way too many possible sources of a "tip" to authorities to begin enumerating more than a representative few. Former landlords. The local bigot. A friend in trouble thinking his troubles will be less if he offers information. The list is long.
An altered passport stamps case:
The Federal Court decision in the N Hoseinian 2018 FC 514 case, see http://canlii.ca/t/hs2j7, may be of interest because it illustrates a situation involving allegedly altered passport stamps where the individual asserted she did not know the stamps had been altered and that nonetheless the dates indicated were accurate.
While this was a citizenship case, the issue was whether the presentation of the passport with altered stamps constituted misrepresentation (IRCC concluded she had, and that was grounds to deny the citizenship application). From the court's decision it is clear that N.H. asserted she did not know how or by whom the passport was altered, and she provided additional evidence confirming that she had in fact traveled from Canada to her home country on the date purportedly shown on the disputed entry stamp (that is, the stamp date was accurate EVEN if it had been altered). Her evidence included credit card statements showing that she had made purchases corroborating her account of where she was prior to the date she said she arrived in her home country.
Two aspects of this case are, perhaps, of particular interest. One is the outline of misrepresentation jurisprudence generally. This sort of information is also recited in numerous other cases, but for those not familiar with official interpretations of the relevant law, this discussion is a good start and should be informative; otherwise, for the rest of us, a refresher never hurts. The second aspect is the analysis of fact in this particular instance, facts relevant to whether there was a misrepresentation, and facts relevant to the decision-making about travel dates (including evidence to corroborate the asserted travel date was the actual travel date).
The OP's situation is remarkably similar to a case in a recently published decision. Different enough they probably are NOT the same case, but oddly similar nonetheless. Unfortunately I do not recall enough information to quickly find that precise case (so far this year alone there are dozens of Federal Court decisions published about cases which are, at least in part, about immigration related misrepresentation, and scores more IAD decisions). If I recall correctly I probably discussed and cited the case (with link) somewhat recently, in another topic (time flies so I cannot recall how recently).
In any event, a PR made some misrepresentations in an application to renew her PR card but subsequently withdrew that application. Years later she applied for a new PR card. That application was approved and she was in fact delivered the new PR card. In the meantime, however, that process somehow triggered IRCC to do a review of the previously withdrawn application leading to an investigation and allegations of misrepresentation. Unfortunately I do not recall the case well enough to adequately explain what happened in detail. But as I recall, it ended badly for her.
I bring it up at this juncture to emphasize what others have observed about previous misrepresentations: YES, an emphatic YES, previous misrepresentations can surface and be a problem, sometimes a very serious problem, for a long, long time to come. Depending on the seriousness of the misrepresentation. Depending on the context.
And, to I reference that case to illustrate that the issuance and delivery of a new PR card does NOT protect an immigrant from the potential consequences of a prior misrepresentation.
Apart from that, historically the majority of citizenship revocation cases have involved misrepresentations made when the immigrant first applied for status to live in Canada, either in their asylum application or their application for PR. Citizenship revocation cases have been brought as much as a HALF CENTURY later. There is no statute of limitations.
The latter is not to say that any misrepresentation hangs over the immigrant's head for the rest of his or her life. It depends. Any misrepresentation of information material to obtaining status in Canada, however, tends to be a problem which can come back and bite for a long, long time.
What Triggers Later Scrutiny For Previous Misrepresentation?
Obviously, any application to IRCC can trigger inquiry into previous representations which, if identified as suspicious, can in turn trigger a misrepresentation investigation. BUT there are many other things which can trigger inquiry leading to investigation leading to allegations with consequences.
Examples:
-- Clients of crooked consultant. Individuals who were a client, even well in the past, of a consultant who is investigated for fraud, are typically scrutinized. This may not be triggered until there is some interaction with CBSA or IRCC (application for new card, PR TD, or citizenship, or to sponsor family), but it is clear that CBSA and IRCC, even the RCMP, have been investigating thousands of immigrants because those immigrants were, at some point, the client of a crooked consultant. For example, see recent media stories about a B.C. based consultant who spent three years in jail for fraud . . . over a THOUSAND of his former clients have been investigated and targeted for revocation of citizenship or PR, hundreds already deported or otherwise abroad with no status to return to Canada. There is some litigation being pursued by a large number who claim they personally engaged in no fraud or misrepresentation and are being unfairly targeted just because they had, at some point, employed this consultant's services.
-- Fraud tip / poison letter. Someone submits information to CBSA, IRCC, or the RCMP about the immigrant, asserting facts showing there was some misrepresentation in the past. Whether the source is a vengeful former-partner, from a romantic or business relationship, a disgruntled former employee or employer or colleague at work, a mean-spirited neighbour or family member . . . way, way too many possible sources of a "tip" to authorities to begin enumerating more than a representative few. Former landlords. The local bigot. A friend in trouble thinking his troubles will be less if he offers information. The list is long.
An altered passport stamps case:
The Federal Court decision in the N Hoseinian 2018 FC 514 case, see http://canlii.ca/t/hs2j7, may be of interest because it illustrates a situation involving allegedly altered passport stamps where the individual asserted she did not know the stamps had been altered and that nonetheless the dates indicated were accurate.
While this was a citizenship case, the issue was whether the presentation of the passport with altered stamps constituted misrepresentation (IRCC concluded she had, and that was grounds to deny the citizenship application). From the court's decision it is clear that N.H. asserted she did not know how or by whom the passport was altered, and she provided additional evidence confirming that she had in fact traveled from Canada to her home country on the date purportedly shown on the disputed entry stamp (that is, the stamp date was accurate EVEN if it had been altered). Her evidence included credit card statements showing that she had made purchases corroborating her account of where she was prior to the date she said she arrived in her home country.
Two aspects of this case are, perhaps, of particular interest. One is the outline of misrepresentation jurisprudence generally. This sort of information is also recited in numerous other cases, but for those not familiar with official interpretations of the relevant law, this discussion is a good start and should be informative; otherwise, for the rest of us, a refresher never hurts. The second aspect is the analysis of fact in this particular instance, facts relevant to whether there was a misrepresentation, and facts relevant to the decision-making about travel dates (including evidence to corroborate the asserted travel date was the actual travel date).
@dpenabill
Would it be misrepresentation if an applicant declares pending charges to the CBSA officers at any port of entry? Would CBSA officers in return inform IRCC? Or would applicants have the obligation to inform both CBSA and IRCC.
Would it be misrepresentation if an applicant declares pending charges to the CBSA officers at any port of entry? Would CBSA officers in return inform IRCC? Or would applicants have the obligation to inform both CBSA and IRCC.