@legalfalcon
Quick question behalf of my friend
In year 2015 he was applied for visitors visa with Retail sales supervisor job title (Noc code 6211) & it was rejected. So now he applied for sinp paper based applications and in work experience he mention in the year of 2015 Retail Merchandise (Noc code 6222). So it will make any negative impact on application. Please advice for him
His status as per gcms notes from last month
Eligibility : Passed
Criminality : Passed
Medical : Passed
Thanks in advance
The following is the general advise from one of my previous posts, read it accordingly.
If you file any application with IRCC, TRV, WP, PR etc, any of them can be looked into to review your current application and any inconsistency can be a cause of misrepresentation. All applications have to be consistent, and if they are not, a reason on why you omitted the information has to be provided.
(changing NOC codes is not an issue and does not amount to misrepresentation).
Now I will not be deliberating that if the prior application was refused, why it should be looked into again, or you file a TRV before and you did not disclose an employment but subsequently claimed pints for it in PR and got a PPR without any issues. This is all anecdotal. Just because someone was not caught, does not make him innocent.
They law is clear, while applications for different types of status engage different considerations, it does not necessarily flow that statements made in temporary residence applications cannot affect subsequent permanent residence applications (or vice versa). In Suri v. Canada , the court found that the Officer’s concerns vis-à-vis the contradictions between the Applicants’ temporary and permanent applications were reasonable and based on that the applicant's misrepresentation ban was upheld.
Federal courts have ruled on this numerous times.
Read - Suri v. Canada available at
http://canlii.ca/t/grvwt
Similarly, in the case of In Goburdhun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 971 at para 28, Justice Strickland summarized the key considerations outlined in the jurisprudence, including the fact that paragraph 40(1)(a) is to be given a broad interpretation, capturing misrepresentations even if made by a third party such as a consultant, without the knowledge of the applicant (see also Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 647 at para 25). The only exception to this rule is narrow and applies in the truly extraordinary circumstances where an applicant honestly and reasonably believed that they were not misrepresenting a material fact and knowledge of the misrepresentation was beyond the applicant’s control.