Visitor Visa refusal letter missing information?

[Yisetcsb]

My visa refusal letter looks like missing information, or I don’t understand it very well, after the “:” I though it should be the specific information that led to the decision but instead the letter goes straight to the next paragraph. I’ve copy/pasted how it reads.

“I am not satisfied that you have truthfully answered all questions in the documents you have submitted in support of your application, as required by subsection 16(1) of the IRPA. Specifically, I am not satisfied that the following information is truthful:
You are welcome to reapply if you feel ...”

Is anyone in this situation? what shoyld I do next? I want to reapply but I will need to know the specific information they aren’t satisfied with so I can explain it in my reapplication.

 

[jddd]

GCMS notes

 

[Buletruck]

Best make sure all of your documents are accurate, answered truthfully and real. The refusal indicates they believe (and they probably have some proof) some/all of the information you provided was fraudulent or you have given incorrect/incomplete information. You were lucky you were only refused and not banned from Canada for 5 years for misrepresentation. Don’t just resubmit the same thing again, or they will ban you. As jddd has pointed out, order the notes so you can find the reasons for their concerns.

 

[Yisetcsb]

After a month of writing to the visa office I finally got the complete letter, I don’t know why the first one wasn’t complete. At least now I have an answer but, the reason they state in the letter is that I didn’t disclosed a previous US visa denial and in my application form IMM 5257 I did disclosed it, and explained with dates and everything so now I don’t know what to do if they have denied the visa stating I didn’t disclosed information that is actually in mu applications documents, on top of that I have submitted a letter of intention with my travel plans and I explained again that I had been denied the US visa previously. So obviously my visa application wasn’t carefully reviewed.