Was There Misrepresentation on Cabinet Minister's Refugee Documents?
- Thread starter links18
- Start date
If the parents are found to have misrepresented themselves, and the children acquired citizenship under 5(2) of the act, the children are also stripped. Children who gain citizenship under section 3 do not lose their citizenship.Leon said:
The government only goes after people who blaitently lied about living here or having multiple identities. They're not going to go after a cabinet minister for a minor mistake like this. Trust me on this one.links18 said:
Waldman is just representing his rich clients from the Middle East and painting them as victims after they out-and-out lied and cheated their way to citizenship. I have zero sympathy for them. And he's also mistaken when he says they can't appeal. They can bring it straight to court before or after a decision has been made for a full review of the case.
They don't just let people who cheated or used steroids keep their Olympic medals. Now, do they?
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
I wouldn't be too complacent about this -- it puts the Minister in an extraordinarily vulnerable position. Misrepresentation is one of the fundamental crimes of immigration -- a lie can be used to revoke PR status, citizenship status, and the citizenship status of dependents. Loss of status is retroactive to the point when it was obtained . . . I suspect that Natan is right, and that what has happened is that the Iranian government had a policy that affected the information put down on birth certificates of children born to Afghanis with uncertain status -- that would probably be the best bet for this woman, you could make a legitimate argument that this is not misrepresentation. It could also be that in Afghanistan it is customary to get a birth certificate from the place where one lives, not where one is born (Thailand has some odd documents, such as a house registration, that have nothing to do with whether one even owns a house).Coffee1981 said:
What would be most dangerous for her is if they applied for refugee status based on their flight from Afghanistan, but for some reason were able to obtain a birth certificate from the place they had purportedly fled, months after leaving, and if this could be shown to be a choice, and not something forced on them by Iranian officials. This would undercut the claim of refugee status. In that case, I would be surprised if they are able to retain citizenship -- letting such a public example slide by would seriously undermine CIC's ability to deal with fraud, and it would damage the Liberal party if they tolerate it.
Misrepresentation is simply one of the things you never want to be on the wrong side of -- the government admits very little gray area.
If her birth certificate says she was born in Afghanistan, then that is a fact under the law. Which makes me wonder how she can apply to have her place of birth in her passport changed to Iran? How is she establishing this fact, what is her source documentation? Surely her mother's word and the investigation of a Globe reporter are not enough to establish these facts to Passport Canada's satisfaction.
If her birth certificate states that she was born in Afghanistan, this case is closed. There is no misrepresentation. If, however, her birth certificate states she was born in Iran, and that's what it stated at the time she became a citizen, then she may have problems.
If IRCC makes a case that her "legitimate", "valid", "properly issued" Afghan birth certificate was obtained by fraud, I'm afraid that would be a case for Afghan authorities to investigate, Canada lacks jurisdiction. If there is a second birth certificate issued by Iran, then it would be a question of when that was obtained, and by whom. If the reporter obtained it, but she and her family never possessed it, then the Afghan birth certificate is the one of record, and is the one recognized as factual under the law.
If her birth certificate states that she was born in Afghanistan, this case is closed. There is no misrepresentation. If, however, her birth certificate states she was born in Iran, and that's what it stated at the time she became a citizen, then she may have problems.
If IRCC makes a case that her "legitimate", "valid", "properly issued" Afghan birth certificate was obtained by fraud, I'm afraid that would be a case for Afghan authorities to investigate, Canada lacks jurisdiction. If there is a second birth certificate issued by Iran, then it would be a question of when that was obtained, and by whom. If the reporter obtained it, but she and her family never possessed it, then the Afghan birth certificate is the one of record, and is the one recognized as factual under the law.
I agree, it wouldn't be newsworthy. But a family that applies for refugee status from a 2nd country, and is found to have a significantly more complex interaction with their origin country than they disclosed on their refugee application form, is very likely to have to explain exactly what was going on. There are benign explanations, and explanations that are not so benign, and I don't think it's unusual to have to detail what was going on. Getting ages and places of birth wrong could very well be an indication that their refugee status was not as clear-cut as their documents implied.
A lot of noise, some smoke but mostly mirrors, no fire.
My sense is that there is little or NO basis for alleging, let alone prosecuting, a claim there was a material misrepresentation made in the process pursuant to which Minister Maryam Monsef became a refugee and settled in Canada. No credible source has indicated otherwise. Not every misstatement of information made will constitute a material misrepresentation. IRCC, and before it became IRCC, CIC, are very familiar with the fact that a very large number of applicants (for all sorts of status) make errors in their application. The guidelines for identifying and prosecuting "material" misrepresentation, as well as numerous formal IAD, RPD, and Federal Court decisions discussing what constitutes a material misrepresentation, attempt to illuminate the difference between what amounts to a misstatement of fact versus what constitutes a material misrepresentation.
While that distinction is not always easy to make, and more than a few of Lorne Waldman's clients have failed to persuade authorities theirs was the first rather than the latter sort, there is little or no hint there was a material misrepresentation warranting the prosecution of an action to revoke Minister Monsef's citizenship.
In particular, contrary to the self-serving, typically hyperbolic protestations of Lorne Waldman, and the smear tactics engaged in by certain Conservative attack-advocates, it is NOT likely an immaterial discrepancy, regarding a child-refugee-claimant's place of birth, would constitute fraud, or a material misrepresentation, or otherwise is a basis for revoking the former refugee's citizenship.
There is, so far as I have seen, no serious questions about Minister Monsef's nationality at the time she became a refugee (she was Afghan), or about her identity, or about the conditions warranting the grant of refugee protection. Which is to say, the information about the place she was actually born is not information which would be likely to change the outcome of the refugee application.
Lorne Waldman (deliberately it appears to me) conflates erroneous information with deliberate misrepresentations of facts. He has an agenda. Many of those accused of fraud in their refugee claim or immigration process, probably including more than a few of his clients, raise a defense based, in one way or another, on asserting that misinformation in their application resulted from some version of an innocent mistake, including the claim that someone else provided the information without the claimant's knowing or understanding.
Remember that Lorne Waldman was one of the outlier lawyers who argued that the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada requirement could be used to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens if they later moved outside Canada (some still assert this, but no, there never was any substantial risk that moving outside Canada could constitute grounds for revoking citizenship).
Of course nope is correct that in most cases, in most situations, even if the claimant's actual place of birth itself is not material, it is ordinarily relevant information in assessing all the facts and circumstances underlying the claim, and thus is material in the sense such information is relevant and important in the process of determining what are material facts. Mostly, however, place of birth is relevant in the determination of the claimant's identity and nationality. The existence and nature of the circumstances warranting protected status are not dependent on the claimant's place of birth.
There is no suggestion, however, that there was any question about Minister Monsef's identity or nationality at the time of the claim for refugee status. There is no suggestion that the existence and nature of the circumstances warranting protected status were misrepresented or otherwise not true.
There is also no suggestion that Minister Monsef's mother made a material misrepresentation as to her own identity or nationality, or place of birth, or as to the conditions warranting the grant of protection.
Perhaps not formally or technically, in effect (more or less practically speaking) there tends to be a lower threshold for what constitutes the element of materiality (in making a material misrepresentation) if it is determined the claimant was intentionally misleading, that the claimant meant to mislead authorities. But in the absence of any indication that at the time of making the refugee claim that Minister Monsef intentionally misled Canadian authorities (she was barely 11 years old), the mere erroneous information about place of birth is not likely to be deemed a material misrepresentation.
An issue warranting attention: revocation without a hearing.
Do not get me wrong. I sympathize which much of Lorne Waldman's agenda. Perhaps the most salient issue he is trying to get some attention about is that Bill C-24 dramatically revised the procedure for revoking citizenship, eliminating a critical role of the Federal Court and giving the Minister authority to revoke citizenship without a hearing. Thus, for example, if the Minister was so inclined, sure, the Minister might be very aggressive and pursue the procedure for revoking the citizenship of Minister Monsef based on the discrepancy, and even be draconian in determining whether the elements of material misrepresentation are indicated and in denying defenses raised and requests for a hearing, putting Minister Monsef in the position of having to pursue an application for leave to appeal.
There is virtually no danger that someone in circumstances similar to Maryam Monsef would in fact face such a process. Even if they did, the likelihood of a successful appeal is high. Moreover, seems at least somewhat likely to me that the Courts will deem the current procedure, per Bill C-24 amendments to the Citizenship Act unconstitutional.
But of course there are many immigrants, refugees and those who immigrated pursuant to some other class of immigration, whose circumstances are more complicated, including many whose backgrounds are more tangled and uncertain, including more than a few whose experience along the way was not always, one might say, all that innocent, and those who made applications themselves (as adults) in which there were, quantitatively or qualitatively, more significant discrepancies. For them, the authority of the Minister to revoke citizenship without a hearing does pose a substantial risk, and the current procedure (per Bill C-24 amendments) makes it far more difficult for the individual to defend against the revocation process.
This is just one of the major procedural changes implemented by Bill C-24. Another is the removal of the right of appeal for citizenship applicants who are denied.
It is disappointing that the Liberal's proposed legislation (in Bill C-6) does not address these issues. I recognize that Lorne Waldman's efforts to bring this issue into the spotlight is well-warranted, and I concur in the need to fix the damage done by Harper, Kenney, and Alexander. But as for Michelle Rempel, she disgusts me. The opportunistic abuse of her status appears to know no bounds. She was right there, applauding, supporting, very much in the mix when Harper, Kenney, and Alexander rammed through the legislation which created this utterly unfair procedure. And about Tony Clement I feel likewise, albeit with more emphasis and disdain.
I would also refer people to the piece written by Ferry De Kerckhove (whose first diplomatic posting was to Iran) in yesterday's Globe and Mail, although it is mostly about why people should be far more sympathetic (I agree with his observations, but I also think that the attacks suggesting Monsef's citizenship is invalid are hyperbolic, unwarranted, and unfounded).
In general, given the role and approach being pursued by the NDP (who I have voted for in the only provincial and federal elections I have been able to vote in), in addition to the antics of Rempel and Clement, it appears to me that Canadian politics has changed a lot since I first came to Canada, a decade and a half ago, to stay long-term (I first started coming here for visits of a short duration way more than a half-century ago). It is clear that U.S. style obstructionism and attack-for-the-sake-of-attacking is on the rise. This is sad and disappointing. I hope Canadians repel the trend.
My sense is that there is little or NO basis for alleging, let alone prosecuting, a claim there was a material misrepresentation made in the process pursuant to which Minister Maryam Monsef became a refugee and settled in Canada. No credible source has indicated otherwise. Not every misstatement of information made will constitute a material misrepresentation. IRCC, and before it became IRCC, CIC, are very familiar with the fact that a very large number of applicants (for all sorts of status) make errors in their application. The guidelines for identifying and prosecuting "material" misrepresentation, as well as numerous formal IAD, RPD, and Federal Court decisions discussing what constitutes a material misrepresentation, attempt to illuminate the difference between what amounts to a misstatement of fact versus what constitutes a material misrepresentation.
While that distinction is not always easy to make, and more than a few of Lorne Waldman's clients have failed to persuade authorities theirs was the first rather than the latter sort, there is little or no hint there was a material misrepresentation warranting the prosecution of an action to revoke Minister Monsef's citizenship.
In particular, contrary to the self-serving, typically hyperbolic protestations of Lorne Waldman, and the smear tactics engaged in by certain Conservative attack-advocates, it is NOT likely an immaterial discrepancy, regarding a child-refugee-claimant's place of birth, would constitute fraud, or a material misrepresentation, or otherwise is a basis for revoking the former refugee's citizenship.
There is, so far as I have seen, no serious questions about Minister Monsef's nationality at the time she became a refugee (she was Afghan), or about her identity, or about the conditions warranting the grant of refugee protection. Which is to say, the information about the place she was actually born is not information which would be likely to change the outcome of the refugee application.
Lorne Waldman (deliberately it appears to me) conflates erroneous information with deliberate misrepresentations of facts. He has an agenda. Many of those accused of fraud in their refugee claim or immigration process, probably including more than a few of his clients, raise a defense based, in one way or another, on asserting that misinformation in their application resulted from some version of an innocent mistake, including the claim that someone else provided the information without the claimant's knowing or understanding.
Remember that Lorne Waldman was one of the outlier lawyers who argued that the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada requirement could be used to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens if they later moved outside Canada (some still assert this, but no, there never was any substantial risk that moving outside Canada could constitute grounds for revoking citizenship).
Of course nope is correct that in most cases, in most situations, even if the claimant's actual place of birth itself is not material, it is ordinarily relevant information in assessing all the facts and circumstances underlying the claim, and thus is material in the sense such information is relevant and important in the process of determining what are material facts. Mostly, however, place of birth is relevant in the determination of the claimant's identity and nationality. The existence and nature of the circumstances warranting protected status are not dependent on the claimant's place of birth.
There is no suggestion, however, that there was any question about Minister Monsef's identity or nationality at the time of the claim for refugee status. There is no suggestion that the existence and nature of the circumstances warranting protected status were misrepresented or otherwise not true.
There is also no suggestion that Minister Monsef's mother made a material misrepresentation as to her own identity or nationality, or place of birth, or as to the conditions warranting the grant of protection.
Perhaps not formally or technically, in effect (more or less practically speaking) there tends to be a lower threshold for what constitutes the element of materiality (in making a material misrepresentation) if it is determined the claimant was intentionally misleading, that the claimant meant to mislead authorities. But in the absence of any indication that at the time of making the refugee claim that Minister Monsef intentionally misled Canadian authorities (she was barely 11 years old), the mere erroneous information about place of birth is not likely to be deemed a material misrepresentation.
An issue warranting attention: revocation without a hearing.
Do not get me wrong. I sympathize which much of Lorne Waldman's agenda. Perhaps the most salient issue he is trying to get some attention about is that Bill C-24 dramatically revised the procedure for revoking citizenship, eliminating a critical role of the Federal Court and giving the Minister authority to revoke citizenship without a hearing. Thus, for example, if the Minister was so inclined, sure, the Minister might be very aggressive and pursue the procedure for revoking the citizenship of Minister Monsef based on the discrepancy, and even be draconian in determining whether the elements of material misrepresentation are indicated and in denying defenses raised and requests for a hearing, putting Minister Monsef in the position of having to pursue an application for leave to appeal.
There is virtually no danger that someone in circumstances similar to Maryam Monsef would in fact face such a process. Even if they did, the likelihood of a successful appeal is high. Moreover, seems at least somewhat likely to me that the Courts will deem the current procedure, per Bill C-24 amendments to the Citizenship Act unconstitutional.
But of course there are many immigrants, refugees and those who immigrated pursuant to some other class of immigration, whose circumstances are more complicated, including many whose backgrounds are more tangled and uncertain, including more than a few whose experience along the way was not always, one might say, all that innocent, and those who made applications themselves (as adults) in which there were, quantitatively or qualitatively, more significant discrepancies. For them, the authority of the Minister to revoke citizenship without a hearing does pose a substantial risk, and the current procedure (per Bill C-24 amendments) makes it far more difficult for the individual to defend against the revocation process.
This is just one of the major procedural changes implemented by Bill C-24. Another is the removal of the right of appeal for citizenship applicants who are denied.
It is disappointing that the Liberal's proposed legislation (in Bill C-6) does not address these issues. I recognize that Lorne Waldman's efforts to bring this issue into the spotlight is well-warranted, and I concur in the need to fix the damage done by Harper, Kenney, and Alexander. But as for Michelle Rempel, she disgusts me. The opportunistic abuse of her status appears to know no bounds. She was right there, applauding, supporting, very much in the mix when Harper, Kenney, and Alexander rammed through the legislation which created this utterly unfair procedure. And about Tony Clement I feel likewise, albeit with more emphasis and disdain.
I would also refer people to the piece written by Ferry De Kerckhove (whose first diplomatic posting was to Iran) in yesterday's Globe and Mail, although it is mostly about why people should be far more sympathetic (I agree with his observations, but I also think that the attacks suggesting Monsef's citizenship is invalid are hyperbolic, unwarranted, and unfounded).
In general, given the role and approach being pursued by the NDP (who I have voted for in the only provincial and federal elections I have been able to vote in), in addition to the antics of Rempel and Clement, it appears to me that Canadian politics has changed a lot since I first came to Canada, a decade and a half ago, to stay long-term (I first started coming here for visits of a short duration way more than a half-century ago). It is clear that U.S. style obstructionism and attack-for-the-sake-of-attacking is on the rise. This is sad and disappointing. I hope Canadians repel the trend.
Canadian Conservatives are embracing the Republican style of politicking, as are conservatives around the world -- because it works. Everyone thinks they can harness it and control it -- until a particularly opportunistic individual steals the show from them, promising to make their country "grate" again (not a misspelling!)dpenabill said: