CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS

Nowadays, many people know that “permanent residents or foreign nationals” can be found inadmissible on the grounds of misrepresentation “for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Act [ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act].

However, most people are surprised to learn how widely the definition of misrepresentation is being interpreted by immigration authorities, that it can even capture honest mistakes and oversights, and how aggressively Canadian immigration authorities are trying to catch persons for “misrepresentation”. Also, few people seem to understand that misrepresentations can come and haunt them for years after they become permanent residents – especially when they apply for citizenship.

The Act is clear “permanent residents” can be guilty of misrepresentation. Therefore, if  permanent residents are applying for the extension of their Permanent Resident Cards, or sponsoring their spouse, or even were questioned upon re-entry to Canada, a permanent resident can be found to have misrepresented if immigration authorities believe that the person directly or indirectly misrepresented or withheld material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could induce an error in the administration of the Act.

One of the most common instances that people are caught for misrepresentation is when applying for citizenship. Often times people are caught for misrepresentation when they apply for citizenship after having come to Canada by virtue of being sponsored by a spouse who they then left “soon after” having been landed. Of course, the definition of “soon after” is also being broadly interpreted. We have defended clients who were caught when applying for citizenship (or sponsoring a new spouse) because they had left their spouse only a few months after landing whereas some did so over a year after landing but were still alleged to have misrepresented.

This problem can be compounded if a lawyer/paralegal, when putting together the un-contested divorce, backdates the date of separation, to get a quicker divorce. On paper, this reduces the actual period that the couple was, in fact, living together.  We have even seen cases where the separation was back-dated to a time prior to the applicant even coming to Canada. While there are solutions to these challenges, the old adage: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” holds true.