Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t...

Canada Immigration Forum (discussion group)


 
       
Subject: Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t...
  Roy,

Perhaps you might have the insight to the solution of thios problem:

A couple immigrated to Canada with their two children in 2009 under FSW program.

Husband was the principal applicant.

Wife submitted one forged certificate as a part of the application.

Husband didn´t know that the certificate was forged.

The family got their citizenship in 2013.

The husband found in 2013 that her wife has a forged certificate.

In 2014, the wife was misguided by a friend of her´s to divorce her husband, and to marry someone else for sake of huge amount of money (Marriage of convenience)

Wife pre planned everything, and complained against her husband to the police for assault.

Husband got charged for assault.

Case is in the court.

In the meantime, wife made an application for divorce, so as to get rid of husband by the time his assault case is over.

Now, the question is that if the husband complains to CIC about the misrepresentation, who will be held responsible, as husband was the principal applicant while applying for PR?

[18-11-2014,09:43]
[***.151.138.198]
Anonymous
(in reply to: Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t...)
Dear Anonymous

See clause 20

http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/2009/2008fc931.html

Really sad that a one time very loving couple has changed so much to go after one another by informing on each other.

Very sad and more disturbing that you seem to be a third party researching this matter.

In any case in front of any tribunal the decision depends on the quality of the evidence. Just because a report is written does not mean that the person will be found described.

Roy
cvimmigration.com

[20-11-2014,08:24]
[**.243.87.30]
Roy
(in reply to: Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t...)
it appears your always about giving your personal opinion. They were asking your professional not personal opinion. Yes Roy sometimes life and marriages arent what they appear. It happens. By now id assume youve figured that out. Appears not. Still cynical and malicious. Sad.
[21-11-2014,23:00]
[**.53.104.231]
Jen
(in reply to: Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t...)
To All

I find it very sad when marriages break up. Any union of two people are special to me. We fight constantly on a daily basis to prove that couples that retain us are in a genuine relationship. Then we wait for months for a Spousal Appeal date for those that choose to submit their sponsorship package themselves. DIY

On too many occasions some of our clients have had third parties try & destroy genuine relationships.

Cynical and Malicious - Yes

***I am suppose to protect myself from those wanting to abuse the Spousal Sponsorship process that would harm those in genuine marriages because CIC Officers start thinking that all marriages are bogus. Have you not recently seen how long the Spousal Sponsorship processing times have increase toO?

@Jen
Why would the husband who has been charged with assaulting a woman not ask the question instead of anonymous?

FYI - I did answer the question & if you would of clicked on the link and read clause 20 you would have known that I did reply professionally. Far better than most other Counsels.

[20] In Bellido v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 452, Madam Justice Snider dealt with the issue of inadmissibility pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Act. She held that there were two essential elements to a finding of inadmissibility, namely that the misrepresentations must have been made by the applicant and the misrepresentations must be material in that they could have induced an error in the administration of the Act. She also determined that the standard of review for the first portion of the test was patent unreasonableness, whereas the standard for the second part was reasonableness simpliciter. As a result of the decision reached by the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, I believe the standard of review for both legs of the test must now be reasonableness. As a result, this Court shall intervene only if the decision does not fall “within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir, at paragraph 47).

***So the (misrepresentation) must be material enough to cause an error in the administration of the Act. I have no idea what misrepresentation anonymous was referring to.
***The (misrepresentation) had to be made by the applicant and in this case it was his dependent.

Sad Jen that you did not take the time to read my reply.

[22-11-2014,13:59]
[**.31.63.127]
Roy
(in reply to: Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t...)
Hi Roy,

I love the way you answered. But, does that mean that if principal applicant has misrepresented anything, then his citizenship as well as his dependent wife and children´s citizenship will be revoked?

Please explain.

Thanks

[26-11-2014,05:24]
[***.151.138.198]
Anonymous
(in reply to: Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t...)
Anonymous

No revoking ones Citizenship is a very long and difficult process.

The odds are no one will go after a Citizen but a PR watch out.

The amount of quality evidence against a Canadian would have to be HUGE and very damaging for them to seek a revocation.

Roy
cvimmigration.com

[27-11-2014,11:30]
[**.31.33.109]
Roy
Reply to the Roy, Perhaps you might have the insight t... posting
Submission Code (SX3089) Copy The Code From The Left found in the brackets
Name
Email
Reply Subject
Reply Message


Canada Immigration | Forever Living Products in Canada