This is not a happy success story yet.
Natasha came to us after watching a video on our IG and FB pages describing 5 ways to identify an immigration fraudster. Unfortunately for Natasha, she was already a victim of one and needed our help to do some damage control.
Natasha did everything right, she thought. She consulted her friends who recommended “Mike” to help her to bring her father to Canada. She reached out to “Mike”, discussed her matter and signed a retainer agreement. The fee that “Mike” charged was more than Natasha expected to pay (ONE of the warning signs of a fraudster: astronomical fees!), but since he was recommended she decided that she will be getting a royal treatment. “Mike” did his job: helped her to fill out the forms, put together some support documents and submitted the application. Mike did not put himself on record as Natasha’s dad representative (ANOTHER warning sign of a fraudster: they will not go on record with Immigration!), but submitted her application through his own account. A few weeks later, Natasha’s dad received a letter to send in his passport to the VAC to affix the visa. Natasha was elated – she felt that the money she paid Mike were well spent since the request that others wait for years came to her so fast. A week later, Natasha’s dad received his passport back from the consulate with no visa in it. A few days later a letter came as well finding Natasha’s dad inadmissible to Canada for sending in a passport based on a fake passport request letter. “Mike” stopped responding to the emails or calls. Natasha’s dad was banned from Canada for 5 years.
Immigration Canada holds the position that almost any fake document you submit with your application could affect the officer’s decision making process on your application. To defend yourself against the allegations you are required to use any of the available legal defences, or establish that the misrepresentation could not have affected the officer’s decision.
So what happened?
In Natasha’s case, the fact that the document was fake was established. “Mike” doctored IRCC’s own documents. Our only option was to challenge the finding that this document would not have, as the Act says, induced or could have induced “an error in the administration of this Act” (Immigration Act s 40(1)). We are still waiting for the response on our challenge.