We are happy to report that on April 11, 2024, the Federal Court allowed our client’s appeal of a decision finding him inadmissible for misrepresentation in its decision in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 576.
Our client had submitted his application for a spousal open work permit in 2021 through a consultant, hoping to reunite with his wife in Canada. Unbeknownst to him, his application did not include some important information about his previous immigration history in the UK. The visa office found this omission rendered the client inadmissible for misrepresentation pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and rejected his application on this basis. As a result of this refusal, the client was also banned to Canada for 5 years.
This was a particularly complex and noteworthy case because it involved proving to the Court that our client was prejudiced by his previous immigration consultant. Effective representation is a principle of fundamental justice and we argued that our client was denied this because of the consultant’s incompetent representation.
The judge analyzed the evidence and agreed with our arguments that the consultant’s conduct in this case did indeed constitute incompetence, and this incompetent representation ultimately resulted in the misrepresentation finding.
In particular, the acts of incompetence by the consultant included:
- Not eliciting the necessary information or following-up with the client after he had proactively disclosed his UK immigration history to the consultant
- Not allowing the client to review the completed application before or after it was submitted.
The Judge therefore overturned the work permit refusal, lifting the ban, and specifically ordered that the issue of misrepresentation not be raised again due to the findings in this case.
This is an extraordinary remedy that is only granted when an applicant is able to meet the strict legal test for reviewable professional conduct. Importantly, part of that legal test also involves proving strict compliance with the Federal Court’s Procedural Protocol that ensures the representative against whom the allegations are being made, is aware of them and is provided an opportunity to respond.
In this case, the consultant actually formally intervened with the assistance of a well-known immigration counsel, Waldman and Associates.
Nevertheless, the record before the Court was undeniable. The consultant had completed the forms on behalf of our client, did not allow him to review the forms before or after submission, provided no documentary proof to corroborate his version of events, and also failed to include other important information that our client had explicitly sought to ensure was included in the application.
This case underscores the vital role of effective legal representation in immigration cases where a decision, such as in this case, can have significant and long-lasting consequences on just the individual applicant, but their entire family as well.