Misrepresentation is one of the most serious wrongdoings that the applicant for Permanent Residence in Canada can do. In other words you want to avoid misrepresentation at all cost throughout each stage of the immigration process. And let's call things by their proper name - lying is never a good idea whether you're lying in immigration or any other context. However, what if you never intended to misrepresent your case or did not even know that you have misrepresented something? This is just one of the issues that I have discussed with Rekha McNutt in today's episode of the Canadian Immigration Podcast where we touched on the various aspects of appealing the removal of PRs for misrepresentation. Rekha practices primarily in immigration law. She has extensive experience with temporary resident visas, express entry, federal skilled workers, Canadian experience class, Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program, family class sponsorships, refugee claims, pre-removal risk assessments, and in-Canada humanitarian and compassionate permanent residence applications. Rekha has focused much of her practice on Federal Court Judicial Review applications of various types of negative immigration-related decisions. Rekha had appeared before the Alberta Provincial Court and the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. She has also appeared extensively before the Federal Court of Canada and Immigration Tribunals such as the Immigration Division, Refugee Protection Division, and the Immigration Appeal Division. Rekha is the past-Chair (2015-2016 & 2016-2017) of the Southern Alberta Branch of the Canadian Bar Association, Immigration Section. In this episode Rekha and I had an awesome and engaging conversation about misrepresentation and the consequences of such wrongdoings. It is surprising that there are so many ways how almost anyone can become a victim of their own carelessness, lack of understanding of the immigration processes or even reports filed by their close circle of friends or relatives. Rekha gave a full explanation of what misrepresentation really is and how serious and challenging the consequences may get if IRCC believes there was a misrep. Additionally, in this episode we discussed the following: what is the misrepresentation; examples of Innocent Misrepresentation; misrepresentation on inadmissibility vs. misrepresentation on eligibility; different ways IRCC finds out about cases of misrep; fairness letter and Section 44 reports; the process of removal of permanent residents for misrepresentation; different ways to fight your case if Immigration Division issues a removal order. Sponsor: Canadian Immigration Institute - Founded by Immigration Lawyer Mark Holthe Affiliate Program: Click on this link to become an affiliate of the Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com/become-an-affiliate OR, go to the Canadian Immigration Institute main page and scroll down to the very bottom and click on “Affiliate”. Earn 30% when someone purchases via your affiliate link Additional Resources: Rekha's firm: http://www.caronpartners.com/ How to contact Rekha: [email protected] Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com/ Topics for our Next Podcast If you have a suggestion for topics we could cover in the Podcast, please drop me a line at [email protected]. If you know of anyone that would be interested in coming on the Podcast as a guest, please send them my way. share on facebook, share on twitter, share on LinkedIn Binge on all of our Canadian Immigration Podcast Episodes! If you want to listen to more episodes, you will find all the episodes here. Subscribe to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on iTunes and Spotify If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe. If you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review. That would help tremendously in getting the word out and raising the visibility of the show. Share the Love We also encourage you to subscribe to our Canadian Immigration Podcast on Spotify.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related