Canada Immigration Case-law Canada v Singh, IMMIGRATION — Visitors — General by Joy Stephen, Polinsys

Benit Varghese Caselaws 0 Comments

IMMIGRATION — Visitors — General

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Applicant applied to Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (“SINP”) under Farmer Entrepreneur Category — SINP invited applicant to visit Saskatchewan — Applicant sought temporary resident visa — Officer noted applicant did not disclose that applicant was previously asked to leave United States 19 years ago — Applicant was provided 30 days to respond to officer’s concerns — Applicant asked officer to consider that removal was result of his overstaying his time in United States following failed refugee claim and not due to criminal or medical inadmissibility — Applicant also said that had he declared such removal, it would not have resulted in refusal of admittance to Canada — Applicant’s application for temporary resident visa was refused — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — There was misrepresentation — It was not for applicant to decide what was relevant — Applicants were required to make full disclosure — It was for officer to decide what was relevant and what weight to give any particular fact disclosed — It was not whether visa would have been refused had full disclosure been made but rather point was that it could have induced error because it could have impacted officer’s decision on whether applicant would leave at end of visa period, and it could have induced error if there were other inadmissibilities — Applicant’s failure to understand clear wording could not be used to avoid consequences of misrepresentation — Given clear questions and instructions on form, it was not reasonable for applicant to believe that he was not misrepresenting material fact when he decided to omit information of which he was fully aware — Misrepresentation was clearly material to decision that had to be made — Reasons were adequate — GCMS notes were part of reasons and notes clearly explained why non-disclosure was found to be material misrepresentation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *