Federal court | Immigration
CONSULTANTS
Reasonable to conclude false document constituted material misrepresentation
Applicant was determined to be inadmissible because of misrepresentation of material fact in application for permanent residence. Immigration consultant included International English Language Testing System test result that turned out to be false. Applicant claimed applicant was unaware of false document. Application for judicial review was dismissed. False document constituted misrepresentation. It was reasonable for counsellor to conclude false document was intended to mislead authorities to believe it to be authentic test result. It was reasonable to conclude that false document constituted material misrepresentation. Applicant could be inadmissible under s. 40(1)(a) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.). There could be no subject intent or knowledge requirement to s. 40 because it would be contrary to broad interpretation that wording and purpose of section required. Court declined to certify question.
Goudarzi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Apr. 13, 2012, F.C., Tremblay-Lamer J., File No. IMM-2377-11) 214 A.C.W.S. (3d) 536 (22 pp.).
Reasonable to conclude false document constituted material misrepresentation
Applicant was determined to be inadmissible because of misrepresentation of material fact in application for permanent residence. Immigration consultant included International English Language Testing System test result that turned out to be false. Applicant claimed applicant was unaware of false document. Application for judicial review was dismissed. False document constituted misrepresentation. It was reasonable for counsellor to conclude false document was intended to mislead authorities to believe it to be authentic test result. It was reasonable to conclude that false document constituted material misrepresentation. Applicant could be inadmissible under s. 40(1)(a) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.). There could be no subject intent or knowledge requirement to s. 40 because it would be contrary to broad interpretation that wording and purpose of section required. Court declined to certify question.
Goudarzi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Apr. 13, 2012, F.C., Tremblay-Lamer J., File No. IMM-2377-11) 214 A.C.W.S. (3d) 536 (22 pp.).
