Recently, Karamjeet Kaur Canada case surfaced in the news for misrepresentation. A decision was made in the case of this international student on January 19, 2023, who originally came to Canada on study visa in April 2018.
This is an unfortunate decision for Karam and we hope nobody unknowingly being victim of fraudulent consultant face this.
She now has an exclusion order issued against her. A person who leaves Canada with an exclusion order is not allowed to re-enter Canada for 5 years.
There could be many cases similar to Karamjeet’s who came to Canada on study visa unknowingly that their letter of acceptance provided by their consultant or agent was fraudulent.
In this article, we will put forward the details of this case so that our readers stay aware of such a scenario and avoid making such mistakes.
What exactly happened with Karamjeet Kaur?
Karamjeet Kaur (24-year-old) from Punjab, India hired a person to apply for Canada study visa, which she believed was an immigration consultant.
As per Karam, she never met this consultant nor did she sign any documents for her study visa application.
In January 2018, the consultant informed her that she received an acceptance letter from Seneca College.
The Applicant travelled to Canada in April 2018 on study visa based on her acceptance letter from Seneca College.
The consultant informed the Applicant shortly after her arrival in Canada that there was a problem with her attending Seneca College due to a disagreement between the consultant and the college.
Following this, the Applicant investigated alternative educational opportunities in Canada and enrolled at Norquest College in Edmonton, where she earned a two-year Business Administration diploma.
Then, she got a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) in July 2022 and applied for permanent residency (PR).
She had an interview with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in May 2021 and was informed that an IRPA section 44 Report had been made against her as a consequence of a misrepresentation on her student visa application.
The consultant’s Seneca College acceptance letter turned out to be fraudulent. The family filed a criminal case against the consultant in India when the CBSA notified them of this truth.
Canada Immigration Division (ID) Findings
Because Karam had not signed the visa application form, the ID questioned if she had made an indirect misstatement.
During the hearing, she confessed that she was aware that her cousin had forged her signature on one of the documents in her application, the Use of Representative form.
The evidence, according to the ID, revealed that “she was aware that an application for a Study Permit was being submitted and that she permitted her cousin and the immigration consultant to file the application for the Study Permit.”
The ID said that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that her application was full, correct, and in accordance with the law.
As a result, ID determined that the Applicant was aware that the consultant and her cousin were submitting an application on her behalf, resulting in a misrepresentation.
ID’s Consideration Of Defence of Innocent Mistake
As per the case details, the ID also addressed the innocent error defence and determined that it did not apply in this case.
The ID accepted the Applicant’s genuine belief that she had been admitted to Seneca College on the first part of the innocent error test (subjective belief).
However, on the second part of test, whether the belief was objectively reasonable, the ID found the Karam’s defence failed.
According to the ID, there was no indication that the Applicant was unable to contact Seneca College through phone or email to confirm her enrolment, either when she got the letter or when she arrived in Canada.
The ID discovered that the capacity to certify her presence at Seneca College was under the Applicant’s possession.
Judicial Review In The Federal Court Of Canada
Karamjeet Kaur challenged ID’s decision in the Federal Court of Canada and raised issues with decision of ID. Below is the summary of Karam’s defence.
Validness of Student Visa Application:
Karam said she did not sign the application as required by the aforesaid Regulations, hence the application is null and void.
Further, she claims that her unsigned visa application was incomplete and that, according to section 12 of IRPR, it should have been returned to her and not kept by CBSA.
She claims that because of sections 10 and 12 IRPR, there is “no” application in the system, and so no misrepresentation can be found because an application does not exist.
As per the Federal court, this viewpoint is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the Applicant obtained a study visa based on the application filed. The Applicant also utilized the study permit to apply for her PGWP later and permanent residency.
As a result, the Applicant’s argument that her application never occurred is neither reasonable nor plausible, given that she has reaped the advantages of the study visa obtained based on her application.
Innocent Misrepresentation Test
Karam’s Defence: She claimed that the ID misapplied the exam when it asked if she thought she was admitted to Seneca College. The actual question, she claims, is whether it was reasonable for her to believe the letter of admission from Seneca College was authentic.
The Federal court referenced an old case judgement stating, “The Applicant placed her trust in an immigration consultant and was deceived. However, these circumstances do not absolve the Applicant from the consequences of her misrepresentation.”
Further, the Court cited an
“applicant is always responsible for the content of their application, and the belief that he or she was not misrepresenting a material fact is not reasonable where they fail to review their application and ensure its completeness and veracity”
If the innocent misrepresentation exception applied?
Karam’s defence: When examining the exemption for innocent misrepresentation, she defends that the ID neglected to consider her particular circumstances. She claims that the ID overlooked the fact that she is a disabled and persecuted young woman from rural India with uneducated parents.
She claims that the ID overly emphasized her activities after coming in Canada, but that it should have evaluated what a disabled, oppressed lady in India would have done while there.
Federal Court finding: The court agrees and believe the ID fully considered and grappled with the circumstances raised by her, as stated by ID below:
Furthermore, while she depicts herself as disadvantaged and lacking in resources, her post-secondary education in India brings this submission into doubt. This is especially given her previous degrees in computer science.
As a result, the Federal Court of Canada upheld the Immigration Division’s (ID) decision and issued the exclusion order.
Karam has now filed an application for humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) consideration and we hope that her H&C leave application turns into her favour.
5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks
Comments are closed.