Filipiniana News - March 2017
Rhyme
and Reason
Beware of Ghost
Immigration Consultants
When
I started practicing Canadian immigration law ten years ago, the unscrupulous
practices of so-called immigration consultants was widely reported and
discussed in the media. Among others,
there was a series of investigative new articles published in the Toronto Star
which reported how certain immigration consultants advised prospective
immigrants to concoct stories in support of refugee claims or to commit marriage
fraud as a quick way to obtain permanent residence in Canada. These exposés led to calls from various sectors
to clamp down and regulate the business of immigration consultancy.
A
few years later, the government introduced a law called "Cracking Down on
Crooked Consultants Act" which was meant to impose strict regulations on
those who are paid to provide immigration advice to prospective applicants and
the general public. It also led to the
creation of the Immigration Consultants
of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) which replaced the former Canadian Society
of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) as the body which regulates registered
immigration consultants in Canada.
Aside
from ICCRC registered immigration consultants, the Canadian government only
authorizes lawyers who are in good
standing with one of the provincial law societies of Canada, to represent
immigration applicants for a fee.
Hence, the applications of those who hire and pay fees to a
representative who is not a lawyer or registered immigration consultant, can
either be returned or worse, refused.
Refusals
often result if the applicants are found to have committed misrepresentation in
their visa or immigration applications, whether committed by them or by another
(indirect misrepresentation). If the
misrepresentation was committed by someone else even without the applicant's
full knowledge or consent, the applicant would still be held responsible and suffer the
consequences.
Many
of those charged with indirect misrepresentation have hired "ghost
consultants" or those who are hidden and unreported in the immigration
applications as the applicant's paid representative. What many of these ghost consultants have
done is to complete all the required forms and documents on behalf of the
applicants without completing the mandatory Use of a Representative form to
disclose the representation or assistance provided. If they have included a Use of a
Representative form, they may have ticked of the box which states that they are
unpaid representatives even if they were in fact paid for their services.
An
important reason for limiting authorized paid representatives to registered
immigration consultants or lawyers in good standing is to ensure that there are
proper avenues for the public to file complaints against representatives who
fail to serve their clients based on the highest professional and ethical
standards.
But
as had been raised time and again, the provincial law societies or the ICCRC
can only monitor and police their own members and not the unregistered ghost
consultants, many of whom even conduct business from other countries.
One
way to ensure that these unauthorized consultants can be prosecuted is to
report them to the Canadian Border Services Agency's fraud tip line (1-888-502-9060), to the RCMP or
local police for further investigation and possible filing of fraud or related
charges.
Another
obvious way is for applicants to deal only with authorized representatives who
are willing to disclose their existence/role in
visa or immigration applications.
Last
month, a news article in the Toronto Star reported what is believed to be
"the biggest crackdown on unlicensed ghost consultants" where dozens
of applications which were filed from the same company address in China were
refused either due to misrepresentation or for using unauthorized
representatives.
This
recent crackdown is still subject to judicial review and raises the issue of
whether those who may assist in completing the forms but do not deal with
immigration officials should also be disclosed and submit Use of a
Representative forms. More importantly,
it raises the issue of whether the applicants themselves should be penalized
through the outright refusal of their applications when there is no bad faith
of their part (e.g. they sought help in filling up or translating the forms or
were misled into believing that the ghost consultants were authorized
representatives). Why should the
applicants be punished while the unscrupulous consultants get off scot-free and
are able to conduct business as usual to the prejudice of future
applicants?
There
are those who would argue that it is a "buyer beware" situation in
that the applicants are responsible for
the outcome of their choice of advisor or representative. To an extent, I would agree. However, there also has to be a way to ensure
a fair and balanced treatment of both parties based on the specific
circumstances of each case. While it
may be much easier to simply refuse all applicants who hired unauthorized
representatives or committed direct or indirect misrepresentation, there should
be a mechanism by which people who acted in good faith and who are otherwise
eligible for the visa or immigration category they applied for, should be given another chance.
Any
law meant to "crack down on crooked consultants" should aim to do
just that, not by blaming and punishing
the victims, but by ensuring that the "crooked consultants" are
prosecuted for their misdeeds (and prevent further occurrence), be they in
Canada or overseas.
For
prospective applicants, it may also help to be reminded that no representative,
whether authorized or not, can guarantee success in any immigration or visa
application. If anyone guarantees
success or is not willing to disclose their existence or paid services relating
to your application, then be very wary.
The negative consequences of working with ghost immigration consultants
may haunt you in more ways, or for much longer, than you can imagine.
Comments
Post a Comment