Tribunal: Calgary office, Immigration Appeal Division
Counsel: Calgary Immigration Lawyer, Raj Sharma
Last year, I was counsel for a permanent resident facing deportation or removal on misrepresentation. A removal order was issued to the appellant due misrepresentations regarding his son and prior common-law spouse in his homeland, pursuant to section 40(1) of IRPA. The appellant, "T", was sponsored to Canada by his wife who discovered after she brought him here that he was married to another woman and had a child with that woman. His wife/sponsor complained to immigration; immigration sought and obtained a removal order against "T" for misrepresentation.
"T" filed an appeal against the removal order. "T" argued that the documents provided in support of of his alleged first marriage were fraudulent. In addition or in alternative, he sought the equitable jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Division.
The IAD found that the appellant was in fact married or in a common-law relationship which he did not disclosed at the time of his application for permanent residence. The appellant did not deny his child who was also not disclosed on his application for permanent residency.
In assessing the appellant's testimony, the IAD found him not to be credible. The harmony of the stated facts, given the specific situation, was not sufficiently consistent. Minister's counsel conducted an effective cross-examination.
With the validity of the removal order affirmed, the IAD turned itself to a review of the Ribic factors. In sum: the appellant had only been in Canada for 3 years; removal would not create hardship on him; his pattern of misrepresentating belied remorse or insight; the letters of community support were undermined by a lack of disclosure concerning the nature of the proceedings against him and finally, there would be no impact on his family in Canada as his present spouse had obtained an EPO against him.
The misrepresentation was a serious one, and one that worked to undermine the integrity and proper functioning of the Act. The appellant had a son and siblings in his country of origin. The IAD found insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to stay or set aside the removal order. The removal order was upheld.
Raj Sharma JD LLM