The information on the Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada website reads here.

Representatives can be:

•  Citizenship or immigration consultants, lawyers or other representatives
• They give immigration or citizenship advice and help to visa applicants, usually for a fee
• You do not need to hire a representative. It is up to you. Using one will not get your application special attention or guarantee it will be approved.
• You can get all the forms and information that you need to apply for a visa or citizenship for free on this website
• If you follow the instructions in the application guide, you should be able to fill out the forms and submit them on your own.

Use a representative

If you choose to use a representative, find out about the two types: paid and unpaid.

File a complaint

If you have a complaint about your representative, there are ways you can get help. A video and various fraud warnings relate to this page.

The linking pages provides tips on representatives. Some of the tips include:

• If you are using a representative in Canada, you can also contact the Better Business Bureau before you choose one. It can tell you if it has had complaints about a citizenship or immigration consultant, lawyer or other representative who works in Canada.

Find a representative

• Once you have chosen a representative, make sure you get a written contract. Read it carefully before you sign it. Make sure it lists all the services the representative will give you and clearly states the fee
• Do not leave original documents or photos with them
• Do not sign blank application forms
• Do not sign forms or documents unless you can read them. If you do not understand them, bring someone with you to translate
• Make sure to get copies of any documents that the representative makes for you.

. . . etcetera  . . .

In this context, a fulsome review cannot be presented but on a whole in reviewing the IRCC and CBSA websites respectively, it becomes apparent that the focus of the communication regarding representatives is that of unlawful and/or unscrupulous practitioners or who can represent.  Although the aim is important and appropriate, namely the protection of the public, the result is a generalization and a presentation of a distorted picture with little mention of the critical role immigration representatives’ play.  In short, the presentation as it currently reads amounts to a marginalization of representatives in a process in which they overwhelmingly play a critical role.  This is in stark contrast to other industry websites that more thoughtfully and purposefully present a more balanced presentation of lawyers in family law or corporate matters.   For examples, please click here and here.

Strikingly, there are few if any IRCC or CBSA postings which focus on the benefits of hiring a representative.  The end result is a message that in part fuels a perception that representation in this area of law can only be perilous and one that may better require the use of other and not necessarily regulated professionals.

To present balanced information these sites should properly highlight the qualifications and expertise of representatives and convey to the readers information and guidance beyond simply the Better Business Bureau.  Offer proper links to avoid underrepresentation or unregulated representation.  The onus is then placed on applicants to make an independent decision about hiring an immigration representative.  Perhaps a better message would be to include the story of Mr. Al Shikarchy.

Mr. Al-Shikarchy sponsored his intended adoptive daughter for permanent residence in Canada. He filed the application before the child was 18, but the application was not processed until after she turned 18. The law required that she remain under 18 at both stages. The website was not clear on this point and in fact as an unrepresented sponsor relying on the website as his counsel, the consequences to Mr. Al-Shikarchy’s family was disastrous. The board’s ruling reads in part:

[64] The appellant accordingly relies in part on departmental pronunciations in their manuals, etc. Some such pronunciations indicate that in certain categories of family class membership the date of the filing of the sponsorship application is the date for fixing when the “under 18 years of age” requirement is applicable or operative. Be that as it may, such pronunciations are neither law nor made applicable to the family class category of “intended adopted children”. These documents and the information on the website as indicated are not law and have no binding effect. There is no indication in those documents that the contents of the same supersede or replace the law.

[67] . . . Regrettably, the law is complex and those who seek to negotiate the various pitfalls and nuances unaided by professionals may encounter hardship and disappointment. To avoid the same, it was open for the appellant to seek legal advice as to how the information he had was to operate in the legal framework of IRPA. It appears and the panel so finds that the appellant made a conscious choice not to do that and did not seek legal advice until too late.[1]

(Sources)

The post Negative Messaging About Immigration Representatives Must Change first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

1. The failure to request an extension where necessary to file fuller and more comprehensive submissions and supporting evidence. We see so many cases where a more detailed and responsive report as one example, could have spelled the difference. But instead, the rush to file resulted in a procedural fairness response that did not provide a complete picture of the applicants’ circumstances and resulted in a justifiable refusal.

2. Submissions and evidence do not address the legal timeline. For example, if the applicant has a medical specialist, a letter from this specialist must be obtained that speaks to the relevant 5-10 year period. Remember, the test is not a lifetime or conversely how the applicant is doing right now.  We see this so often where the focus is on the here and now and ignores the forward looking portion of the legal, medical and factual immigration analysis.

3. Failing to properly research and understand the interplay between federal and provincial delivery of health and social services and private versus public coverage respectively. The applicant must consult the appropriate province and understand the nuances of the public versus private scheme.  This exercise by far is one of the most complicated aspects of a medical inadmissibility immigration case and where most errors occur. Each province has its own plan of delivery for social service care as an example and what can be covered privately is a complex and cumbersome exercise.  Prescription drugs in (health service) versus out of hospital (social service), is an area of frequent confusion.  If the majority of the cost of the drugs is and could be covered privately, it would not be government-funded and so the cost would not be an “excessive demand” within the meaning of the IRPA.

4. Applying the right legal test. The legislative threshold is reasonable probability not remote possibility — all evidence and research must be analyzed in this context. It is not what could happen but what will likely happen to the applicant not any applicant with this condition, based on the applicant’s individualized circumstances.

5. Does the applicant know the case to be met? Again, so many applicants proceed to respond to unclear procedural fairness letters without fully understanding the immigration case to meet. Ensuring the procedural fairness letter properly qualifies the demand, distinguishes between health and social costs, and eligibility and actual need are critical points to address if not clear. Is the information being relied upon in the procedural fairness letter outdated or inapplicable because of the intended province of destination or eligibility issues?  Is the Medical Officer qualified to render that opinion?  Did the Medical Officer make the decision?  A number of probing questions have to be applied to the procedural fairness demand before a response is developed.

Thankfully a number of cases can still be saved at the Federal Court or Immigration Appeal Division despite missteps on the original response to the procedural fairness letter but certainly not all. Hiring a skilled and experienced immigration representative in this very complex area of immigration law is critical to ensure the fullest legal and factual arguments can be advanced.

For more information on Medical inadmissibility, please click here.

(Sources)

The post Mistakes & Medical Inadmissibility: Top 5 Preventable Issues! first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.