关于律师,目前一些学生们推荐的是 law firms of Campbell Cohen (David Cohen) and Irving Mitchell Kalichman 这两家律师行,因为2015年他们赢了引人注目的魁北克技术移民的追溯案 (http://www.quebecpeq.com/post-258.html),如果大家还有推荐欢迎留言,请在留言中附上推荐原因。
相关法律连接:
3.2.2.1.Le ministre peut refuser d’examiner une demande de certificat d’une personne qui a fourni, depuis cinq ans ou moins, une information ou un document faux ou trompeur relativement à une demande faite en vertu de la présente loi.
Il peut aussi refuser d’examiner une demande d’engagement d’une personne qui a fourni, depuis deux ans ou moins, une telle information ou un tel document.
因为移民法中对misrepresentation虚假陈述的定义是serious crime,移民局官网的原话我摘抄了最上面的一句就是It is a serious crime to lie, or to send false information or documents, when you deal with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). This is fraud. It is called “misrepresentation.”所以最差的情况就是被拒掉但是绝对不能粘上虚假陈述,这是永久性的污名。大家联合起来吧!请律师打掉这莫须有的罪名。
@333:联邦永久居留申请表IMM5669里的第6项 6,Have you,or,if you are the principal applicant,any of your family members listed in your application for permanent residence in Canada,ever d)been refused refugee status,an immigrant or permanent resident visa(including a certifcat de selection du Quebec(CSQ)or application to provincal Nominee program)or visitor or temporary resident visa,to Canada or any other country?选YES 或NO,如果选YES必须说明原因。其中提到了魁省的CSQ是否被拒过,如果有要写明原因,所以你就算走其他省提名永居阶段以前被拒的历史都会拔出来,现在唯一的办法就是大家一起请律师,把这个帽子打掉,不然以后绕了个大圈,永居阶段还是过不了的槛。
@333:如果被魁省扣上misleading的帽子就是他们认定我们虚假陈述了,misleading导致的就是change process or final decision了,多读一下法律条款就知道了,好多内容,我不是专业人事,只是最近担心这个问题所以在网上看的资料多。联邦不是光看我们的解释拒签理由的,他会调查为什么被拒,如果魁省扣的帽子说我们mislead他们了就是虚假陈述,虚假陈述的范围特别广,得问律师的,我问的律师给我的解释就是misrepresentation can be established just if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe(lower than the normal civil standard of "balance of probability") this has occurred...
the misrepresentation does need to have masked a ground for refusal. It is not necessary to show that the hidden information would have made the individual inadmissible,and; the misrepresentation is material simply if it averts or discourages a line of inquiry.
The Court held that the correct interpretation of Section 40(1)(c) was that the term “misrepresentation” should be read as denoting states of fact which operate to make a person inadmissible and that, if any of the events mentioned in the Section are proved to have occurred, the person is considered or deemed inadmissible for misrepresentation.
(a) directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
(b) communicate, directly or indirectly, by any means, false or misleading information or declarations with intent to induce or deter immigration to Canada”
(c) refuse to be sworn or to affirm or declare, as the case may be, or to answer
9 a question put to the person at an examination or at a proceeding held under this Act.
This broad language appears to be a deliberate attempt to encompass almost any form of misrepresentation or withholding or information by anyone, including an applicant, employer or third party representative. However, the use of the qualifying word “knowingly” would suggest a high threshold to be met in any prosecution.