Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Applicant, and
Mahmoud Peirovdinnabi, Respondent
 F.C.J. No. 58
2010 FC 64
Heard: January 19, 2010.
Judgment: January 21, 2010.
Brad Gotkin for the Applicant.
Max Berger for the Respondent.
On a balance of probabilities there are grounds to believe [the Applicant] is a permanent resident or a foreign national who is inadmissible for misrepresentation for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act.
(Applicant’s Book of Authorities, p. 103)
 The panel finds that Mr. Peirovdinnabi directly misrepresented his living arrangements with his spouse to Immigration officials. In his Supplementary Information Spouse in Canada form signed on January 16, 2002, he indicated he was living with his spouse. In signing the form, he declared that the information given in the application was truthful and correct. Mr. Peirovdinnabi testified at the hearing that he never lived with his wife after their wedding. An applicant who indicates on the form that they are not living with their spouse is required to provide an explanation for their living arrangements. As Mr. Peirovdinnabi completed the form indicating he was living with his spouse, and that an explanation was “NOT APPLICABLE”. As such, the information provided by Mr. Peirovdinnabi in his Supplementary Information Spouse in Canada was neither true nor correct and the panel finds the Mr. Peirovdinnabi misrepresented his true living arrangements.
 The Minister introduced evidence which raised serious questions with respect to Mr. Peirovdinnabi’s true intentions in marrying Ms. Shahi. In particular it was established that the timing of the marriage ceremony was motivated by Mr. Peirovdinnabi’s immigration circumstances. Mr. Peirovdinnabi testified that a wedding date was set quickly following his release from detention as Ms. Shahi was fearful that he would be removed from Canada. In addition, Mr. Peirovdinnabi’s Affidavit in support of his petition for Divorce indicates the couple separated on January 15, 2002, prior to his filling of the Supplementary Information Spouse in Canada form. However, the panel finds it is not necessary to consider his intentions as the Minister has already met the burden of establishing Mr. Peirovdinnabi’s misrepresentation.
(Applicant’s Book of Authorities, pp. 17 – 19)
As I find no reviewable error in the decision under review, the present Application is dismissed.
Counsel for the Applicant proposes the following question for certification:
Does the IAD have an obligation in law to determine the genuineness of a marriage on a de novo appeal brought with respect to an issue of misrepresentation when the issue of the genuineness of the marriage concerned was not specifically raised for determination in the appeal?
I agree that this question is determinative of the present Application and is a question of general importance and, accordingly, I certify the question for determination by the Federal Court of Appeal.
The Canadian Express Entry Program has only been around for a few years. In a nutshell, the program is designed to give the best applicants…View All
Thousands of refugee cases suspended due to border agency delays
© 2022 Canadian Immigration Lawyers - Maxberger.ca. All Rights Reserved.Powered by TechWyse