I have previously written articles about the loss of permanent residence status due to misrepresentation. In today’s article, I will be discussing the broader topic of losing Canadian citizenship status under similar circumstances. 

Unfortunately, some naturalized Canadian citizens believe that they are immune from deportation and removal, but this is incorrect.  What follows are some of the abstracts from the Minister’s published guidelines.

The ability to revoke a person’s Canadian citizenship based on misrepresentation has been part of the Canadian Citizenship Act since it entered into force in 1947. It is an important tool for maintaining the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

In 2017, changes were made to the Citizenship Act to reflect consequential amendments regarding citizenship revocation provisions. The Citizenship Act provides the Minister with the authority to revoke a person’s Canadian citizenship or a person’s renunciation of citizenship if it was obtained, retained, renounced, or resumed by one of the following:

• false representation
• fraud
• knowingly concealing material circumstances

As a result of the amendments in the Act, the Federal Court is now the decision maker for citizenship revocation cases unless the person subject to revocation requests that the Minister act as the decision maker. This applies to all revocation cases, including those related to security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality.

A person under revocation proceedings remains entitled to all rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship unless and until their citizenship is revoked. Under the citizenship revocation model, the date the person’s citizenship is revoked is one of the following:

• the date the Federal Court makes a declaration that the person has obtained, retained, renounced, or resumed their citizenship by false representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances
• the date the Minister renders the decision to revoke the person’s citizenship (if the individual requests the Minister as the decision maker)

It is important to note, that if an individual files an application for leave and judicial review of the Minister’s decision to revoke citizenship to the Federal Court, this individual will not be considered a Canadian citizen until and unless the court quashes the Minister’s decision to revoke their citizenship.

A person may not make an application to renounce their Canadian citizenship if they have received a notification letter or if the Minister has commenced an action seeking a declaration from the Federal Court concerning the revocation of an individual’s citizenship.

If a renunciation application is made and the Minister subsequently provides the applicant with a notification letter to revoke their citizenship or commences an action in the Federal Court, processing of the renunciation application will be suspended until a decision about the individual’s revocation is made by the Minister.

According to case law under the legal framework adopted by Parliament, the loss of Canadian citizenship is not automatic upon a finding of misrepresentation.  Rather, the decision maker must determine whether this consequence is warranted in all the circumstances of the case. 

Central to this determination is whether, in all the circumstances, revoking a person’s citizenship, when it has been obtained by misrepresentation is a proportionate response to the misconduct that is necessary to protect the integrity of the immigration and citizenship processes. 

To be clear, this is not a punitive decision. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the misconduct and any circumstances that may mitigate the person’s degree of responsibility for the misconduct must be considered.

In a recent case, the Federal Court held that the seriousness of the person’s misrepresentation, combined with the conscious effort to defraud the Canadian immigration system, not once but twice, by acquiring and holding permanent residency under refugee protections, citizenships, and passports under both his true and fraudulent identities, minimizes his plea for relief on the basis that he has been established, illegally, in Canada for decades.  The learned judge stated that he agreed with the Minister.

The Delegate considered the person’s circumstances and came to a reasonable conclusion that was in line with the law and jurisprudence of this Court.  That the applicant’s circumstances, including his establishment in Canada, do not warrant relief considering his persistent duplicity, and that the Delegate’s conclusion is owed respect. 

The treatment of the applicant’s circumstances does not leave the Citizenship Act devoid of meaning, especially when considering the policy consequences of granting relief when an applicant is benefiting exclusively from illegal circumstances. The learned judge found there is no reviewable error in this issue.

However, there are a few cases in which the courts have stated that the decision was unreasonable and should be set aside and referred back to a different decision-maker.  In my view and understanding of this case, the relationship between an individual’s misrepresentation and their effort to defraud the Canadian immigration system is forefront to decision-makers and the Federal Court, as to whether citizenship status is revoked.

SUKHRAM RAMKISSOON is a member of CICC and specializes in Immigration Matters at No. 3089 Bathurst Street, Unit 219A, Toronto, Ontario. Tel #416 789 5756