News & Insights

 Urgent Interim Suspension 

Licensee

Vipan Kumar Datta; R409567

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Summary of Allegations

Based on forfeiture proceedings against the RCIC in the Supreme Court of British Columbia following investigations by the Canada Border Services Agency, the College brought a motion to the Discipline Committee of the College to suspend or impose conditions or restrictions on the RCIC. The College submits that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order suspending the licence of the RCIC is necessary to protect the public and the public’s confidence in the immigration consulting profession. The College and the RCIC reached an agreement to settle the motion brought by the College which involves the RCIC consenting to an interim suspension of his licence as an RCIC until the forfeiture proceedings and any related proceedings are concluded, including any sentencing that might arise.

Interim suspension on consent effective September 7, 2022, until a further decision on the complaint is rendered by the Discipline Committee.

Costs

N/S

 Urgent Interim Suspension 

Licensee

Maria Esposito; R410431

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Summary of Allegations

The RCIC faces 13 complaints before the Discipline Committee. In 1 complaint the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) alleges the RCIC failed to file notice of appeals and perfect the appeals in 63 cases resulting in many cases before the IRB being dismissed. In the other 12 complaints, the RCIC failed to file immigration applications, failed to meet deadlines, failed to communicate the decisions of issuing authorities to clients and filed immigration applications containing false information. 

The Discipline Committee found the RCIC is facing serious allegations and suspending the RCIC from practice is appropriate to protect the public interest and public confidence in the profession until the disciplinary matters are adjudicated by the Discipline Committee.

The RCIC’s licence was suspended effective August 9, 2022, until a further decision on the complaint is rendered by the Discipline Committee.

Costs

N/S

 Urgent Interim Suspension 

Licensee

Kuldeep Kaur; R507741

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Summary of Allegations

Interim suspension on consent effective September 7, 2022, until a further decision on the complaint is rendered by the Discipline Committee.

Costs

N/S

 Urgent Interim Suspension 

Licensee

Liza Lucion; R506401

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Summary of Allegations

Allegations were brought in 11 complaints that formed the basis of this Urgent Motion which fall into the following main categories. 

1. Complaints from 7 former clients allege the RCIC orchestrated a fraudulent immigration scheme where the RCIC held several group information meetings and the RCIC represented herself as a lawyer. The RCIC claimed that foreign nationals living in Canada could apply under an “Active Public Policy” or “Amnesty” immigration program which allowed them to stay and work in Canada. The RCIC allegedly made guarantees that if clients retained her services, they would obtain an open work permit and be on the pathway to permanent residency in Canada. When this did not happen some of these former clients complained to the RCIC and asked for repayment of their fees. The RCIC allegedly threatened the clients and brought meritless civil lawsuits against them. There is currently a class action in British Columbia about this alleged fraudulent scheme. There are also several civil lawsuits for defamation brought by the RCIC relating to these issues. 

2. Other complainants allege breaches of professional conduct by the RCIC including the following: providing incorrect or false advice to them; guaranteeing positive outcomes when the clients were not eligible for the programs to which they were applying; representing to clients that their applications were being processed when in fact no applications had been submitted; filing documents that were purportedly signed by the complainants when in fact they had never seen these documents and, failing to account to her clients for the use of professional fees and in doing so, misappropriating client funds. 

The Discipline panel found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that an interim suspension of the RCIC’s licence was necessary to protect the public interest and the public's confidence in the immigration consulting profession. 

The RCIC’s licence was suspended effective July 27, 2022, until a further decision on the complaint is rendered by the Discipline Committee.

Costs

The RCIC is to pay costs to the College in the amount of $10,000.

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

Susan Gong; R411215

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Findings

The RCIC was retained by the client and her family to assist with immigration to Canada. The RCIC advised the client that she would submit a Provincial Nominee Program application though the Ontario Immigration Nominee program (“OINP”). The client paid the RCIC for professional fees, as well as an amount to be held as an investment for the OINP. The RCIC applied the professional fees towards an “Employer Pre-Screen Application” for an employer and filed an application. Upon hearing the application was unsuccessful, the RCIC submitted a request for reconsideration which was also unsuccessful. The client sought to terminate her retainer agreement with the RCIC and requested a refund of the professional fees and the investment monies held by the RCIC. There were many delays in the responses to the client by the RCIC and her staff. The licensee eventually requested a full release prior to providing a refund. A refund was provided following the client’s complaint to the Discipline Committee.

The Discipline panel concluded that the RCIC breached the following articles of the Code of Professional Ethics: Articles 2.2.18(v)[2.2.9(iv)] – Misappropriating or otherwise dealing dishonestly with money or property; Article 3.1 [3.1.1]  – Acting in good faith; Article 6.1 [6.1] – Maintaining quality service including Article 6.1.3 [6.1.1 (iii)] – Communication with the client and Article 6.1.5 – Answering reasonable inquiries in a timely manner; Article 6.2 and 6.3 [6.3.1] – Acting responsibly for agents and staff; Article 7.1 (7.1.1) – Advising clients with honesty and candour; Article 10 (10.1, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5) – Preserving client property and returning the property upon request; Article 12.3 [2.2.9(iv)] – Misappropriating client money held in trust; and, Article 14.5 (14.5.1, 14.5.2, 14.5.3, 14.5.4, and 14.5.5) [11.5.1(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and (v)] – Acting appropriately when discharged.

The RCIC is to complete 10 hours of Continuing Professional Development in addition to the usual annual requirement and pay a fine of $10,000 to the College by September 27, 2023.

Costs

N/A

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

Padam Lakhanpal; R507841

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Findings

This matter relates to 2 separate complaints.

Complaint #1
At the time of the complaints, the RCIC was an independent contractor with ICC Canada Immigration Solutions Inc. (“ICC”).
The complainant acted as an agent, signed retainer agreements with ICC for the processing of work permits and permanent residences for 2 of his friends. The complainant dealt with a clerk employed by ICC and who acted as an agent on behalf of the RCIC. The employee prepared 2 retainer agreements, one for each client in the total amount of $16,000. The complainant paid both retainer agreements in full, in periodic payments using both cash and credit card. 

The employee requested the complainant sign 2 sets of blank retainer agreements that were to be signed by the Managing Director and only received fully signed versions once the files were closed. The clients were told to write a qualification exam and to provide the results to the RCIC as this was mandatory for a work permit to be issued. The RCIC advised the complainant that the clients would obtain work permits from Alberta and that the RCIC would arrange employment for the clients, however instead of obtaining work permits, the RCIC enrolled the clients in a qualification certification program in Alberta which was valid for only one year. This was not what the RCIC had been retained for. The RCIC failed to communicate and respond to the complainant’s requests for updates. The RCIC eventually advised the complainant that he had been unable to obtain job offers from Alberta however informed the complainant that he would process one client under the Provincial Nominee Program for Ontario. The licensee enrolled the client in the Ontario Colleges for Credential Verification program, which was valid for only one year. The complainant was not satisfied since he had retained the licensee to obtain a work permit and permanent residency. After the client was enrolled in the Ontario program, ICC closed the complainant’s file. The complainant later received a partial settlement refund through Small Claims Court.

Complaint #2
The complainant had signed a retainer agreement with ICC with respect to the preparation and submission of his application for permanent residence in Alberta. The complainant paid ICC the sum of $7,000 plus additional charges for processing and filing his application. The RCIC informed the complainant that the complainant would have to sign a full and final release letter for the RCIC to process a new application under an Express Entry Program which the complainant did. The RCIC then informed the complainant that since the Full and Final Release had been signed, the previous fees had been forfeited and the complainant would have to pay an additional fee of $7,000 for the processing of the Express Entry Program application. The complainant refused to pay the addition sum. After multiple attempts to receive the signed retainer agreement, the complainant only received it once the RCIC closed file.

The Discipline panel concluded that the RCIC breached the following articles of the Code of Professional Ethics: Article 3.1, 3.1.1 – Serve Honourably, Article 5.1. 5.1.1; 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.3 – Standard of Service, Article 6.1., 6.1.i(iii), 6.1.2 – Maintenance of Quality Service, 7.1, 7.1.1- Honestly and Candour and Article 12.1, 12.1.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3,12.1.4 and 12.5 – Retainer Agreement.

The RCIC is to complete College Practice Management Education (PME) courses: Client Accounts, Retainer Agreement, and Complaints and Professional Conduct within 6 months of the Order. The RCIC is to submit a copy of his Retainer Agreement to the College’s Compliance Department for review. The RCIC is to pay a fine of $2000 to each of the clients within 30 days.

Costs

Costs awarded to the College in the amount of $1000.

Licensee

Veronica Moye; R422511

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Findings

The RCIC was retained to assist with a permanent resident (“PR”) application by Express Entry for himself, his wife  and his children and paid $12,000. The RCIC was to assist in submitting an Expression of Interest to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”), and to submit a PR application after receiving an Invitation to apply from CIC. The RCIC services of the complainant and his family were deficient, inappropriate and in breach of her duties an RCIC in the following manner: a) the RCIC misinformed the complainant and his family that they did not require original documents to facilitate translation; b) the RCIC misinformed the complainant’s that she could renew her Austrian passport without a problem, only to indicate all pages of the passport needed to be copied to complete the PR application; c) the RCIC completed parts of the application questionnaire with incomplete or false information. Specifically, the RCIC failed to confirm the complainant and his family had sufficient funds, failed to include previous work experience and inputted incorrect birthdates and d) the RCIC did not return calls from the complainant, nor did she respond to emails in a timely manner. Further, the RCIC failed to provide critical information about the process in a timely manner and e) the RCIC sent discourteous emails to the complainant’s wife.

The Discipline panel concluded that the RCIC breached the following articles of the Code of Professional Ethics (2016):  3.1.1 – Duty of Good Faith; 4.3.1 – Duty of Civility; 5.1.1 – Duty of Continuing Competence; and 6.1.1. – Maintenance of Quality of Service.

Outcome

The RCIC is to complete College Practice Management Education (PME) courses: Agents, Managing an Immigration Consulting Practice and Complaints and Professional Conduct and shall complete a 1 hour CPD course on Study Permit Applications by January 4, 2023.The RCIC shall develop a Practice Delegation Policy outlining which tasks may be delegated to agents, which tasks may be delegated to staff, how the RCIC will supervise agents and staff, and how the RCIC will audit work performed by agents and staff to ensure that they are meeting the required standards and acting within their scope of work outlined within the policy.

The RCIC is to make restitution to the complainant totalling $1,050 by November 5, 2022.

Costs

N/A

Licensee

Kamran Naghavi; R416159

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Findings

The RCIC was retained to file an application for a renewal of the complainant’s Canadian permanent residence with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”). The complainant paid the RCIC a total of $7,062 for assistance with the permanent residency renewal. The RCIC did not provide a written retainer agreement. Upon submitting the application to CIC the RCIC failed to confirm the details of the application with the complainant before submitting the application, entered incorrect information about the complainant, failed to complete a Use of Representative Form or identify himself as the complainant’s representative and failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the submitted residency application. The RCIC responded to a questionnaire from CIC asking for supplemental information requiring the complainant to pay an additional fee. As the RCIC prepared and submitted an inaccurate questionnaire to CIC. The complainant received a letter from CIC stating that the complainant was inadmissible for permanent residency and requesting an in-person meeting. As a result of the licensee’s failure to prepare the permanent residency renewal application with accurate and correct information, the complainant needed to hire new representation.  

The Discipline panel concluded that the RCIC had breached the following articles and sections of the Code (2012): Articles 3.1, 4.1, 4.5, 5.3, 6.1.2, 6.1.6, 6.1.2, 6.2, 7.1, 7.4, and 7.4.2.

Outcome

The RCIC is to complete College Practice Management Education (PME) courses: Client File Management and Retainer Agreement within 12 months of the Order. The RCIC is to make restitution to the complainant through instalments totalling $7,062 by October 24, 2022 and pay a fine to the College through instalments totalling $3,000 by December 23, 2022. A Reprimand shall be placed for 1 year from the date of the Order. 

Costs

The RCIC is to pay costs to the College in the amount of $1,500 by January 23, 2023.

Licensee

Norilyn Oligo-Sarma; R512706

Company Name/Location

Proceedings

Findings

Prior to registration with the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC), the RCIC was retained by the complainant to advise and assist her in securing employment in Canada as a temporary foreign worker and obtaining a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. At the time of her retainer by the complainant, the RCIC was not a member of the ICCRC. By operation of subsection 91(1) and (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”), the RCIC was not permitted to represent or advise a person for consideration in connection with an application under the IRPA. The RCIC filed an application on the complainant’s behalf for a temporary work permit. This application was denied by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) and the RCIC failed to advise the complainant that her application for a work permit was denied. The RCIC asserts that the complainant’s mother, who was the person that hired her, harassed the RCIC and made threatening phone calls while the RCIC was waiting for the results of the complainant’s application. In one such phone call, the mother threatened to destroy the RCIC’s reputation in Canada and the Philippines. The RCIC asserts that she was afraid to tell the complainant that her application had been denied, fearing that the complainant’s mother would make good on the threats. Instead of advising the complainant of the refusal of the application, the RCIC prepared and filed a second work permit application and did so without obtaining the complainant’s instructions and without advising the complainant that a second application was being filed on her behalf. In filing the second application, the RCIC prepared and submitted a fabricated letter of employment to the CIC. Her plan was to get the complainant’s employer to provide the letter following a template the RCIC prepared however the employer refused to provide an employment letter. Fearing that a lack of employment letter would spell the end of the complainant’s application, the RCIC submitted the fabricated employment letter. She did so without the client’s knowledge or consent. 

The RCIC became licensed and made a series of misrepresentations to the complainant about the status of her complaints. The RCIC advised the complainant to make misrepresentations to CIC, including by saying that “no agent was used, that no fees were paid, that employer paid for everything, that employer was the one who processed the application.” All of these statements were untrue. The RCIC counseled the complainant to make misrepresentations in a misguided attempt to save the complainant’s application. The second work permit application was refused on grounds that the job letter was fraudulent. Throughout this retainer, the RCIC charged and collected fees. After the RCIC’s malfeasance was discovered, she offered on numerous occasions to reimburse the complainant. 

During her licensing process, the RCIC made a series of sworn declarations to the ICCRC including: that she had never violated the IRPA by representing immigration clients before the Minister without authorization under that Act or Regulations. Months after making the above sworn declaration, the RCIC violated the IRPA by representing the complainant without authorization and before becoming licensed. The RCIC’s license was granted based, in part, on the veracity of the above sworn declarations. The RCIC did not take any steps to correct her sworn declarations, which were not true at the time her license was granted. 

The Discipline panel concluded that the RCIC breached the following articles of the Code of Professional Ethics (2012 and 2016): Article 3.1 [3.1.1] – Serve Honourably; Article 3.2 – Privileged Role; Article 4.1 – Maintain Integrity; Article 4.2  - Courtesy and Good Faith; Article 4.5 – No Misconduct or Conduct Unbecoming; Article 4.6 – No Breach of By-laws; Article 5.3 – Standard of Service; Article 6.1 – Maintenance of Quality Service, Article 6.1.1(iii) – Timely and Effective Communication; and Article 7.1 – Honesty and Candour. 

Outcome

The RCIC is to serve a 9-month Disciplinary Suspension commencing September 28, 2022. The RCIC is to complete College Practice Management Education (PME) courses: Ethical Practice, Retainer Agreement, and Complaints and Professional Conduct by March 28, 2023. The RCIC is to make restitution to the client the amount of $7,000 (US) and pay a fine of $10,000 (CAD) to the College by September 28, 2023.

Costs