In addition, the Chinese student said he did not know that the immigration consultant had submitted a fake document for rechecking.

In addition, the Chinese student said he did not know that the immigration consultant had submitted a fake document for rechecking.

Original title: the Chinese student said he did not know that the immigration consultant had submitted a false document for review.

China Overseas Chinese Network September 12, according to Canada's "Star Island Daily" comprehensive report, a Chinese student in Canada in 2014 through immigration consultant application for transfer, immigration consultant submitted a false school admission notice, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration that the applicant was misleading, issued an expulsion order to the applicant, the applicant filed a division Law review, but the federal court recently rejected the applicant's review application on the grounds of no mistake.

The applicant, Da Zhou, a Chinese citizen, was granted a student visa on 28 May 2009 and arrived in Canada on 2 January the following year. From January 2010 to August 2013, applicants read English at University of Alberta. The student visa was renewed twice in September 5, 2012 and April 19, 2013 respectively. After the applicant completed his English course at the University of Asia, a friend proposed to renew his student visa and apply for transfer to other schools with the assistance of an immigration consultant.

The immigration consultant recommended that applicants apply for schools in Ontario, which means that schools in the province are of high quality. The applicant agreed to this recommendation and paid the immigration consultant $2,050 (Canadian dollars, the same below) in December 2013, including related procedures and school application fees. During the period from November 21, 2013 to February 21, the following year, the applicant was instructed to apply for a school only if he thought that his student visa could be renewed if he had been admitted to the school.

In January 2014, the applicant notified an immigration consultant that he did not want to enroll in Ontario's schools and no longer needed the services of the other party and asked for a refund after learning of the reputation of the engineering department at the North Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT). However, the immigration consultant informed the applicant that he had received a letter of acceptance from a school in Ontario and that the letter of acceptance was used to renew the student visa for the applicant. The applicant said he did not ask which school he was in, because he was not interested in studying in Ontario.

However, the immigration consultant asked the applicant to pay an additional 805 yuan as a renewal of the visa. When the applicant refuses to pay, the immigration consultant points out that the applicant can apply for a visa to read NAIT. The visa can be issued in February 21, 2014, and the applicant will pay an additional 805 yuan to the other party.

In June 2014, the applicant applied for NAIT, but the enrolled courses were full. In October of the same year, the applicant was re enrolled and accepted, and was originally scheduled to start reading in NAIT in September of next year. However, the Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Department sent a letter to the applicant on 29 May 2015 stating that he had not attended the inbound hearing on 20 August 2014 as scheduled.

The applicant said that he had not been informed to attend the inbound hearing and did not know what was wrong with his study permit until he received the letter. Nor is it known that the immigration consultants include false academic record notices when applying for a permit to apply.

Another hearing was held on September 6, 2017, when immigration officials said the applicant knew that the immigration consultant had submitted an unauthorized application for a study permit at least two weeks before the application was approved, i.e. January or February 2014; and that the applicant was obliged to inform the immigration department that the immigration consultant had not met him or him before the application was approved. With consent, an application for a study permit is submitted, so the Immigration Department official holds the applicant responsible for direct or indirect misleading and false statements, denial of entry and issuance of an expulsion order.

The applicant made a judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Department to the federal court.

The hearing was held in Toronto in May 30, 2018. Judge Paul Favel ruled on August 31 that the Immigration Department had made no mistake in making the decision and therefore rejected the applicant's application for judicial review.

Source: Chinese overseas network

Editor in chief: Yu Pengfei

Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens