Mark Holthe 0:02
Mark, welcome everyone to another episode of the Canadian immigration podcast. I am Mark Holthe, the host, and I have a guest co host with me today. Igor kirilyuk, how are you doing? Igor,
Igor Kyryliuk 0:13
I'm doing well. Mark, thank you so much for inviting me for this episode.
Mark Holthe 0:18
Awesome. Thanks for filling in. Alicia's away today, but the show must go on. She is away attending our national Canadian Bar Association Conference in Victoria. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to go at the last minute, but that's okay. She's representing the firm, and we're excited to see her come back with a whole bunch of new Intel on the world of immigration, which is ever evolving, ever changing. And stay tuned, you guys. Although this episode is one of our time's up series, we are going to have lots more to talk about as the government introduces some pre sweeping changes to try to deal with the massive influx of applications in areas that they really don't want people applying. So stay tuned for that. But today is all about a continuation of our time's up series. This one is all about Express Entry and how to respond to those dreaded procedural fairness letters. And as we start off here, and just by way of a little bit of introduction, what I want to talk about mostly is a very narrow subset of these procedural fairness letters, because they can come in whatever, you know, and a lot of different ways. But what I want to talk about today is procedural fairness letters that look like this. Now, if you are listening head over, head over to the YouTube channel, you can watch this, but I just pull up this little sample redacted procedural fairness letter, which is very similar to many that people are seeing these days. And this one is super new just a couple weeks ago, or even a week ago, it was just issued to an applicant, and I'm just going to read it, at least initially. I'm going to read some of the sections for those of you who are listening. But it says, Dear applicant, this refers to your application for permanent residence in Canada. With this letter, I'm expressing my concerns regarding your application under employment history. In your application for permanent residence, you indicated that you worked for company A from March 2018 to April 2021, as an engineer, my review shows that in your education, slash personal history or the background information, you indicated that you worked for another company from that same period of time actually overlapping July 2014 to April 2021 as a product manager. And then the officer goes on to mention how this same work history was listed in a TRV application, a work permit application and another work permit application, but there was no mention of the work history the person is now trying to claim in their Express Entry application. So effectively, in all the previous applications, this particular work history that they're now trying to claim points for they never mentioned so the officer goes on to say, in short, you declared your work experience with Company B in three of your applications, and you signed all these applications, validating and confirming that you have answered all questions fully and truthfully, as mentioned above, you indicated this info also under your background info for your application for permanent residence. So in that permanent resident application, this company B, which was the main work history, they had always disclosed, was also disclosed in the personal history, but they hadn't included it in the work history. In the work history of their their Express Entry application, they'd included the information for company A, which they'd never mentioned before. So the officer goes on considering the above, I am not satisfied that you worked for company A in basically the position that you've indicated and the duration is indicated in your application for permanent residence. And then they hint this is the dangerous part. Please note misrepresentation, as per section 41 A of the Act, a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation a 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. And then, as is very common you guys, they only give seven days from the date of the letter to respond by uploading documentation back into the person's my CIC account. And normally they only give one spot too, so you only have four megabytes to work with. So this is the context in which we're dealing with today. And these come in all kinds of different forms. Sometimes an individual includes it this work history just in their personal history. So this work history that never appeared before now appears in just the personal history of the APR. They're not even claiming points for it. We've seen procedural. Awareness letters on that. But it always surfaces when there's something could be education even that you hadn't included in an original application. Say, your first study permit application to Canada you had some agent or overseas consultant tell you, Oh, don't list that education, because it's going to undermine your attempt to get this new post secondary study permit to study in, you know, say, a post graduate diploma when you already have a master's. So they'll try to hide the masters. So anything like this, where you're concealing something or failing innocently or otherwise, to include something in an initial temporary as an application that is now appearing in your perimeter as an application can lead to this type of a procedural fairness letter. And if you have not seen anything like this, well, you must be living in a rock because it is everywhere. So Igor, what are your initial thoughts on this kind of thing? Like, why do you think this is happening more so than ever before?
Igor Kyryliuk 6:01
Well, we know that the government is trying to reduce the number of temporary residents and limit the influx of permanent residents, and they need to find legitimate reasons to refuse applications. And they also want to make sure, well, on top of that, like at all times, they all they wanted to make sure that the integrity of the system and of all immigration program is upheld, but right now, they also are driven by this decision to reduce the number of temporary and permanent residents in Canada, and So that's why the attention that they pay to all of those applications and to the details is over the top. They try to find any legitimate reasons to refuse. Essentially,
Mark Holthe 6:51
yeah, absolutely. And one of the things I've noticed is that there, there's got to be some application of a heightened utilization of AI or some other scrubbing tools that is making it easier for officers to identify inconsistencies across a person's immigration history. So never before have they been more keenly attentive to something that you've put in a previous application that is inconsistent with what you are including in this one. Now, just to clarify a few things about misrepresentation, which is, you know, one of the consequences, the most severe consequences that can flow, flow from this, what, you know, the elite, a lesser consequence, is that they just say, we're not going to accept your work history, okay, and then you might not have the points that originally granted you, the ITA or eligibility under one of the Federal Skilled Worker or CEC programs, and so that's a lesser consequence. But the misrepresentation, the main thing I want people to understand, it's not just outright lies, right? It can be omission as well, like commission is telling a lie, omission is not saying something that you should have said, and it can be innocent. And we know there's case law supporting an officer's ability to refuse an individual if they fail to disclose a prior visa refusal in another country. We see that a lot. And you know, maybe you've had, I think I read one case. I can't remember what the the what the style of cause was, but essentially, the the federal court case was a situation where an individual had multiple US visa refusals and failed to disclose one of them. They disclosed others, but hadn't disclosed all of them. And an officer said, that's not enough. You've misrepresented, and the Federal Court upheld that. And so you need to understand the consequences of this. No matter how small or innocent the misrepresentation is, it will still result in a five year ban, and not only that, loss of status, future visa refusals in Canada, and we'll talk about this kind of at the end, but also other countries that can affect negatively. So this is kind of the, I guess, to some extent, the legal framework of misrepresentation. But Igor, let's talk a little bit about some of the common triggers. And we've covered a few of these right now, but when I look at the ones that we're focusing on, really inconsistencies is a big thing in applications. We know Igor that within the world of procedural fairness letters, there are certain times where they do need to come back and send you a procedural fairness letter as a result of administrative law principles, but there are other situations where they can just refuse. And so where have you seen just straight up refuses, where they don't even give you a chance to respond. Can you think of any examples recently in that world?
Igor Kyryliuk 9:45
Yeah, like we probably want just to give the viewers and the listeners a little more context as to what the procedural fairness is. In general, it's this formal notice. The procedural fairness letter is the formal notice. Is that you receive from IRCC that provides you with an opportunity to respond to concerns of the officer. And this duty of procedural fairness letter does not arise at all times. So it's a it's a scale, right? And sometimes the duty of procedural fairness and the is on the lower end of the scale, sometimes it's on the higher end of the scale, and it really depends on the context. In some decisions, the officers, yes, they would need to send you a procedural fairness letter if they have concerns about the inconsistencies in your application or about the authenticity of documents. But in some situations, the officers don't need to send you the procedural fairness letter when they there is no ambiguity, and they can make a decision based on the documents and evidence already present in the application, and it's clear, as in a bright day, you know that you don't meet the eligibility requirements, or you did not satisfy the officer that, for example, you have a temporary intent one of the good scenarios where you would not get a procedural fairness letter, if, let's say you have submitted temporary resident visa application and you just don't satisfy the officer that you will leave Canada before the end of your authorized stay. Or if, let's say you submitted a study permit application, and you just didn't satisfy the officer that this program makes sense, right, and it rationally connects to your past and your future plans. So the onus is always on the applicant to satisfy the officer that you meet the eligibility requirement and that you will come to Canada temporarily, but then, regardless, sometimes there are situations when the officer just cannot make a decision with the limited information on file, and so they would need to clarify something from you, or allow you the opportunity to dig your own grave and bury your file before they can refuse it and not be afraid that someone will challenge the decision in court.
Mark Holthe 12:09
Yeah, and you know, Igor, when I look at procedural fairness letters, another common trigger I find is when it goes to the heart of credibility. So if they're doubting what you've put in there, and they basically are saying, Look, we don't believe you, which is the case in the sample that I showed, then they have a duty to provide a procedural fairness letter to give you a chance to respond to that. But examples where they don't have to do that would be, say, a reference letter that doesn't have duties in it. You know where you are specifically asked to provide a reference letter with specific things to prove your work history, and if you included no duties in there, they can refuse straight up, if you haven't provided a document exactly as they want, they can refuse it as being incomplete. An example of that might be police clearance that you were supposed to provide in color but you provided a black and white copy a marriage certificate that was issued by your pastor, but it's not a civil status document issued by the state. Those types of things can result in an application getting refused. That don't trigger a procedural fairness letter, but when it goes to the heart of credibility in large to a large extent, where they're saying, hey, you've you're trying to pull a fast one on me here, and I'm not buying it. And so I think you're lying to me, or you're submitting a fraudulent document. Then here I'm giving you a chance to respond, and then you have a duty to do so. And so this is where I see the triggers arise a lot.
Igor Kyryliuk 13:40
And Mark maybe, maybe we can also add another good example of when the procedural fairness letter was triggered. It was the applicant who submitted bank statements from two or three banks, and it turned out that he had about five bank accounts. And so the officer said, you know, something doesn't add up. Can you please provide me with a bank statement from your third bank? And then, all of a sudden, in response to the procedural fairness letter, the applicant provided the bank statement from another bank that wasn't disclosed in the past, and the officer sends another procedural fairness letter, saying, okay, look, when you submitted an application, you provided only banks ABC. Now you provide me with a bank statement from bank D that also shows some funds. So provide me with the bank statements from all of your banks, and then, in response to that one, the applicant provides the bank statement from the fifth bank and omits one of the bank statements from the ABC list. And so it creates like this situation where the officer is like, you know what? I had enough. You have not provided me with all documents as per the requirements. That's clearly say that you have to provide bank statements from all bank accounts, so I'm refusing your application, and the officer just allowed the applicant to dig his own grave. Essentially and yeah, like, just as we've talked, the eligibility requirements typically would not trigger a procedural fairness letter unless there is some consistency or some ambiguity. But if the officer has concerns with the authenticity of your documents, meaning that you are not credible, you you haven't provided the true document, then the officer typically would need to give you an opportunity to respond. And in this context, I also remember I used to work with a client who submitted a bank statement from a bank, and this is this was so bizarre, when the bank generated the the bank statement, it put a timestamp at the top right corner. And instead of following the standard double digit for year, double digit for months and double digit for the day, timestamp, the bank, for some reason, just used one digit for the month, or if I'm not mistaken, that that actually was for the time, like the hour, the minute and the second, when the bank statement was generated and the officer outrightly refused the application without providing the opportunity to respond to the client, and that was a clear breach of procedural fairness letter, because, again, the issue was with the authenticity and the credibility of the applicant. If the officer was not concerned that the funds are sufficient in that bank statement, then the officer could have refused the application saying, You know what, I'm not satisfied that you have sufficient funds to travel. But the core was the authenticity of the document, and for the viewers and the listeners, that's one of the key concepts that you have to understand when the PFL is triggered. Yes,
Mark Holthe 16:50
I'll add a couple more triggers that you know as you talked just came to mind. One classic thing that you see is you receive a request to provide a background declaration form. So there's no explanation why. It says, Please provide this further information. And the background declaration form, the Schedule A that form specifically asks about the information that you would typically include in your eapr, work history, education, where you've lived, travel to some extent, and each of those components can then be cross referenced against what you put in your application. So they can actually catch you twice if you didn't include something you should have. And so they're really allowing you to dig your grave. Now, some people say, Wow, how do I even know how to deal with this? And there's, like I said, there's a number of different strategies that we use in responding. And I guess realistically, what I should say here is that there's a couple of things that we're going to cover here. One, how to respond when you respond, and you know when it's not enough, and then the consequences of a misrep finding. And so we're going to talk about each of these as well as we go forward. But one thing I want to address is, if your application is kind of hung up for a while and it's gone beyond the regular processing and you're like, Well, what's going on here? Why is it taking so long? Always, always request the GCMS notes to see where your file is at, because sometimes you can see that an officer has questions. They'll document maybe about your work history or something, and they will send it for further review, and that, my friends, is a trigger to book a consult with myself, Igor or Alicia, so that we can go through your existing application forensically, take a look at everything you put in your eapr to try to figure out where the officer has concerns, because if you can identify it in advance, that is the best way of dealing with this, dealing with it proactively. So when you do that, then you have an opportunity to preempt any procedural fairness letter. And I can't tell you how many times we've been able to go in respond in advance, without even being asked, and updating the eapr through the web form and say, Hey, I noticed I made this mistake, or I forgot to include this previous work history. Or, Hey, I noticed that I included this work history in my eapr. But I also want to alert you to the fact that I didn't include it in my previous study permit or work permit for these reasons, which we're also going to talk about today. But being proactive is one major way that you have the ability to try to blunt this, this sharp sword of misrepresentation. It's a way of pulling up a shield to defend yourself. But the reality is, when you look, and I'm going to go back to this other procedural fairness letter that we that this sample that I showed here with this procedural fairness letter, you will see that there are a number of different things that this officer is addressing, but at the source of it all is that the individual did not include a record. Reference to this work history they're trying to claim points for and any previous application. So if you're trying to think about this, well, then how the heck do I respond to this? There may be a number of reasons why, and by no means are Igor and I trying to coach you on how to respond. The reality is, you must be careful in explaining in detail why it was omitted. Now, in the past, there's been a number of different reasons why people don't include it, and I'm not talking about their you know, their their immigration consultant or their education agent who was applying for the study permit told them to omit something deliberately, and they knew they were removing it. I'm not talking about those situations, because that is misrepresentation. And then if that's the case, then you still have to disclose and say I am so sorry. I hired the wrong person. They told me to do this, and I trusted them, and I thought this was what I was supposed to do, and now I realize it was wrong and and that goes to number one on the list, Igor is taking full responsibility for the for the error. So if you made a mistake, even if it was innocent or deliberate, you take full responsibility, you own it, and you do everything you can to show the officer that you are remorseful for that mistake and that it was never intended to be, you know, something that that would, you know, be a misrepresentation to immigration. So that's number one. Then number two is you specifically address exactly what the officer is saying. Do it up front. Don't give this whole story about how you love Canada and you want to be here. That's later. Now you want to address at a very high level, at the very beginning, the very specific concern that the officer has. So in this case, if it's you know, you haven't claimed this work history, then you'll say, why? Sometimes people say, Well, look, there were only three boxes in the form, and I didn't realize I'd already filled them up with others. And I didn't realize that I could include a separate sheet. I thought, well, there's no more room, so I can't put anything more in here. So sometimes people have explained it that way. In other cases, people have said, well, I had two work histories. The second one that I omitted was during the same time as the other one, I was working two jobs at the same time, and the one that I've listed was really my main job, and the other was kind of a side hustle. Now it was still a full time position or a part time position, but because my main purpose was in the case of, you know, this application, you know, a project manager, I didn't list the engineer in the in the past, in some cases, you can't get proof of it, so maybe the company is shut down, or you left on bad terms, and they won't give you a reference letter. So I've had some people say, Well, I didn't include it because I couldn't prove it. The company wouldn't give me anything, or the company now is shut down. It no longer exists, so I can't get any proof of it. So I didn't want to put something in there that I couldn't prove even though, in a study permit or a work permit, often you don't need to provide proof in the form of a reference letter of everything that you've ever done. So those are just some examples. But this is where consultations with the firm are so important, because we have the ability to talk with you, brainstorm, think about everything that's going on, and then help in the actual crafting of the response. But Igor for you, when you're responding to pfls, are there specific things that you kind of focus on with your client, you know, just to try to regain the trust of the officer?
Igor Kyryliuk 23:31
Yeah. So one thing that I want want to add here is, before we started working with any client, and we we exchange documents in a cloud shared folder, and before we connect for the first call, we already prepare the structure of the folders. There is one sub folder we call previous immigration applications, and that's extremely important. So when, when people ask, Why do you charge the same amount for expert century, regardless? But I have an ita or not, the reason is because we go back like we not only go forward looking at what you will submit, we go back and we look at what was submitted in the past. So it's very important that we know what was submitted in the past and you and it's important that you keep the copy of your previous applications, regardless whether you're working with a representative or not, you want to prepare for a potential situation where you would need to respond to a PFL, and so you want to know what exactly was disclosed in the previous applications, in what way it was disclosed. So my tip number one would be to keep the copy of everything that you submit, regardless when it was 10 years or five years or one year ago. We want to make sure that all previous applications are consistent, so that if we submit a new application and there is no potential misrepresentation right now, seen that we don't create one by. Submitting something differently than it was submitted in the previous applications. In this context, always print out the copies of your Express Entry, application profile, the eapr and so on. Keep the copy of your work history, personal history, and then if the PFL comes and the officer asks you for a resume, which also is pretty common, that you have the copy of the information exactly as it was provided, so that it's easier for you to respond. Then when we respond to the procedural fairness letter, we always try to make the life of the officer easier. The officers, they don't have hours to review your applications. They have a ton of different other applications, and if they receive your response or your web form where you respond proactively, they want to spend as little time to make a an informed decision on your application and to make their life easier. You want to structure your letter. You want to use subheadings headings. You want to use different fonts. You want to highlight the important information. You want to provide the table of contents with a list of documents and the page where the document or information can be found, so that the officer spends 10 minutes instead of an hour. Because again, it's really up to you whether you satisfy the officer that you meet the eligibility requirements or you have a good response to their concerns. And then, as Mark mentioned, you want to submit a web form if you think that there might be some potential misrepresentation concern, and you want to do it proactively, because there was a case law recently where the Court said, you know, to find a misrepresentation, there must be a reasonable likelihood of a material mistake. And if the information is received by the officer before he makes a decision, then you essentially iron out this possibility of making a material mistake, and it's super important if you receive a PFL, it's also important that you understand the danger that you're facing and that you don't deal with this on your own, especially if you receive a second clarifying PFL in response to your response to the first one. So those are probably my comments on this point mark,
Mark Holthe 27:27
yeah, no, those are great suggestions. Igor, a couple other strategies that I'll point out as well. Like I said, you want to try to do everything you can to regain the trust of the officer, because they are, they're like, gleefully sitting there in their desk saying, haha, I caught another one through my little AI tool or whatever they're using to alert them to inconsistencies. And oh, this is going to be good. You know, it's almost like a badge of honor. I don't want to, I don't want to say it that way, but I think sometimes it is, and so you have an officer who doesn't trust you right now. So one strategy that I really like to use is, when I go through their app, my applications with my clients, if I find other things that the officer hasn't mentioned that are problems, I will bring them forward in this procedural fairness letter. So I might say, Oh, and by the way, I see that the date I had for my studies, for you know, when I was in school, I had put it ended in 2020 on my previous study permit application, and on this one I'd put 2021 but it actually was 2020 not 2021 so I want to alert you to that. And in addition, this was another problem, and then anything else you see or I also meant, see that I omitted a travel history to, you know, to Turkey during this period of time in my travel history. So I just wanted to update that and let you know about that mistake as well. So it's, it's you're trying to, like I said, regain the trust of the officer and one other strategy, I guess, in the specific context of the one that we're describing, where someone has not they're bringing up some work history that may have been missing from a previous temporary resident application. If on any future applications you did list it, I would highlight that. So for example, I see often people not including something in their study permit application, but then when they're applying for their post grad work permit, or whatever future work permits after that, they do include something. I will highlight that, and I'll say, hey, look, I know I didn't include that my study permit. That was a complete oversight. My sincerest apologies. But look, on my post grad work permit, I did include it, and so I was not trying to mislead you in any way, this was an innocent, you know, omission, and finally, it doesn't affect my score. So even if I had included this or not included it, it doesn't impact in any way on my application. So it didn't impact on my study permit. Didn't impact. To my work history, so I had no ulterior motive to including it or not including it. And so it truly was, you know, innocent. I wasn't trying to, you know, to gain a result that I wouldn't have otherwise been entitled if I had included this work history or omitted it, as the case may be. And so I will address those specific issues when I'm completing the procedural fairness letters and so, but it really depends on each person you know, and sometimes immigration, when they come back and they say, Hey, I don't believe you actually did the work history that you did, because it's, you know, your wage was too low. Or you don't seem to have any prior experience as a welder, for instance, or the company that you say you're working for, well, the owner of that company, it looks like you have payments from that person personally on your bank statement. There's all kinds of things that an officer can bring up, and it is your obligation to specifically address each and every one and where there are space issues, it becomes a problem if they only have one spot for you to upload and you only have four megabytes to deal with when you're trying to provide a comprehensive response, like additional updates from your employer, confirming that you actually did the work, or you have different evidences, like your initial contract of work or pay stubs that you hadn't included with Your original application. You know you have to do everything you can to condense it down so that you can fit as much into that space as possible, while at the same time being concise and being very strategic in how you're responding so and
Igor Kyryliuk 31:34
mark here, we also want to alert the viewers and the listeners that in your preemptive measures, you also don't want to over react, right? Like you want to not load the officer with unnecessary information. Like, oh, you know what? In my admission application to my university, I've mentioned this, and now here in my immigration application, I mentioned that, you know, like, sometimes what I see applicants would provide redundant explanations. They just overload the officer with some really important with the information that prevents them from finding the important explanations. So be very careful with that.
Mark Holthe 32:17
Yeah, yeah. It doesn't do any good to try to distract the officer into something else, deal with the issues head on. Okay? Now you can do everything. You everything right, like you do your very best to try to correct it. You do your very best to respond properly. Sometimes we get, you know, reached out to people when their application is refused and it was refused, and then we talked to them, and they, lo and behold, had a procedural fairness letter that was sent out, but they never responded properly to it, and now they're facing a refusal, maybe even misrepresentation. Well, Igor, what options are available when people have their application refused?
Igor Kyryliuk 32:56
Well, it really comes down to when the application was refused, what the application was refused for, and whether the unique situations exist that would allow the the person to come or remain in Canada on a TRP on or an agency even application. So it really is case specific. So if you are in Canada, you have only 15 days to challenge the refusal? If you're outside Canada, you have 60 days if the decision wasn't reasonable and the response that you provided to the officer fully addressed their concerns, explained the situation, and the officer was just wrong if, let's say, your application was refused, and you fall outside those time frames, you can always try to submit a reconsideration request, though the effectiveness of this measure is very questionable for the applicants who have been found guilty of misrepresentation, the consequences are very dire, so they will be barred from Canada for five years. Again, we have dealt with cases where someone was found guilty of misrepresentation, and we successfully challenged the finding lately of judicial reviews. Yeah, but if you haven't been found guilty of misrepresentation, then perhaps you can resubmit another application where you again proactively address the concerns of the officer, you explain the previous refusal, and you try to do whatever in your power so that the officer doesn't have the question anymore. And then finally, if none of those options are available, but you have the unique and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. Then for some people, TRP would be the option. And for some people, the agency option would be an option, but those are very narrow situations when we would consider those applications as a possibility. Especially. Actually in the context of the realities that we're dealing with right now, when we have a backlog in processing of the TRP applications and the agency applications, and with the new changes, a little spoiler alert to the strong borders act, it's possible that the government will do something to prevent people from submitting those applications in the future.
Mark Holthe 35:25
Yeah, it's it's pretty it's going to be some scary times going forward. So some final, quick takeaways as we wrap up this episode, when you have any delays in your application, you think it's taking longer than the regular processing times, request, do an A tip request, the GCMS notes to see if it's been referred somewhere. If you see anything like that, then call us, book a consult, retain us. We'll go through we'll help you look at your application, make sure, and just see what might be the issue. And I've never had a situation where I haven't been able to figure out, well, I think maybe one I wasn't able to figure out exactly what the officer was getting at. And then we proactively respond. And that's what you do. You proactively respond if you get a request for a background declaration or any additional request, that's a good time to contact us so we can figure out what this is about. Often, they don't tell you why. They just want you to put the same misrep in and then catch it twice and have extra evidence to really find a misrep Finding. If you get the procedural fairness letter, same thing, reach out. We can help you to make sense of it. Help you to craft a response. You know, the other day, Igor, I sat with an individual. It was Saturday, because time seven days is too short. We did request an extension of time, but we still put in everything that we could get. And I remember, I remember I sat down with that client, I guess, no, it was actually Friday this past Friday, 5:15pm sat down with them to try to get after meeting multiple times, to get the response crafted. And it was not easy. You know, the officer had some grounds to be concerned with the way the application was presented, but the person hadn't misrepresented. They just did a poor job of submitting the application. The application. And so in that situation, they we worked from 515 all the way through to about quarter after 11pm that night to get it finalized. And I'm crossing my fingers that it will be enough. But you know, if it isn't enough and you have a refusal, once again, we can help you with this. This is this is one thing that immigration lawyers can do. We can challenge things in federal court if we feel like the decision was unreasonable, and that is an option, but you have to act quickly. So it's a tough world. We're in Igor and time is really up for many people, and we've been doing everything we can within our firm to advise and prepare people for the days that are coming, and these are dark days, and it is only beginning. Now. It's only beginning. The Liberal government is 100% focused on getting people out of the country at all costs. So stay tuned. Future episodes, we'll be chatting about this. We may just do a live stream, if you go to the YouTube channel. We may just do that right away here, before the podcast episodes even even released, but hopefully this was helpful, and thanks, Igor for joining us, and now we're going to jump over to our live our live stream here. All right, thanks, Igor. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thanks everyone. Take care. You.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
