A recent Globe and Mail editorial discussed challenges involving immigration consultants and the federal government’s repeated attempts to regulate the industry.
The editorial starts with the pain that victims go through and only misses that many victims thought they’d hired a lawyer. It rightly sets out that the third regulator has now utterly failed (the most recent one has the name “College” in it to try to sound reputable like the regulators for doctors and engineers). Like the previous two iterations, it has a very poor record of discipline. The editorial highlights that the new fund requiring ‘dishonest acts’ for compensation will do nothing to compensate people for negligence. It says most victims don’t complain for fear of negative consequences such as their consultant trying to get them deported. But in my experience most don’t complain because there is no immigration benefit for doing so. The Immigration Department and the courts have said that it’s ‘buyer beware.’
The editorial makes the important point that most consultants were grandfathered prior to the new Queen’s course coming in but doesn’t mention that the Queen’s course is completely online and cannot compare to the rigours of law school. In recent years we’ve seen that “the federal government keeps changing its playbook to combat scams.” That’s well put. They’ve cancelled Express Entry points for job offers, killed the Start-Up Visa and banned refugee claims for those who have been here over a year – all in response to fraud by consultants (on the last one, see tweet). As then Minister Miller noted prior to cancelling the points for LMIAs “There’s a value to LMIA but it can’t be $70,000 on the black market or the grey market… not prejudicing people that have bona fide LMIAs, but it’s a balancing act. I think it’s safe to say I’m seriously considering it.” These scams will continue once a new version of Express Entry is rolled out and consultants figure out a way to manufacture evidence of work in high paying occupations for points. The editorial notes that altering major immigration programs hurts legitimate people who would otherwise qualify and erodes public confidence in our immigration system. What’s missed is the financial cost. I’ve heard some PNPs devote half their budget to combatting fraud. Meritless hearings have significant costs as well. I’ve heard that the provinces were never properly consulted when the government decided to allow for a third attempt at consultant regulation and it’s no surprise that provinces have now stepped in to fill the void of proper enforcement against unscrupulous consultants. The editorial mentions Saskatchewan and Alberta but left out Ontario and this zinger by Premier Ford: “We’re cracking down on scumbag immigration consultants that take advantage of people in search of a better life. Our government’s changes include stiff penalties and lifetime bans for bad actors.”. Around the same time, Ontario Auditor General referred to immigration consultants (no mention of lawyers) here: ” At the time of our audit, information had been reported that indicated that some employers and immigration consultants forge and/or sell the LMIA (in some cases there may not even be a real job attached)….”
The editorial board wouldn’t know this but what has also been lost is the ability of lawyers to communicate with IRCC. With consultants growing to six times the number of immigration lawyers and the ability to communicate to officials as lawyers did, suddenly communication channels shut down. The email address to Case Management in Ottawa was cancelled. The ImmReps email address which was supposed to be for nuanced cases was overwhelmed with basic inquiries by consultants. A policy was developed for top managers at visa offices to stop replying to representatives and all communication was relegated to ‘webforms’ which often go unanswered. Over at ESDC, based on all the shady applications from unscrupulous representatives, LMIA officers routinely bypass the representative altogether and call the employer directly. This happens with the AIP and others where officers bypass lawyers with the lame excuse that it’s an “employer-driven” program. Lawyers are thrown in with consultants as a group to be suspicious of in the government’s anti-fraud campaigns rather than treated with the respect we deserve. For instance, even with President Trump openly disparaging immigration attorneys, officials at US Consulates regularly praise the applications filed by immigration lawyers for US matters. Of course, only lawyers are allowed to practice US immigration law in stark contrast to Canada.
The editorial concludes that lawyers should supervise consultants, something we said in written submissions I drafted and at the Standing Committee when I appeared almost 10 years ago. It says while it may seem that we’ll drive costs up, consultants are already charge high fees, particularly the shady ones. Indeed, the Globe had reported in an earlier story that a registered immigration consultant was charging US$7,900 for a work permit. I don’t know any lawyers who charge that much. Moreover, it’s alleged that the first deposit was paid before a job was even confirmed (!). The Globe story says that workers felt they were being charged to be placed in a job, which is of course illegal. John No, a staff lawyer at a poverty law clinic is quoted as saying: “The consultants are banking on two things: Either that the workers do not know this is illegal, or that they will not report them because they are afraid of how it might affect their chances of obtaining permanent residency in Canada, which is what most immigrants ultimately want.”.
As a colleague mentioned to me, people forget that law firms have good IT systems and practice management software and bookkeepers who understand Law Society rules, all of which costs money. When your license is on the line, you also invest in people with proper training and higher salaries. I would add that immigration lawyers manage to litigate for far less than our friends from law school who practice criminal, civil or family law. The fees of immigration lawyers are quite reasonable given all the work involved in an IRB or Federal Court matter relative to the tens of thousands people pay when facing a criminal charge or contested divorce etc.
Requiring consultants to be supervised by lawyers may not be a silver bullet. Consultants would seek out young lawyers desperate for a job and we’d have to warn them of the law society’s rules around being an ‘unwitting dupe.’ Fraud wouldn’t end overnight. But it’s still the one thing that would dramatically reduce the number of victims, save costs and restore confidence in our system.
Disclosure
This blog is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on the facts of each individual case. Readers should obtain legal advice specific to their circumstances before making decisions regarding immigration matters.
Immigration Consultants and the Need for Stronger Oversight in Canada
Home » Blog » Immigration Consultants and the Need for Stronger Oversight in Canada
A recent Globe and Mail editorial discussed challenges involving immigration consultants and the federal government’s repeated attempts to regulate the industry.
The editorial starts with the pain that victims go through and only misses that many victims thought they’d hired a lawyer. It rightly sets out that the third regulator has now utterly failed (the most recent one has the name “College” in it to try to sound reputable like the regulators for doctors and engineers). Like the previous two iterations, it has a very poor record of discipline. The editorial highlights that the new fund requiring ‘dishonest acts’ for compensation will do nothing to compensate people for negligence. It says most victims don’t complain for fear of negative consequences such as their consultant trying to get them deported. But in my experience most don’t complain because there is no immigration benefit for doing so. The Immigration Department and the courts have said that it’s ‘buyer beware.’
The editorial makes the important point that most consultants were grandfathered prior to the new Queen’s course coming in but doesn’t mention that the Queen’s course is completely online and cannot compare to the rigours of law school. In recent years we’ve seen that “the federal government keeps changing its playbook to combat scams.” That’s well put. They’ve cancelled Express Entry points for job offers, killed the Start-Up Visa and banned refugee claims for those who have been here over a year – all in response to fraud by consultants (on the last one, see tweet). As then Minister Miller noted prior to cancelling the points for LMIAs “There’s a value to LMIA but it can’t be $70,000 on the black market or the grey market… not prejudicing people that have bona fide LMIAs, but it’s a balancing act. I think it’s safe to say I’m seriously considering it.” These scams will continue once a new version of Express Entry is rolled out and consultants figure out a way to manufacture evidence of work in high paying occupations for points. The editorial notes that altering major immigration programs hurts legitimate people who would otherwise qualify and erodes public confidence in our immigration system. What’s missed is the financial cost. I’ve heard some PNPs devote half their budget to combatting fraud. Meritless hearings have significant costs as well. I’ve heard that the provinces were never properly consulted when the government decided to allow for a third attempt at consultant regulation and it’s no surprise that provinces have now stepped in to fill the void of proper enforcement against unscrupulous consultants. The editorial mentions Saskatchewan and Alberta but left out Ontario and this zinger by Premier Ford: “We’re cracking down on scumbag immigration consultants that take advantage of people in search of a better life. Our government’s changes include stiff penalties and lifetime bans for bad actors.”. Around the same time, Ontario Auditor General referred to immigration consultants (no mention of lawyers) here: ” At the time of our audit, information had been reported that indicated that some employers and immigration consultants forge and/or sell the LMIA (in some cases there may not even be a real job attached)….”
The editorial board wouldn’t know this but what has also been lost is the ability of lawyers to communicate with IRCC. With consultants growing to six times the number of immigration lawyers and the ability to communicate to officials as lawyers did, suddenly communication channels shut down. The email address to Case Management in Ottawa was cancelled. The ImmReps email address which was supposed to be for nuanced cases was overwhelmed with basic inquiries by consultants. A policy was developed for top managers at visa offices to stop replying to representatives and all communication was relegated to ‘webforms’ which often go unanswered. Over at ESDC, based on all the shady applications from unscrupulous representatives, LMIA officers routinely bypass the representative altogether and call the employer directly. This happens with the AIP and others where officers bypass lawyers with the lame excuse that it’s an “employer-driven” program. Lawyers are thrown in with consultants as a group to be suspicious of in the government’s anti-fraud campaigns rather than treated with the respect we deserve. For instance, even with President Trump openly disparaging immigration attorneys, officials at US Consulates regularly praise the applications filed by immigration lawyers for US matters. Of course, only lawyers are allowed to practice US immigration law in stark contrast to Canada.
The editorial concludes that lawyers should supervise consultants, something we said in written submissions I drafted and at the Standing Committee when I appeared almost 10 years ago. It says while it may seem that we’ll drive costs up, consultants are already charge high fees, particularly the shady ones. Indeed, the Globe had reported in an earlier story that a registered immigration consultant was charging US$7,900 for a work permit. I don’t know any lawyers who charge that much. Moreover, it’s alleged that the first deposit was paid before a job was even confirmed (!). The Globe story says that workers felt they were being charged to be placed in a job, which is of course illegal. John No, a staff lawyer at a poverty law clinic is quoted as saying: “The consultants are banking on two things: Either that the workers do not know this is illegal, or that they will not report them because they are afraid of how it might affect their chances of obtaining permanent residency in Canada, which is what most immigrants ultimately want.”.
As a colleague mentioned to me, people forget that law firms have good IT systems and practice management software and bookkeepers who understand Law Society rules, all of which costs money. When your license is on the line, you also invest in people with proper training and higher salaries. I would add that immigration lawyers manage to litigate for far less than our friends from law school who practice criminal, civil or family law. The fees of immigration lawyers are quite reasonable given all the work involved in an IRB or Federal Court matter relative to the tens of thousands people pay when facing a criminal charge or contested divorce etc.
Requiring consultants to be supervised by lawyers may not be a silver bullet. Consultants would seek out young lawyers desperate for a job and we’d have to warn them of the law society’s rules around being an ‘unwitting dupe.’ Fraud wouldn’t end overnight. But it’s still the one thing that would dramatically reduce the number of victims, save costs and restore confidence in our system.
Jain Immigration Law
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.jainimmigrationlaw.com
Phone: +1 (416) 548-5533
Disclosure
This blog is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on the facts of each individual case. Readers should obtain legal advice specific to their circumstances before making decisions regarding immigration matters.