>> Nam: People around the world
look to Canada as a pathway to a
better life. They spent thousands of dollars
to come here. Often employing immigration
agents to help navigate what can
be a complicated process. But at the experience recently
of some international students
who are facing deportation shows, there are several ways
the process can go wrong. With us now on how to safeguard
people and the system from
fraud, Kim Ly, founder and principal of Borders Immigration
Consultancy. Jack Kim, Partner at the
immigration law firm, Fragomen. And Nicholas Keung, immigration
reporter, Toronto Star. Really appreciate you all coming
into the studio for this timely
discussion. Jack, I wanted to start with
you. Can you give us an idea of what
percentage of immigration
applications in Canada are fraudulent? >> Jack: I think it's very
important to understand that
we're not talking about a crisis in the system here. Most immigration applications
are approved. They're legitimate. People have a legitimate basis
to come to Canada. It's based mostly upon some
categories where there could be
some discretion at stake. Depending on the category you
might have 5%, 10%, 15%. But usually that's the top
plateau that we've seen in
government. >> Nam: Why is it important to
point out that most cases are
not fraudulent? >> Jack: Immigration rests on
the legitimacy and the public
trust that people have on it. We can see in different
countries where that has eroded. In the United States, for
instance, in Europe. And so the public trust and
integrity of the system is very
important so that people know that the people that we're
bringing into the country are
people that they can trust. They can be neighbours with at
the end of the day. >> Nam: And trust is something
I'm sure is going to come up
throughout this discussion. Kim, what kind of fraud is the
most common in our immigration
system? >> Kim: I don't think there's a
common fraud. I think every program is
susceptible to fraud. But I think document fraud would
be one of the biggest ones. Just the ability -- especially
now when we're in this digital
era, you're able to create anything. And it's so hard to check on
whether it is authentic and
genuine. >> Nam: Can you give us an
example of documentation fraud? >> Kim: Yeah, there are examples
where you have a T4 together. >> Nam: The tax letter we all
get. >> Kim: Or where letterheads
could be manipulated. I have had situations where
diplomas look pretty real with
accompanying transcripts and the seals. So it's hard to really pin down
what is the most common. I think it all depends on what
programs we're talking about,
what copy of candidates we're getting. It's hard. It's hard to pin down what is
common. >> Nam: And I'm sure a lot of
things can fall through the
cracks. >> Kim: Yeah, absolutely. The moment that you find out
that one of your clients may
have a document that may not be real or it's an officer hotels
you that we have some questions
on this document, everything falls apart at this point. >> Nam: Of course when we talk
about immigration we're talking
about the numbers. We're talking about real people
with families. And, Nicholas, you've reported
recently on immigration fraud
with regard to international students. What did your reporting uncover? And do we know how many cases
we're talking about? >> Nicholas: So just to give you
a little bit of background, we
reported on the potentials of students from India and we asked
about 700 of them actually
allegedly used a fake admission letter provided by an education
agent consultant slash
consultant to gain admission to Canada to obtain a work permit
to come to Canada. And but there that's just an
estimate. We don't know the exact number
at this point. >> Nam: Did you find out whether
or not these students were in on
the scam? >> Nicholas: It's really hard to
say. It's a million dollar question. We should have them, you know,
the students and also the agents
to, you know, to ask this question to them. But what we do know is, you
know, they all, you know, share
a similar story. They've been here for a long
time. Some have successfully obtained
their post graduate work permit
on their way to permanent residence. And it's only when they
recently, actually, got a call
from Canada border services agency to attend an interview
that they claim when they
claimed that they discovered for the first time that the letter
they used provided by the agent,
actually was fraudulent. >> Nam: It's interesting, these
conversations. You want to believe that people
weren't in on it. There's probably situations
where the truth is probably
somewhere in the middle. Students that you are talking
to, if they've been here for a
number of years, they've established roots. They're thinking about the
future and then they find out
that actually this whole thing is on very shaky ground. What has been the reaction from
some of the people that you've
spoken to about thinking about the possibility that their life
is hanging in the wind? >> Nicholas: They're in shock
initially. Then they try to look for
answers although a lot of them
have their family members actually reach out to the same
agent, trying to find out, you
know, asking the agent to provide some sort of evidence or
letter to clear their name. So, you know, just to prove
their innocence. But as far as I know, you know,
the agency is finished. At the same time, they're also
facing potential deportation
from Canada for misrepresentation. Some of them actually going
through an immigration tribunal. Some of them also go before the
federal court to try to at least
fight for their innocence. >> Nam: That sounds terrifying. Jack, when you hear those kind
of stories, it's not just the
students. We're talking about the agent. But what about the colleges? Are they complicit in this? >> Jack: At this point in time,
with this particular story, it
doesn't look like it at this point. But we have issues. Especially with smaller
schools --
>> Nam: What are those issues? >> Jack: Sometimes people even
set up schools for the sole
purposes of attracting international students. International student tuition is
very high. It's very lucrative for these
schools. There are some stories where a
school of 100 international
students there were six Canadians enrolled in one
particular case that we know of. And so people are using
international students. There's an incentive to attract
them. And so they're using these
education consultants that were
talked about and giving them commissions to kind of drive up
admissions in schools. >> Nam: One of the stories that
you wrote, one of the students
was like, why now? If I've been in the country and
through this process for four
years, why did the college not catch this sooner? Do we have an answer? >> Jack: I don't know if that's
the college. The college may have no idea
that this happened. Part way through one of the
agents said you can't go to this
school and they said they wonder why because they're not going to
enroll you because you have a
fraudulent admission letter. >> Nam: Are there calls to
immigration Canada? >> Jack: That's a hard question. I think it boils down to the way
we treat immigration
applications. We get millions of applications
every year. The government has to process
all of them. If you take a close look at
every single application they're
not going to be processed in due course. People will complain. You have a fairly soft touch at
the front end and it's the back
end where you have to have these compliance inspections and it's
a co-ordination between the
provinces when it comes to the school, the feds, et cetera, et
cetera. It doesn't look like it's
happening right now. >> Nam: Kim, I know you reacted
to that. >> Kim: So, I mean, we talk
about "complicit." We'd like to believe that the
colleges are not involved in
these types of fraudulent active -- activities. And I'd like to believe that. But it's the way that they hire
these immigration agents in
which they kind of push these education agents to market these
universities. And bring up the enrollments. And so there is a monetary
incentive to go ahead and have
these agents go do it. But with a hands-off approach
where no one's really checking
on regulation. No one's checking on enforcement
or ensuring that they're doing
the right thing and marketing it in a good way. One of the things that some of
these -- I always hear education
agents say, oh, well, come to Canada you can come to school
here and you will be guaranteed
a pathway to permanent residency. You kind of sit there and go --
first of all you're not
authorized to say something like that. Nothing is a guarantee. And secondly, you are selling
this dream that might be a
reality. So what are you after? You're after the money and the
colleges and universities pay
this money to bring in these students. So you kind of see where the
ball could drop. It's because of that. >> Nam: But then if the students
have to go back, don't the
colleges lose out on that? Or is it so lucrative that
someone else will replace that
student? >> Kim: The student's already
here. So the tuition is already paid. It doesn't matter to the
universities or colleges whether
or not these graduates will be successful in Canada. All they care is that they gave
you the degree and you did your
studies. That's T after that, they give
you some consultation ongoing to
apply for post grad work permit that Nicholas was talking about. And then you're on your own. >> Nicholas: I think the scope
is actually larger than that,
too. I remember before the pandemic I
did a story about -- at a
college in Ontario, a publicly funded college. They actually had 400
international students from
India. I don't know whether you
remember that story. >> Kim: I sure do. >> Nicholas: To retake a
language test. And because, you know, the
English levels that they, you
know, of the students did not reflect the language test
scores. And so I think, you know, it
raises a lot of questions
whether, you know, how did they, you know, did they have someone
else sit the exams, the language
tests. Or did they provide a fake test
result? And how they got admission, you
know, by the college. The point I'm trying to make is
that there are many players
involved. You just don't know which part,
at which stage is breaks down. >> Nam: I guess it's important
to distinguish, are these
accredited colleges and universities or --
>> Nicholas: Yeah, I think
whether it is a publicly funded or private college they have to
be registered to be accredited
but there is a distinction between the eligibility for a
post-graduate work permit
afterwards. You have to graduate from a
public post-secondary
institution in order to apply for a work permit after the
graduation. But we're seeing here in Ontario
anyway, a growing number of
partnerships between public and private colleges where you --
someone studies at a private
college but received a diploma or certification from a public
college which makes the student,
the graduate eligible for an open work permit afterwards. So, you know, I think that's
what complicated the whole
system. I feel like whenever there is a
loophole, someone would -- it
gets plugged but the bad actors will find a new way and always
try too game the system. >> Nam: To build on that, Jack,
you worked as a hearings officer
for the border services agency. What is it about the way our
system is set up that allows
fraud to go undetected. >> Jack: I think in the few
years I was there, our
immigration system as I alluded to is a very soft touch system. For most applications. And it's just from the sheer
numbers that we have to process. I think, India, one third of our
immigration program comes from a
country like India and our visa offices are inundated. People have been complaining
about processing time from the
point of -- I don't know, when Adam was a boy, right? >> Nam: I'm guessing with the
pandemic people have been
complaining. >> Jack: Exactly. When people are complaining
about this, the user experience
becomes a poor one. So what do you do? You go through applications,
visa officers have a limited
number of time to go through, study permit applications and as
kim is saying, if an admission
letter looks legit, then it looks legit. The problem is that our system
is based upon a back-end
compliance check and these aren't happening right now. We have them on the employer
side. And I mean even those are
somewhat cursory. We have ideas like a trusted
employer program being thought
of. But if you look at other
countries, the compliance
regimes that these countries have are much more robust. >> Nam: Give us an example. >> Jack: For instance, in-person
inspections at an employer's
place. You're trying to figure out,
were you hired by your uncle or
by a true employer. Same thing I think can happen
with certain schools, for
instance. On the back end of things. Having inspectors, for instance
go into schools and also working
with the provinces to make sure that these schools are
accredited doing what they're
supposed to do, giving people a good education. Not a classroom are four chairs
in it. It's a true school where people
are getting their money's worth
because they're paying a heck of a lot of money to come here. >> Nam: I'm just trying to
think. I'm going to use America as an
example. Many moons ago, I applied for an
O.B. visa. And I remember how hard it was
to get that. And I remember when I went to
the border, how many papers I
had to show to prove that I got this the right way. So, you know, for folks who are
coming in on fraudulent papers,
how are they even able to make it past immigration upon
landing? >> Jack: It's also the way our
system is set up. You get an approval as a visa
officer. First of all it's a soft touch
to begin with. You get here and, again, if an
immigration officer at the
airport is taking a look at your papers, sometimes they just give
them a free pass. There's a certain amount of
deference that people at the
airport are giving to visa officers because that's the
first line of defence. And they know -- or
theoretically they're thinking
that somebody down the line is going to check if it's
fraudulent or not. So an approval is set. Someone gets their study permit. And that's why years down the
road in the case of the
international students, someone finally did a check and said oh,
my God these are fraudulent and
that's how these students are being caught. >> Kim: I think also there is an
honour system. I think there's a belief and an
honour system. So, you know, way back when,
when man power existed. -- I think I just aged myself. [Laughter]
So, you know, I remember there
was an interview that I sat in with an employer and the man
power officer and we were going
to the recruitment process and they were asking, you know, did
you legitimately interview all
these Canadians to see if they can fill a position. And the employer says yup, I
did. And toward the end the employer
says how do you know I was
telling you the truth? And the officer said how do you
know I didn't plant one of my
applicants in there? It is based on the honour
system. Okay. I think that officer just gave
me a tip. But it is based on that honour
system. I believe you to do what you say
you're going to do because we
understand that signing on a federal document means
something. It's serious and there is a
penalty associated with that. For that reason, there should be
no reason for you to be lying to
me. >> Nam: Do you think Canada is
doing enough to prevent fraud? >> Kim: I don't know. They're doing -- they're trying
to do a lot. They could do a lot more. You know, they have these
monthly awareness campaigns and
there's resources on the IRCC website. Are they doing enough? I think they can do more. >> Nicholas: I think one of the
issues, you know, I don't know
whether Jack and kim would agree. I think IRCC, the immigration
department has been chronically
under funded. That's been my feeling. Even during the pandemic they
invested a lot more money to
modernize the antiquated computer system and also hired,
you know, more than 1,250 new
front line officers. But I just feel that we're just
catching up. And think about it -- by 2025
we're going to bring in half a
million permanent residents a year. I don't honestly don't think,
you know, we have enough
resources, you know, just to process applications, not to let
alone talking about enforcement. Enforce detection. >> Kim: What's crazy is there
are applications paid for these. You would think that if you're
paying these fees, they
shouldn't be under funded. >> Jack: I think so. First A.I., for instance, that
they're looking for we don't
have too much transparency on what that's about. But if you are creating an A.I. system to try to call through
the soft touch applications like
the low risk ones that they're talking about but what are you
basing that algorithm on? Africa, for instance, 85%
refusal rates on certain visa
applications. Are you basing your algorithm on
that? If you are, why? I think those are some of the
questions we need to ask. And the sheer number of
officers, too. >> Nam: You mentioned the soft
touch. And we know there are a lot of
people who do come -- a lot of
students who come into the country with the proper
documentation but I think when
people are watching this and listening to this and they hear
a soft touch, do you worry that
this is going to kind of foster this anti immigration movement
that seems to be -- I think
people are very concerned about appearance. >> Kim: Go ahead. >> Nicholas: This is a very good
question. I just feel there's so much at
stake here. Like if we don't do it right,
you know, employers, you know,
if you have unqualified graduates, international
graduates, coming for a job and,
you know, doesn't really have the skills that they claim they
have, for example, then I think
everyone would lose faith in the system. And I think at the end of the
day, yes, we want Canada to be
known as a welcoming country. But we also don't want Canada to
be known as an easy-to-get-to
country, right? >> Kim: Absolutely. And I don't think there would be
an anti-immigration sentiment to
the point that -- because I think Canadians realize the
benefits that immigrants bring. Just sitting here we're all
immigrants. And so I think -- I don't
think -- if anything, I think
that Canadians would want to actually help in protecting the
system and making it a little
more robust rather than being turned off and saying oh, this
is a weakness, this makes us
look really bad and then as a sense I don't want immigration. I think there is a reality and
an understanding that we do need
immigration. >> Jack: We do. There is a consensus right now. There is a national consensus
that we're very privileged to
have compared to other countries right now. Does it erode the public
confidence? Maybe. I think public confidence is
more eroded by people who come
here irregularly, so to speak, with the WREXHAM road issue. I think the public does trust
the government but the
government has to respond to that and make sure that, you
know, as kim said, there's a
robust after-compliance regime involved. And if that's the case, then I
think Canadians will trust the
fact that we need immigrants. Our demographics are showing
that's account case and our
economy certainly does. >> Nam: Kim N. the line of work
that you do, do you face any
backlash? >> Kim: I'm a registered
immigration consultant. And oftentimes I think there is
a confusion in terms of as
consultants with the unscrupulous, unauthorized
practitioners. And there is a bit -- sometimes
there is but I'm fortunate
enough that in the complaints I get, they know who I am, they
know what I do. I'm in my community. And so everyone knows that I'm
the real deal. But oftentimes there is clamour
in the industry that we
legitimate ones are often mixed in with the unscrupulous,
unauthorized agents. And then all of a sudden we're
kind of grouped in together. I spend the most part of my
years trying to defend the fact
that there is a distinction between us regulated consultants
and those who are not. >> Nam: Tell us the difference
what is the difference between
an agent and a consultant. >> Kim: There are agents and
unauthorized practitioners. The ones who I guess if we're
talking about a hierarchy of
problems it would be the unauthorized practitioners with
the negativity. Then the education agents some
are unethical. >> Nicholas: And who are not
regulated. >> Kim: Thank you, Nicholas. We're regulated. We have a college much like Jack
has his Law Society. We have our college that we
report to. And we go through a very
rigorous training before we can
even come out and be licensed. I teach at Queens law. And so the students that come in
are all graduate students. They all have undergraduate
degrees. They all come in as a graduate
student. I know what they go through. I know a what their training is. After that we also have to go
through a mentorship. So a 6 to 10-month internship
with our college. So it's not -- our accreditation
is likely just as strong as
Jack's and ours is specific to immigration law. >> Nam: I'm wondering, too, how
do you begin to combat that? Because if you have the
so-called "agent" working with
people from the country that are coming here, it seems to be a
disconnect. >> Kim: It's raising awareness. We rely on social media. We rely on reporters like
Nicholas who will provide us
with that distinction to say look, here are the legitimate
ones and here are the ones that
are not. There are resources out there as
well. IRCC publishes, the college
publishes the list of who is
accredited and who isn't. >> Nam: Does the college of
immigration and citizenship have
a list of accredited agents that applicants can use. >> Nicholas: They do. They have a directory of
authorized practitioners. >> Kim: Yes, as practitioners
but I'm not sure about agents. I don't think they do. Because we don't have education
agents. The college does not regulate
college agents. Or university agents or
education agents. And that's the problem. Is that they are not regulated. They're not governed. There is no one watching what
they're doing. >> Nicholas: And there's also
the issue about the jurisdiction
of the regulator. It only has jurisdiction over
members in Canada but not, you
know, overseas agents. So that limits authority. That's why I think kim
mentioned -- relies on public
education. Because I think traditionally
we've had this system that's
based on, you know, buyers beware kind of mentality, right? And it's interesting. I was an international student
myself. To the States. I'm from Hong Kong. And, you know, when I applied,
you know, I did my own research. But I just find it interesting
in some regions around the world
people would actually have that blind faith in, you know, if I
paid thousands of dollars to
this profession they've got to deliver. And I think there's also the
mentality that, you know, the
mentality that, you know we don't like to hear the truth if
you don't qualify. And, okay, I will go to the next
person who will tell me what I
want to hear, right? And I think that's how people
fall into that trap. >> Jack: Especially the bigger
the lie the more people are
likely to believe it. For instance, in -- for a lot of
international students,
education is not the end game. The end game is actually
settling as a permanent resident
and getting citizenship in Canada. So what is the easiest way to be
able to get there? The school is, for many people,
just the means to an end. >> Kim: That's right. >> Jack: And if we have other
pathways that we were able to
accept people -- and with the due diligence and creation of
such programs -- then we might
have a way that we're not pressuring schools and people to
build schools to incentivize all
this stuff as well. So I think there is a
recognition that Canada is such
a -- Canada is a country in such high demand, we will always have
problems like this. It's how we manage them that's
the most important. >> Nam: We've spoken a little
bit about the impact on
students, especially those students who came here on good
faith thinking they had the
right papers. But also there is a cost to this
country. What would you say -- what is
immigration fraud costing
Canada? >> Nicholas: Okay. >> Jack: The high level on this,
it's the integrity. It chips away bit by bit. Once we don't have integrity in
the system we have situations
like in Europe, the United Kingdom and United States where
we have populist anti
immigration backlash. And I think we're still a far
ways from it. All our major political parties
are Pro-immigration to a certain
degree and the public has confidence in that. The more this happens the less
there is public confidence in
the immigration system. Then we're shooting ourselves in
the foot if we're not able to
continue this public trust. So I think that's the answer. >> Nam: In our final moments I
would like to know what the
government should do to mit grade fraud. Nicholas? >> Nicholas: Education and
enforcement. Education I think the reason is
obvious. But when it comes to enforcement
I would expect more transparency
from the government to show those examples of, you know,
what we do with those bad
actors. What would be the outcomes as a
deterrent of a similar fraud
down the road. I think that's really important. Sometimes, you know, as a
reporter, we have had a tough
time trying to get information from the government to report on
those stories. What happened, right? >> Nam: And just to -- when we
talk about the students, when
they find out that they're here with the wrong papers, does that
mean that they have to leave the
country right away or do they get an opportunity to stay? >> Nicholas: They have two
options -- not options -- but
they could go before a tribunal and also the federal court. But it's pretty black and white. My understanding -- I'm not a
lawyer but you can correct me. Because, you know, the
adjudicators would basically
just look did you misrepresent your case when you applied for
your visa? Yes? okay, you're out. It's pretty straightforward. It's hard to challenge that's
what I've been told. >> Kim: There's also did you
make an honest mistake? There is precedence on honest
mistake kind of arguments. As a non-lawyer, I don't do
federal court or any of these
types of cases. But anecdotally we know that
there are other ways -- even
though, yes, they're afforded due process so it's not like the
moment you find out they're gone
and depending how long they've been in the system there are
other remedies where they can
stay here. There are agency cases that are
being made on the fact that they
have a been here, they've been duped to cool here and now
they're here and they've set up
life here. It's inhumane of us Canadians to
then send them home when it was
our very own system that fraudulently brought them here. >> Nam: What do you think the
government needs to do to
mitigate fraud? >> Kim: I have a couple of
thoughts. It takes a lot of collaboration
with stakeholders, with the
media, with the public, with government at all three levels
to do almost a "keeping it real"
kind of concept. So similar to that interview
that I had with the ESDC officer
on how do you know we know it's legit, it's to do those surprise
surveillance. Go under cover. Go -- there was a case in India
where we were trying to check to
see if people were being sold a dream and they were sending in
under cover students. When we have here send in under
cover international student to
see what colleges and universities are doing. It's keeping it real. The only way to keep it real is
if you don't know there's a
secret shopper in the room. >> Nam: Last word from Jack? >> Jack: Apart from compliance
and education in other
countries, immigration, we think is very important in our
country. But politically, with the
capital that we have, even in a
government basis, we don't give it the importance that
immigration Ministry and the
ministers and it is all governments view it as a
stepping stone to becoming the
Minister of Finance or minister of foreign affairs or something
like that. So let's have a national
conversation about immigration. And let's include things like
fraud. Let's include things like
housing affordability. Let's include things like
competitiveness. Compliance, everything. And for that, this is a pipe
dream. But all our immigration
functions should all be under
one roof, I think. We have different departments
doing different things. The Canada border services
agency does investigations. Man power, ESDC does labour
stuff. So put it all under one roof. And let's give it the importance
that it should deserve. >> Nam: This was such an
engaging conversation. I loved every minute of it. And this is the first time for
all three of you on "The
Agenda." Well done. You were all terrific. >> Kim: Thank you. >> Nam: Thank you so much for
your time.
