
Saskatchewan cancelled a SINP nomination after finding the applicant failed to disclose that an unlicensed travel agency in India prepared and submitted his profile, discovered via an anonymous tip and IP login analysis. A court ruled the omission was material misrepresentation—even though the data was accurate—and warned undisclosed/unlicensed representatives can justify refusal or cancellation; applicants should disclose all assistance and use authorized reps.
Soheil Hosseini
July 23, 2025
Jurisdiction
Saskatchewan
Week
Week 30
Impact
Moderate
Programs Affected
Misrepresentation — Unauthorized Representative Use Leads to Nomination Cancellation (Saskatchewan PNP)
Date: 2025-07-23 | Source: Saskatchewan Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) | Urgency: Critical
Summary: Saskatchewan cancelled a SINP nomination after determining the applicant failed to disclose that an unauthorized travel agency in India prepared and submitted his provincial profile. Authorities, alerted by an anonymous tip and login IP analysis, treated the omission as material misrepresentation, even though the applicant’s credentials were accurate and the agent did not alter the information. A court affirmed that failure to declare an unlicensed representative compromises program integrity and can justify refusal. Saskatchewan immigration authorities have cancelled a candidate’s Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) nomination for misrepresentation after discovering that an undeclared, unlicensed agent prepared and submitted the applicant’s profile. The program learned of the issue via an anonymous report and confirmed irregularities through IP-based login tracing. Crucially, the submitted personal data was accurate and unchanged. Nonetheless, the omission of the representative’s involvement was deemed a material misrepresentation because it impaired the decision-maker’s ability to verify the file and safeguard program integrity. The court emphasized that good faith is not a defense where the applicant fails to disclose the role of an unregistered third party. This update serves as a clear warning to SINP applicants: using unregistered agents without disclosure may jeopardize your application, including cancellation of a nomination already issued. Independent analysis and potential impacts:
- Negative: Applicants face heightened risk of refusals or cancellations if any representative involvement—especially by unlicensed actors—is not fully and accurately disclosed. Increased scrutiny, including digital forensics (IP analysis), raises detection likelihood.
- Positive: The ruling reinforces program integrity, deters misuse of unlicensed intermediaries, and promotes transparent, compliant submissions—benefiting bona fide applicants and licensed representatives.
- Practical takeaway: Applicants should disclose all assistance received and consider using authorized representatives only, ensuring consistency between declared representation and system access/logins.
Closing: With Saskatchewan signaling zero tolerance for undisclosed, unlicensed representation, SINP applicants should prioritize full disclosure and authorized counsel to protect their eligibility and avoid findings of misrepresentation.
Tags: Saskatchewan PNP, SINP, misrepresentation, unauthorized representative, unlicensed agent, Canadian immigration, provincial nominee program, compliance, program integrity, legal ruling, IP analysis, disclosure
Categories
Share This Post
Stay Updated with Immigration News
Get the latest updates on Express Entry draws, OINP invitations, policy changes, and more delivered to your inbox.
We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.
Related Articles

Exclusion Order Upheld
In Karim v. Canada (2025 FC 1467) the Federal Court upheld an exclusion order, ruling international students bear the onus to prove study‑permit compliance or eligibility for exemptions. Re‑enrollment does not cure past non‑compliance, and CBSA/IRCC are not required to identify or apply exemptions for applicants.

Misrepresentation Ban Upheld
Federal Court dismissed Lai Man Lam’s judicial review and upheld a five‑year inadmissibility finding under IRPA s.40(1)(a) after concluding her MBA was likely ghostwritten. The ruling affirms officers’ discretion to probe academic credentials through targeted interviews, finding procedural fairness met and the decision reasonable on review.

Work Permit Overturned
Federal Court set aside refusal of an LMIA‑supported employer‑specific work permit after finding the visa officer unreasonably dismissed reference letters, payslips and certificates while elevating missing optional financial documents to a determinative ground. In Mohammad v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the Court applied Vavilov, requiring transparent, holistic evidence assessments (not treating “additional” documents as mandatory) and remitted the matter for redetermination.

H&C Redetermination Ordered
Federal Court (Lin v. Minister, 2025 FC 1344) found a consultant’s omission of hardship evidence in an H&C (IRPA s.25(1)) application amounted to ineffective assistance and breach of procedural fairness, and ordered redetermination with leave to file new evidence. The Court confirmed prejudice is shown by a fairness deprivation (not proof of a likely different outcome) and no fresh H&C filing is required.