Oh Canada!

It is with absolute delight that I welcome the change of ICCRC to something new. However, if the same people are involved and are allowed to continue, the status quo continues. Today the challenges have crippled the Immigration Consultants profession & change must happen!

Additional Information added:

Note to Mr Murray: I am yet to get a response for my letter to you. Several aspects of my letter is not answered and you seem to be actively promoting ICCRC as an organization which is good for the profession. On what basis are you establishing this arguement when representation rates are so low and the profession is at such low standards? I have been a Immigration consultant for close to 3 decades and NEVER was this profession so seriously challenged. Please resond, here is your letter dated November 03 is now over 6 months old.

I will be sending two documents to the Minister of Immigration on 17th of this month (June). One will be titled “Conscience” and the other will be titled “Conflicts”. The document “Conflicts” will be marked Confidential because it contains tax information of Foreign countries and other confidential information.  A copy of these two documents will also be sent to every Member of Parliament including the Prime Minister’s office. A copy will also be sent to the CEO of ICCRC.

Dear John Murray,

It is with sadness that I come to you as a last resort about the Immigration Consultation profession and my experience and feelings about the profession and the Regulator. I want to be regulated by a fair process where the Regulator protects the public who use the service of an Immigration consultant. I am fearful of fairness when corrupt individuals (Page numbers 13 – 18) and people who play around with the truth occupy key roles in ICCRC and who you and your team depend exclusively for advice. Just honest, simple regulation goes a long way!

In this letter, I will focus on a few of the challenges I am encountering as an ordinary RCIC. I know immigrants are not welcome to contribute in ICCRC if they are not a “crony(page 25) to a “Group” (Page 24) and I hope you will take the time to respond.  I am sure you are aware that RCIC’s involved with ICCRC comes from two groups or factions, (Page 24) and both groups are comprised with people who have not gained the confidence of the public by having high self- representation rates page 55 (Representation of clients obtained by themselves and not through Agents, etc). If a regulator has to succeed, and if self-regulation has to be effective, Consultants who have gained the confidence of their clientele (through demonstrative self – representation figures based on practice platform) & those who invest in the profession has to be part of the process. Today, it is just the opposite. People who talk a lot, belittle others, threaten others, those who have little or no experience, with no reasonable self-representation rates, and investment into the profession are those who lead. Therefore, overall representation rates are down, poor training and other contributing factors are pulling down the profession. Mr. Murray, you are the current CEO in ICCRC and if you have been professionally recruited, you would have been told that your role is to ensure Increased Representation Rates through professional client services leading to client satisfaction and overall credibility of the profession. During the hiring process, you must have been provided the data of how client representation figures (Page 26) in this industry are going down over the past few years. You must also have received the data showing you that in 2018, people using an RCIC is less likely to be successful with their application than one using a fake or self-represented. I feel it is your job to reverse this trend through good and powerful regulation.

Is there corruption in ICCRC among board members, individuals of complaints department and the “men and women” who control ICCRC?.

Latifa EL-GHANDOURI: Latifa is an RCIC who had a contract with my organization. A simple contract where she came to India to represent clients who wanted representation with the Quebec process. She was responsible for all her expenses (as per the contract), and there was no agreed upon exclusivity for Quebec with her organization and mine. On her return from India, the Quebec program closed soon after and she was therefore not able to represent any clients. Over a year and a half later, she ran for the ICCRC board and won the election to be a board member. The day she won the elections, she sent me an email demanding over $3000 to cover expenses of her Indian trip indicating this: As you must be aware, I am a respected member of this profession and it is in our best interest that we part on friendly terms (Page 18) possibly indicating she has the support of the influential people in ICCRC. I see it as corruption and immediately filed a complaint with the complaints dept of ICCRC.  My complaint page 7 and her response page 9 are provided. My analysis page 11 of her response also is provided.

What did the ICCRC complaints department do? Instead of treating my complaint as a whistleblower complaint against a sitting Director of the regulator, ICCRC gave the director my past complaints (Privacy law violations) so that the director can provide her defense quoting my past complaints or court battles which I have had against clients who did not pay or fakes. Instead of taking ways to quell corruption, the complaints department supported and nurtured the “Director” Refer to paragraph 4 (Page 9) (marked IV in the response from Latifa), and after a few months threw out the complaint. They did not provide any reasoning even though the email sent by this elected “Director” was, without doubt, a textbook corruption incident (page 20) with no grey areas.

Latifa’s complaint response(Page 9): The response offered by Latifa to the complaint I filed had little to do with why she made the demand, but her response was vague offering “hypotheticals”, words to discredit me, threats for legal action, her popularity among colleagues, dishonest statements and technicalities. Nothing to say why she asked for money after she got elected for an incident which happened over a year back. NOTHING! I believe this shows the cronyism and favoritism which goes on in ICCRC. An analysis (page 11) of her response also is provided.

Practice what you preach!

Board members in ICCRC are elected based on province! ICCRC elections should NOT be based on region or territory. The profession is without boundaries. How would province accept all ICCRC’s to represent provincial applications when the regulator themselves have their directors elected by Province? I had posted an opinion last November on the Association’s board “Are we consultants ready for self-regulation” (Page 19)

Measure your performance through overall Representation Rates! Page 26 NOT with RCIC membership rates. It is counterproductive if the figures are going in the opposite direction.

As a regulator, you protect clients. If people you associate yourself with are corruption, support cronyism and indulge in misinformation, how can the client’s trust your team? How can ordinary RCIC’s like me trust your team? Is it surprising representation rates are falling? Is it surprising that client confidence is vanning? Is it surprising that RCIC’s participation in self-regulation is at the lowest point ever?

RCIC membership has grown tremendously over the past few years. The membership is very new, and care must be taken. This huge jump in membership has the following effect:

Please be professional:

Are elections fair? Elections held by the regulator are NOT fair. They favor a certain group I often refer to a few “white men and women” group. Members are abusive, disregard personal opinions, attack RCIC’s if they feel threatened by what is said and discourage participation. Last year’s (2017) election was marred by an email sent by ICCRC to its members’ (page 27) asking them to vote for a certain group of individuals. This is what many newer members felt. Even though the email ID did not have the ICCRC email ID, it has something close to it. Many newer members thought that the email was from ICCRC and followed the instructions. That is a shame.  If this email was not by ICCRC, then did ICCRC take action against members who sent it? Did ICCRC disclose and warn its members against such email? How did this group obtain email addresses (current database) of members? Also, what is the point in voting when representation rates are not disclosed page 55? These are all questions that may be looked into.

Do not behave like a Ponzi scheme: The focus must be to increase Representation rates (clients seeking consultants to represent them). Unfortunately, over the years, representation rates have gone down page 26 (Data provided by IRCC), and even the success rate of people being represented are going down. This year, those representing themselves and those who use Fake Consultants will have a higher success rate than those being represented by an RCIC.  This is because ICCRC is ineffective and the structure and policies do not protect the client. The policies are made by those who do NOT fully understand the profession. Currently, it is my view that ICCRC is operating as a Ponzi scheme, focusing on adding a lot of new members with a promise of opportunity. The membership has more than quadrupled recently, but the public seeking representation has gone down considerably. It is a SHAME! I had disclosed these figures on the only association discussion board and nobody cares, NOBODY commented on such figures possibly because ICCRC may be shown in bad light. How are we going to improve when the obvious is not discussed and corrected?

Self-representation rates page 23: I have disclosed my representation rates as a way to introduce myself when someone asked me to “Get out” of the profession in the forum when I began the thread “Are we consultants ready for self-regulation” however, I realized that members were verbally disrespectful, and indulged in attacks and belittlement. It looks like everything about the profession is about “ripping off” the client to their bare bones. Hard for me to understand how someone can charge $500 an hour after doing a 1-year certificate program. Is this kind of a rip off sustainable? If you read the association discussions, this is the amount they are advised to charge clients, Being an immigrant, I do not have the right to be proud of what I do and if someone is having a little higher representation rates page 55, they are ridiculed and belittled by a few members. For some reason, certain members seem to be averse to even discussing self-representation rates which actually should be the foundation of any qualification for leadership in the profession. Especially for ICCRC, whose role is to protect the consumer. Who better to seek advice than those with a good, solid client following with high representation rates based on practice platform. There is not a single Hard Core consultant page 37 anywhere close to ICCRC or the board, and this is unfortunate!

I had created a post “Are we consultants ready for self-regulationPage 19 with the Association. I came to this discussion board to seek help in dealing with what I thought was corruption.  When one of the members asked me to “Get out”  I displayed my Representation figures Page 23. I thought this will be an introduction but it actually angered some. If you adopt a common-sense approach to regulation and you depend on RCIC’s, it is in your interest that you associate yourself with people who have high self-representation rates and those who invest in the profession. If your association with people is based on race, it is very unfortunate and sad. If you do not associate yourself with those who came up the ranks, which MUST include Individual Representation Rates, and Investment in the profession as well, you are possibly NOT going to get a good feel on the challenges the regulation is facing. Therefore you will be handicapped to come up with approaches on how to better regulate the profession. Today ICCRC associates itself with individuals based on race and cronyism and the platform attacks people who do a lot of sacrifice for the profession Page 55:

Here I have some response to some Senior Member’s Communication on the Association Forum: “Are we consultants ready for self-regulation?”. I have ignored most of the abusive content and have chosen to respond specifically to 3 individuals who stayed away from personal attacks, and belittlement.

To Phil Mooney I & II (Page 41, 43 & 45)

To Dory Jade (Page 47)

To Ali Amlani (Page 49)

Being a Mass Representation Consultant (Page 37), I have faced death threats from Fake consultants (Page 21)overseas, Overseas operations come with its own set of challenges. Today it is unfortunate that members indulge in slurs, belittlement and the abuse among themselves and I am disheartened. I waited for a year after that post on the Association website to write to you because of fear that I may write something out of impulse. Nothing has changed from a year ago. I have not spoken to any RCIC since that rather abusive response to a post on the Association website even though some RCIC’s are as close to me as my own family. When self-regulation came into play, I thought it was the best thing for the profession. I thought it will change the entire profession in a few years, but the profession has gone backward, Overall Representation rates have gone down because client confidence in the profession is down & participation is through boisterous talk rather than the actual performance in the profession through representation rates and investment in the profession. You can see that in the response to the complaint by Latifa, a sitting director of this profession.

NO action against FAKES! It is not rocket science to come up with a strategy against fake consultants, but you or the regulator has done nothing against them and you are in a way encouraging them by allowing them to become RCIC’s thereby legitimizing their past FAKE background. White collar crime among RCIC’s are on the rise, They indiscriminately appoint Agents and support Fakes.  I advertise and offer service at multiple locations in Canada and overseas and we are often the target of Fake Consultants (Page 21).  I have a lot more to add but would wait for your response.

I had notified the Immigration Minister’s office when I faced the insults and ridicule for seeking help in quelling corruption last November (2017) but had held off for a year to elaborate. A copy of this letter is being sent to the minister’s office. I hope you will find the time to clarify each of the points I have made in this document. My only goal is to do the right thing which could benefit this profession. Even though I have a lot more to add, I feel I have discussed enough in this communication.


My Thoughts(Page 20)