It is a fact not widely known - having a visa in the passport does not automatically mean that holder can cross the border and enter Canada. Immigration and border service authorities have right to deny entry in certain circumstances and they use this right in numerous occasions like this one.

In November of 2008 an applicant received the permanent resident visas for herself and her family in Singapore. She was awarded selection points based on a variety of factors, including the offer of employment from a Canadian company. Just days later the immigration officer assigned to her case was informed that this company offered employment for another foreign applicant as well, and this applicant paid thousands of dollars for the offer.

Taking into account this fact the immigration officer decided to interview the applicant (who already had visas issued to her family) to address this concern. He called the applicant immediately and requested that she attend the interview to answer some questions. They arranged a meeting, but on the day of the interview the applicant did not appear. On the same day, after several unsuccessful attempts to reach the applicant by phone, the immigration officer decided to revoke her visas based on certain provisions of the immigration law. This was done the same day, and immediately written notification was sent to the applicant by registered mail.

Later it was discovered, that the applicant purchased flight tickets for the day following the interview date and left to Canada with her family members. In the Canadian airport all of them were stopped at the border, and further investigation initiated.

In February of 2010 the decision was made by the Federal Court, dismissing applicant's claims and thus approving the decisions of the immigration authorities. There are more details in the minutes of the court, showing how circumstances may affect the immigration process and officers' decisions even on the very last stages. Nothing is said if the offer of employment was genuine of not in this case, but in fact it was the applicant herself whose injudicious actions led to such deplorable consequences.

More info on this case can be found here: