| Sufian Ahmed | R406543 | Mississauga, ON | TBA | CD.2022.512 | The RCIC created a scheme where the client was convinced there was a problem with their immigration status and offered a solution of large retainer for a specialized lawyer. The RCIC instructed the client to deposit the retainer into the RCIC's personal account and impersonated the specialized lawyer over the phone. The RCIC misrepresented on their annual declaration by deliberately miscategorising their criminal charges and convictions and attempted to mislead the College. The RCIC suggested the criminal charges and convictions were as a result of a personal, family matters when the charges and conviction were directly related to the RCIC’s immigration consulting practice. |
| Marty Baram | R506879 | Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2021.491 | The RCIC breached the Retainer Agreement Regulation, specifically in relation to the refund provisions contained in the service agreement. The RCIC signed a service agreement that contained a restrictive refund policy, permitting refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or staff and requiring a $500 cancellation fee if terminated by the client. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement identified concerns, including: the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. |
| Marty Baram | R506879 | Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2022.200-1 | The RCIC breached their obligations of professionalism and good faith. Despite not providing immigration services under the retainer, they refused to refund any retainer funds to the client and further required a cancellation fee as a condition of terminating the retainer. The RCIC failed to maintain a direct relationship with their client and failed to properly supervise their staff. Despite signing the service agreement, the RCIC never communicated with the client. Several staff members worked on the client’s file, some of whom were not licensed at the relevant time. Those non-licensees provided immigration advice and/or immigration services to the client . The RCIC breached the Retainer Agreement Regulation, specifically in relation to the refund provisions contained in the service agreement. The RCIC signed a service agreement that contained a restrictive refund policy, permitting refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or staff and requiring a $500 cancellation fee if terminated by the client. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. Despite not providing services, the RCIC refused to refund any retainer funds. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement identified concerns, including: the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. |
| Marty Baram | R506879 | Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2022.375-1 | The RCIC failed to provide competent and diligent services. The RCIC failed to submit the client's College diploma to IRCC with their permanent residence application, leading to the refusal of the application. The RCIC breached their obligations of integrity, professionalism, and good faith. Despite knowing the client's diploma was not submitted, the RCIC denied any wrongdoing and falsely informed the client that the refusal resulted from an unclear copy of the diploma. This explanation was contradicted by IRCC’s refusal letter and the RCIC later acknowledged, in response to this complaint, that they knew the diploma had not been submitted. When the client requested a refund, the RCIC argued with them and refused to refund the retainer fees. The RCIC was unprofessional and dismissive in their communications with the client. The RCIC failed to properly supervise their staff. The client dealt almost exclusively with the company employees rather than the RCIC themself, despite the RCIC having signed the service agreement. The constant reassignment of the file and the lack of direct oversight contributed to repeated errors, miscommunication, and neglect. The PR application was reviewed and uploaded not by the RCIC, but by staff. Emails show an employee RCIC made amendments and directed unlicensed staff member, to upload the application. The omission of the diploma, leading to the refusal of the application, is therefore attributable to unsupervised and unauthorized practice. The RCIC further engaged in improper refund practices. The service agreement restricted refunds solely to cases of error or omission. The RCIC also accepted retainer funds before providing any services and did not provide invoices after services were rendered or an accounting of services provided. The required required immigration services were not provided and the RCIC refused to refund the ciient's retainer fees. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. The RCIC issued a receipt one day before the retainer agreement was signed and before any services had been provided. The RCIC refused to return the retainer money to the client. |
| Marty Baram | R506879 | Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2022.591 | The RCIC failed to provide competent and diligent services to the client. The client's work permit extension application was not submitted before it expired but instead an incorrect application pursuing visitor status restoration was submitted resulting in the client loosing their status. Despite an admission of error a staff member; the RCIC denied any wrongdoing. The RCIC also attempted to condition the provision of a refund on the client signing a document waiving their right to file a complaint or pursue legal action. When the licent refused, the RCIC argued with him and refused to refund the retainer fees. "The RCIC failed to properly supervise their staff members. The client dealt almost exclusively with the RCIC's employees rather than with the RCIC and despite the RCIC having signed the retainer agreement. The repeated reassignment of the client's file contributed to errors, miscommunication, and neglect, including the mishandling of their work permit and restoration applications, which ultimately caused the client to lose legal status and the ability to work. The RCIC engaged in improper refund practices. The RCIC conditioned the issuance of any refund on the client's execution of a full release waiving all complaint and legal rights, while continuing to deny wrongdoing despite the staff’s admission of error. The service agreement itself restricted refunds solely to cases of error or omission by the company. Notwithstanding companies' failure to provide the contracted immigration services, the RCIC refused to refund the client's retainer fees. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement entered into as part of the VRP identified concerns, including the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. Despite not providing services, the RCIC refused to refund the retainer money to their client. |
| Marty Baram | R506879 | Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2024.711406-3 | The RCIC breached the Retainer Agreement Regulation, specifically in relation to the refund provisions contained in the service agreement. The RCIC signed a service agreement that contained a restrictive refund policy, permitting refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or staff and requiring a $500 cancellation fee if terminated by the client. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement identified concerns, including: the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. The RCIC submitted a visitor restoration application on behalf of the client but did not submit the work permit application. The RCIC refused to refund the retainer funds, or even part of the retainer funds. The RCIC also failed to provide an accounting showing services provided and total billing of services. The RCIC failed to provide the client with an initial retainer agreement for the consultation and, later, accepted retainer funds before executing the retainer agreement. The RCIC acknowledged that the initial retainer “was unfortunately missed. |
| Marty Baram | R506879 | Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2024.770183 | The RCIC failed to provide competent and diligent services to the client. The client was informed they were eligible to apply for permanent residency through a Temporary Public Policy stream. This advice was incorrect. An employee RCIC had previously informed the client that they were ineligible for permanent residency because their institution was not PGWP-eligible. The Respondent’s firm pursued an application under the Temporary Public Policy, which was ultimately refused. The RCIC’s failure to properly supervise staff contributed an error. The client's dealings were primarily with employees rather than the RCIC themself, even though the RCIC signed the service agreement. The file was reassigned multiple times among staff, which resulted in recurring mistakes, miscommunication, and neglect, including the above error resulting in the refusal of the client's permanent residence application. The RCIC breached their obligations of integrity, professionalism, and good faith in their dealings with the client. Despite an admission of error by their staff member, employee RCIC and the RCIC continued to deny wrongdoing. The RCIC also failed to refund the retainer funds and raised their voice at the client during a meeting, demonstrating a lack of professionalism and accountability. The RCIC engaged in improper refund practices. The service agreement contained restrictive refund provisions that permitted refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or their staff and imposed a $500 cancellation fee if the client terminated the agreement. Such terms are in breach of the Retainer Agreement Regulation and other applicable provisions. The RCIC further failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. Despite submitting the client's application under the wrong stream, resulting in its refusal, they still failed to return the retainer funds. |
| Carl Mark Benito | R515855 | Edmonton, AB | Urgent Motion for Interim Suspension: September 14| 2018; 12 PM (ET) | CD.2018.317 | Counselled and assisted clients in misrepresenting their financial status for the purpose of obtaining SPs; employed a foreign national without a WP; failed to serve a client risking potential deportation. |
| Syed Afaq Hussain Bukhari | R507818 | Maple Ridge, BC | TBA | CD.2020.270 | The RCIC failed to register an agent and knowingly assisted or induced the agent to engage in immigration services or advice with clients. The RCIC failed to make or retain a retainer agreement for the client and failed to communicate with the client, relying entirely on their unauthorized agent and/or staff to conduct communications and provide advice. The RCIC failed to maintain an accounting of funds received or services provided. The RCIC communicated directly with the client after the complaint was made, and negotiated an affidavit in exchange for withdrawing the complaint, without obtaining the written consent of the ICCRC. |
| Syed Afaq Hussain Bukhari | R507818 | Maple Ridge, BC | TBA | CD.2023.784 | The RCIC used unregistered agents and unauthorized staff to recruit clients, provide incompetent immigration advice, manage files without adequate supervision, and failed to communicate directly with clients. The RCIC charged the employee for the LMIA application on behalf of the employer. The RCIC failed to keep a separate file for its work on behalf of the employer and failed to disclose the conflict of interest. The RCIC tied charges to the approval of the LMIA; charged and received money without submitting any immigration application on the employee's behalf and withdrew those funds from the client account despite not providing services or earning the fees. The RCIC also failed to retain the Retainer Agreement, failed to provide an accounting to the employee following the termination of their retainer and failed to refund any funds not earned during the retainer. |
| Vipan Kumar Datta | R409567 | Surrey, BC | TBA | CD.2022.367 | The RCIC is subject to civil forfeiture proceedings against them from July 26, 2022 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. |
| Ripudaman S Dhillon | R409799 | Brampton, ON | TBA | CD.2014.238 | Provided incorrect assurances of eligibility for first application; when clients were found ineligible| demanded higher fees for additional applications without providing explanations. |
| Ripudaman S Dhillon | R409799 | Brampton, ON | TBA | CD.2015.504 | Failed to update client about letter from CIC and to explain what work was completed on the file. |
| Ripudaman S Dhillon | R409799 | Brampton, ON | TBA | CD.2015.346 | Refused to refund fees and required client to file additional applications; failed to file application on time| to account for fees| and to return client files. |
| Ripudaman S Dhillon | R409799 | Brampton, ON | TBA | CD.2016.058 | Guaranteed client a work permit and failed to notify client he would have to pass a trade program examination; failed to provide a Retainer Agreement. |
| Ravinder Gandhi | R706873 | Brampton, ON | TBA | CD.2024.201, CD.2025.1030710, CD.2025.1079538, CD.2025.1122095 | The RCIC engaged in allegations including quasi-criminal conduct in the form of submitting falsified documents to government officials on behalf of clients. The RCIC failed to report two contraventions of the Ontario Immigration Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 8; job selling, misleading clients, acting on behalf of clients without their authorization, and significant quality of service issues. |
| Razgar Hasan | R411743 | Brampton, Ontario | TBA | CD.2025.876391, CD.2025.1036547, CD.2025.1074701 | The RCIC has been criminally charged with possession and distribution of child pornography which occurred during their practice as an RCIC. The RCIC failed notify the College Registrar of the criminal charges within 30 days, but did not do so until their annual mandatory declaration. |
| Razgar Hasan | R411743 | Brampton, Ontario | TBA | CD.2025.1046385, CD.2024.758871, CD.2025.1079971, CD.2025.1131434, CD.2025.1148358, CD.2025.1153057, CD.2025.1153145 | The RCIC duplicated and fabricated evidence submitted to the IRB on behalf of clients. The RCIC obtained signatures on blank forms; failed to have documents properly translated and coerced and threatened clients. |
| Gurpreet Singh Khaira | R413175 | Brampton, ON | Case Management Conference: October 12| 2016 | CD.2016.212 | Failed to advise client about government service fee leading to application refusal. |
| Kamalpreet Singh Khaira | R413167 | Brampton, ON | TBA | CD.2023.116 | The RCIC was involved in a CBSA Information to Obtain (ITO) as a result of an allegation of the existence of an arrangement whereby the agricultural businesses located in Prince Edward Island created a scheme to defraud foreign workers by charging large sums of money for jobs which did not exist. The ITO describes how the conduct of these businesses may have constituted a misrepresentation or withholding of material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced an error in the administration of the IRPA, thereby committing an offence under section 127(a) of the IRPA and may have constituted an offence under section 124(l)(c) of the IRPA, employing a foreign national without the required authority. This same alleged conduct, if proven, may also constitute a breach of the College’s Code of Professional Conduct. |
| Loujin Khalil | R522176 | Montreal, QC | TBA | CD.2022.568 | The RCIC engaged in conduct unbecoming by exploiting the client’s vulnerability and dependence, making unwanted romantic and sexual advances including non-consensual physical contact, and coercing the client by threatening to disclose private information to her family. The RCIC submitted immigration applications without the client’s knowledge or consent, included false statements harming the client’s husband, failed to properly communicate about applications, ceased work without justification, refused to refund unearned fees, and created a fake social media profile endangering the client’s family; the RCIC failed to act honestly, competently, and diligently, allowed personal interests to interfere with professional obligations, failed to keep the client informed, and engaged in unauthorized intimate conduct within one year of the professional relationship. |
| Loujin Khalil | R522176 | Montreal, QC | TBA | CD.2022.630 | The RCIC engaged in professional misconduct by accepting money from a client without issuing a receipt and failing to complete the agreed-upon immigration services for the client’s brother, including not providing regular updates or informing the client when the Expression of Interest was not selected. The RCIC advised the provision of false or misleading information on immigration applications and coached the brother to misrepresent his experience during interviews; the RCIC ceased communication despite repeated requests, refused to issue a refund, and permitted unprofessional conduct by staff including threats of police involvement. |
| Loujin Khalil | R522176 | Montreal, QC | TBA | CD.2023.453 | The RCIC engaged allegations including failing to attend a scheduled hearing at the IRB, neglecting to prepare the client for the hearing, not submitting required documents to support the client’s refugee claim, and failing to secure alternative representation for the client. The RCIC is also accused of prioritizing another proceeding over the client’s case, addressing the client in a language not understood by the tribunal, and filing complaints against tribunal members without substantively addressing the allegations against them. |
| Loujin Khalil | R522176 | Montreal, QC | TBA | CD.2023.550 | The RCIC engaged in allegations including failure to obtain the required L3 license to represent a client before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), missing critical deadlines, lack of communication with the client, refusal to refund fees for incomplete services, and failure to fulfill professional obligations as outlined in the Retainer Agreement. |
| Loujin Khalil | R522176 | Montreal, QC | TBA | CD.2023.640 | The RCIC engaged in allegations by fees for a refugee claim from a vulnerable client, doubling the retainer fee, and then failing to provide services, updates or communication. The RCIC reportedly responded to a refund demand with insults. |
| Loujin Khalil | R522176 | Montreal, QC | TBA | D.2023.809 | The RCIC engaged in allegations including accepting fees for a retainer to represent a refugee claimant while unauthorized to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), subsequently misrepresenting their licensing status to the client and their staff. The RCIC failed to fulfill their professional obligations of honesty and competence, leaving the client without qualified counsel for the hearing and refusing to issue a refund despite delivering no quality services. |
| Loujin Khalil | R522176 | Montreal, QC | TBA | CD.2023.876 | The RCIC engaged in allegations including repeatedly failing to disclose serious criminal proceedings and subsequent convictions to the College during their 2023, 2024, and 2025 annual renewals. Despite their 2025 guilty pleas for assault causing bodily harm, theft, and mischief; resulting in a 90-day intermittent prison sentence and two years of strict probation; the RCIC maintained that they had no obligation to report these matters, leading to allegations that they breached their duty of honesty and candour. |
| Mumtaz Ali Khan | R413223 | Delta, BC | TBA | CD.2025.879114 | The RCIC engaged in multiple instances of fraud and forgery, and recidivism (the latter due to the improper use of a lawyer’s credentials). As a result of the RCIC’s repeated use of allegedly falsified medical notes in “change of date and time” (CDT) applications, the IRB ordered that the RCIC shall not apply to postpone any IRB proceeding based on their client’s health, the IRB will not schedule new hearings in which the RCIC is acting as a representative and the order shall continue until the IRB completes its review of the RCIC's conduct. |
| Rishi Kumar Mittal | R415759 | Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2024.834695, CD.2024.816836, CD.2023.556-2, CD.2023.949, CD.2023.907, CD.2023.903, CD.2023.549, | The RCIC engaged in job selling, charging exorbitant fees, misleading clients, forgery, threats of legal action, deportation threats and personal harm. In many of the complaints involving job selling, the RCIC is alleged to have deployed fraudulent means, including misrepresenting the client’s qualifications to immigration officials, creating fake employment positions, and fake job offers. |
| Wissam Qita | R511653 | Mississauga, ON | TBA | CD.2018.162 et. al. | The RCIC was charged with a Criminal offence. The RCIC had refugees fund the costs of their own settlement| contrary to the intention of the program. |
| Laura Mariana Santos | R507390 | North York, ON | Case Management Conference: August 12, September 23, 2024 | CD.2020.076 | As a result of the RCIC's incompetence the RCIC's clients were denied procedural fairness before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The RCIC failed to comply with the RAD rule regarding submission of evidence, failed to provide updated evidnece to the RAD, and failed to address the main issue in the written submissions. |
| Laura Mariana Santos | R507390 | North York, ON | Case Management Conference: August 12, September 23, 2024 | CD.2019.003 | The RCIC submitted immigration applications with several errors resulting in the withdrawal of the application. Multiple applications were denied because of the RCIC failed to add all of the required credentials to the applications or by providing the incorrect information. The RCIC failed to effectively communicate with the complainant while being retained. The RCIC demanded the complainant to sign a new retainer agreement on the condition of whether the complainant receives their Province of Ontario nomination. The RCIC delayed preparing the complainant's work permit application resulting in the complainant being denied by the visa officer. In addition, the RCIC did not provide the required information for the complainant's employer number. The complainant followed the RCIC's instructions on various actions resulting in the loss of money and denied permanent residency application. The RCIC failed to provide the complainant with a final statement of account. |
| Laura Mariana Santos | R507390 | North York, ON | Case Management Conference: August 12, September 23, 2024 | CD.2023.594 | Without a valid work permit, the RCIC allowed the complainant to work for a company where the RCIC is a director. While being retained, the RCIC provided the complainant with incorrect immigration advice and counselled the complainant in lying to the CSBA officers. The RCIC told the complainant that they can re-enter Canada without a valid visa and counselled the complainant to lie about having adequate funds in their account by loaning them $3,000. The RCIC failed to communicate with the complainant in a timely manner. Lastly, the RCIC witheld the complainant's salary, using the sum of the salary to partially pay for the $3,000 loan. |
| Laura Mariana Santos | R507390 | North York, ON | Case Management Conference: August 12, September 23, 2024 | CD.2022.446 | The RCIC failed to adequately communicate with the complainant throughout the retainer agreement. The RCIC failed to advise the complainant of the outcome of their application and manipulated the IRCC letter resulting in the refusal for spousal sponsorship. The RCIC failed to provide the complainant with a hard copy of the IRCC's refusal letter and to inform the complainant of the IRCC's refusal. |
| Laura Mariana Santos | R507390 | North York, ON | Case Management Conference: August 12, September 23, 2024 | CD.2021.395 | The RCIC provided the complainant with an unsigned copy of the retainer agreement. The RCIC performed a service not referenced in the retainer agreement. The RCIC failed to supervise staff and made errors in regards to the expiry of express entry resulting in the EE profile expiring and lost the opportunity to be chosen to apply for permanent residency. The RCIC failed to advise the complainant that an employee working on their profile was no longer employed by the RCIC. The RCIC billed the complainant for work permit extension despite the services not being listed on the retainer agreement or on the RCIC's invoice. The RCIC failed to provide the complainant with invoices and a final account statement. |
| Laura Mariana Santos | R507390 | North York, ON | Case Management Conference: August 12, September 23, 2024 | CD.2023.260 | The RCIC failed to properly supervise the staff resulting in employee failing to provide a submission receipt, confirmation of submisson or an application number to the complainant after confirming that their applications were submitted. The RCIC failed to communicate with complainant in a reasonable timeframe. After multiple inquiries within the following months, the RCIC provided the complainant with its application numbers and inaccuretaly stated that the application process was in order and progressing. The RCIC failed to advise the complainant in a timely manner of the IRCC decision. Lastly, the RCIC failed to provide the complainant with a final statement of account. |
| Mala L N Sharma-Singh | R533505 | Ramara, ON | TBA | CD.2023.093, CD.2023.138, CD.2023.688, CD.2023.964 CD.2023.972, CD.2023.986, CD.2024.222, CD.2024.22 | The RCIC engaged in job selling and otherwise charging fees for recruitment or employment prohibited by law. A client withdrew a previous complaint on the explicit instructions of the RCIC, while that complaint was being investigated. The RCIC made repeated contact with a client while a complaint was under investigation and interfered with the investigation. The RCIC accepted $80,000 in fees from a charity that was seeking to sponsor 29 Iraqi refugee families. After failing to complete work under the service agreement, the client sought to end the service agreement and sought a refund.The RCIC represented to the client that they had bribed an immigration official to expedite the processing of the refugee applications. The RCIC failed to execute or keep record of service agreements, failed to communicate with clients and/or communicate in an unprofessional manner with clients, misrepresented the status of files to clients, and failed to provide refunds for services not rendered. |
| Liping Wei | R509948 | Burnaby, BC | TBA | CD.2021.549 | The RCIC engaged in allegations including unlawful fee-charging, misrepresentation, inadequate service, improper financial practices, and significant regulatory non-compliance. The RCIC charged a client fees under a retainer agreement provided only in Chinese, for securing employment and for obtaining a positive LMIA which is prohibited charges under applicable employment-protection legislation, while also repeatedly collecting large instalments without issuing invoices. Throughout the representation, the RCIC provided misleading immigration advice, including advising the client to pursue ineligible pathways, misrepresenting program requirements, pressuring the client to enrol in a specific college program, and encouraging the client to falsify her employment history. The RCIC further arranged an LMIA and employment contract that did not meet BC PNP requirements, demanded payment before adding the client’s name to the LMIA, and failed to meaningfully address the client’s concerns regarding non-compliant work conditions, insufficient hours, or risks to their PR eligibility. The RCIC attempted to charge an additional fees for a work-permit renewal, refused to refund fees, and failed to disclose the resulting civil action to the College. During the College’s investigation, the RCIC failed to provide a complete client file, claimed it had been destroyed or returned, made statements demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge regarding invoices, client-account records, and mandatory English/French retainer requirements, denied providing recruitment services despite contractual terms and conduct, asserted fees were reasonable, and questioned the College’s authority to request records. The RCIC additionally disclosed confidential complaint information to a third-party employer and communicated with the client through counsel without appropriate consent. |