Accused of “flagrant and recurring negligence”, immigration consultant Maria Esposito is banned from her professional order, learned The duty. The Disciplinary Committee of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants of Canada (CCIC) ordered at the end of May the “immediate” revocation of the license to practice of this consultant, who had an office in Parc-Extension, in Montreal, and another in Ontario. The consultant will also have to pay $20,000 to her professional order in fines and investigation costs.
According to a survey published last April, The duty had collected a dozen incriminating testimonies which echoed the thirteen complaints filed against her before her professional order. He was accused of failing to file immigration applications assigned to him, of failing to meet prescribed deadlines and of failing to communicate the decisions rendered to his clients. One such complaint was filed by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) itself.
Given the seriousness of the alleged breaches, Ms.me Esposito was immediately suspended in early August 2022. CICA concluded that this suspension was necessary to protect the public.
Several people who testified on condition of anonymity told the Duty the nightmare that this immigration consultant had caused them, whose clientele came mainly from the Indo-Pakistani community of Montreal. In addition to having to pay large sums in cash without even having a contract, these asylum seekers complained that they had no follow-up on their file. Some have claimed that M.me Esposito had done nothing at all. Result ? Many of them thus found themselves without status.
Serious shortcomings
Dated May 30, 2023, the Discipline Committee’s decision stems from an agreement between College representatives and Maria Esposito, who admitted certain facts in a statement signed in mid-May, nine months after the suspension of her license. The consultant notably admitted to having “failed in her duties”, poorly communicated and “provided a deficient, negligent and completely irresponsible representation to her clients”. She also admitted not having respected deadlines and not having been “honest and frank in advising her clients”.
In her statement, she admits several breaches that took place between August 2021 and April 2022 in relation to some sixty asylum application files that should have been appealed. In these files, Mr.me Esposito failed to file notices of appeal, as requested by its clients, and to file all documents required for such appeals. The consultant even failed to respect the time extensions she had herself requested in certain files.
Indeed, in December 2021, Maria Esposito had admitted to the Appeal Division of the IRB that she was experiencing certain problems, in particular due to an employee “who had not done his job well”. She had asked to reopen or extend the time to appeal in more than 45 files (out of 63 in total) where she had failed in her duties. Even there, M.me Esposito failed to respect the extension granted in almost half of the cases “exposing his clients to severe consequences, including the rejection of their appeals and making them liable to be removed from Canada”, can we read in the decision.
Moreover, 36 appeal files neglected by Mr.me Esposito were rejected and of these, five asylum seekers received a deportation notice. However, they will have a second chance to be heard.
An “appropriate” sentence
The members of the jury noted certain organizational problems with the consultant and observed deficient bookkeeping. “Mme Esposito did not communicate important updates to its customers about missed deadlines and did not maintain a system to record call dates and deadlines for those customers. »
The number of clients involved, the respondent’s lack of diligence and the violation of numerous provisions of the code lead to the reasonable conclusion that revocation is the appropriate sanction.
The foreman of the jury indicated that the penalty, being the revocation of Ms.me Esposito, is appropriate in the circumstances and that it adequately meets the need for “general deterrence” for all members. “In reaching this conclusion, I took into account the large number of clients affected with serious repercussions on their refugee status. The number of clients involved, the Respondent’s lack of diligence, and the violation of numerous provisions of the code lead to the reasonable conclusion that removal is the appropriate sanction,” he wrote in the ruling.
The consultant having voluntarily admitted the charges against her, there will be no hearing before the College Disciplinary Committee. By mid-June, however, Maria Esposito has the obligation to return her College membership card and provide a sworn statement in which she claims to have informed all her clients that she can no longer practice her profession.
It also has the duty to provide its clients who request it with their entire file. In certain appeal files, she will have to pay any necessary reimbursement that the College will require of her. Finally, she has 90 days to pay a $10,000 fine and an additional $10,000 in investigation costs and legal fees. Asked to comment, Maria Esposito did not call back The duty.