Recommended disposition
Misrepresentation exposure (IRPA s.40): two material items — an unsupported skilled-experience claim and undisclosed personal history (the Schedule A gap + the prior refusal) — would, if filed, expose the applicant to a 5-year inadmissibility bar and the consultant to a CICC complaint. Cure or remove before the IMM 5476 is signed; do not file as submitted.
Export audit trail (PDF)
Generate file-readiness memo (stub)
Accept / override flags
Audit drawer (on click): Source = NOC 2021 — the reference-letter duties map to TEER 2, not the claimed TEER 1, and hours/week are omitted (an IRCC reference-letter requirement). The CRS points that depend on the claimed skilled experience are therefore unsupported, and the overstated experience is itself the classic material misrepresentation. Recommendation: do not file — re-document to the actual NOC/hours or remove the claim, then recompute.
Why self-hosted (the wedge): the whole file — passports, financials, medicals, refusal history — is reviewed on the consultant's Canadian-resident box (ca-box, OVHcloud Beauharnois, Quebec). Nothing touches a US multi-tenant cloud; under Quebec Law 25 §17 a Quebec-resident box removes the cross-border-transfer PIA every SaaS competitor triggers, and CICC Code §28 makes client confidentiality perpetual. This screen is the adversarial pre-filing review layer of the immigration box — the box does the intake / CRS / forms / portal; this layer interrogates the finished file before it is filed ("is your application IRCC-AI-proof?"). It augments the consultant's case-management tool, it does not replace it.
Pre-filing review — this practice
41%
of 118 files reviewed YTD required a cure or carried a misrepresentation flag before filing — the audit-ready record the CICC (and any IRCC procedural-fairness response) expects, and that solo practices keep in email and memory.
Bars = files flagged per month · amber = above the practice's threshold.