Skip to content


  • by

How Cronyism thrives, How an “Association” recruits, How corrupt individuals are rewarded. We will explore the corrupt practices of this individual who has little or NO “Representation Rates”, whose investment into the profession before she occupied positions is very questionable and whose understanding of this profession can be challenged. Let us explore FACTS. You will know it all!

Mr Stephen is the contributor for this post. He is a senior Immigration Consultant since 1993.

Let us now analyze how a crony-based regulator will support their corrupt cronies, and corruption is endorsed, encouraged and rewarded.

Latifa is an Immigration Consultant with little or no Representation rates, investment in the profession or knowledge and understanding of one of the oldest professions in the world. She is a corny of the Association CAPIC which recruits candidates based on their support of their CEO (Crony based). In other words, anyone who supports a set group of people who has hijacked this profession is rewarded. Evidence of how Latifa EL-GHANDOURI was corrupt and she is everything this profession is NOT about.

Mr Stephen who has provided us details of this incident had done everything in his power to seek assistance with this incident and he has listed some below. He was bullied into submission.

  1. He complained to ICCRC who made a mockery of the entire regulation process.
  2. He sought assistance from the “Association” but was ridiculed, insulted and asked to leave the profession
  3. He has since approached the Ministers office

This release will have the entire incident and will comprise of two different components. The first will be a non-evidentiary (based on complaints of people who Ms. Latifa trained) and the second component which is evidence-based which shows corruption. This is a textbook corruption incident where there are no “misunderstandings”.  

Non-Evidentiary Component: When Latifa EL-GHANDOURI went to India, the terms of the contract were that she will sign the retainer with her clients (sourced through the firm of Mr Stephen) and then pay Mr Stephen for his portion of advertising and generating interest. Mr Stephen does not collect retainer fees or need to pay Ms Latifa EL-GHANDOURI in any way. The contract explicitly specifies that NO expenses of an RCIC can be charged by the other RCIC. The contract was signed by Ms Latifa EL-GHANDOURI. During her visit to India, Ms Latifa EL-GHANDOURI did very little to convince clients and promote Quebec as a destination. Instead, she focussed on self-promotion (just as what we see in ICCRC and CAPIC). She promoted herself to her support team in Mr Stephen’s office as someone who has “substantial influence” with the Quebec Government and the Quebec Immigration Department where she can get “things done” and therefore wanted her Indian support team (Mr Stephen’s staff members) to take in “any type of client” and she can “get it through”. Immediately after Ms Latifa EL-GHANDOURI left, there were a lot of issues and Mr Stephen had to solve them. The local manager threatened to resign because they know if they took “anybody” without evaluation, then, things won’t be OK and their safety would be threatened (Overseas locations in developing countries need to be handled with absolute honesty). Mr Stephen had to intervene and asked his employees to follow previous evaluation platforms or wait for the Quebec Website to release information.

Evidentiary component: This section provides evidence on the corrupt ICCRC Director Ms Latifa EL-GHANDOURI, it also shows to an extent how the crony system works with the “Association” & the “Regulator”. The following document is a testament to that:

  1. Ms Latifa EL-GHANDOURI demanded money claiming “travel expenses” almost 2 years later after she was elected into the board of ICCRC. She introduced something very strange in her communication as well: “I understand you may have been disappointed that I cannot change my client retainer agreement to suit your needs. Had you been clear you expected me to be liable in India from day one, it would have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble.”. This link provides the communication from Ms Latifa EL-GHANDOURI and the response in red ink
  2. Mr Stephen was aghast and surprised and responded appropriately
  3. Mr Stephen filed a complaint with ICCRC because he saw the corrupt intent.
  4. Response from Latifa to the complaint provided NO reason why the demand was made and the response from Latifa EL-GHANDOURI only focussed in discrediting the complainant. This was endorsed by ICCRC and the complaint was never taken up. Latifa’s response was further countered by Mr Stephen’s response.
  5. Mr Stephen then sought the assistance of the so-called “Association” but the system was not meant for support. He was insulted, verbally attacked and the response from the CEO of CAPIC was “I don’t want to look into it, please go to the courts”. Mr Stephen believed an Association (CAPIC) was supposed to take care of issues members have, but not this association (CAPIC). (In the linked document, the response by Mr Stephen to Mr Dory Jade, the CEO of CAPIC is mentioned in Red ink).

Anybody has taken money from the Membership pot (in other words, if they are paid for work by ICCRC), have a fundamental obligation to follow fair practices and MUST refrain from Lying, Deception and Corruption. Anybody who indulges in such activities must be exposed with evidence!