Procedural Fairness: Conjugal partners
- Thread starter Kaila
- Start date
Okay. My best guess is that this is a somewhat-routine PFL based on the fact that your spouse left and clearly does not fit the definition of the inland class under which she applied. (Leaving aside for the time being that you did too). Quite likely IRCC simply looked up her entry/visa/etc info and were informed that she'd left the country. (You did know that was likely, yes?)
Separately from the main question, she should do biometrics and medical - asap - and submit info about doing that to IRCC.
Assuming that the event (your father passing, condolences of course) happened after you applied, I'd just lay the cards out - respond with a letter of explanation and tell the truth, possibly offering to withdraw the app, noting the death of father. Include the information about father passing. I personally don't see a reason to be concerned about misrepresentation in this instance. Your app might still get refused (or you decide to withdraw) but can re-apply later without prejudice.
If your father passed before you applied, that raises the possibility that you applied with the intent of departing only shortly after and leaving for an indefinite period. Which would make her ineligible to be sponsored, and you ineligible to sponsor. And if they wished to treat this as misrepresentation, I believe they could.
And if that's true: bluntly - get a lawyer. While the individual thing here may not be that big a deal, that would make at least three times in this short thread that you've left out important details, evaded an answer to a direct question, and even after this being pointed out, once again left out the bit about the father passing beforehand. If you handle this on your own, you've got a risk of making things worse by doing the same with IRCC. Seriously - even if your intent is to be open, I suggest you are not a good judge of what types of omission of information will be seen as significant.
And if you think I got annoyed, I don't suggest seeing how IRCC officers might react.
I think according to what Downtown_YYZ Guy posted earlier, they likely left in May/June and planned to stay outside most of the PR processing time.
Last edited:
yep. And if that was the intent, that would or could be misrepresentation.
I also think the he applied under "family class" not spouse or common-law partner in Canada class. (if he is specific with the term he used in the post)
But as a PR, he should be living in Canada to sponsor his spouse. It's likely that IRCC is question him not living in Canada but failed to update his current address (5 -6 months is too long to consider a "vacation").
He can either come back and update IRCC with the truth and hope that the application will continue to be processed. Or leave the application to be refused and reapply after they returned to Canada. (hopefully he is still a new PR and will continue to meet his RO to sponsor his spouse)
But as a PR, he should be living in Canada to sponsor his spouse. It's likely that IRCC is question him not living in Canada but failed to update his current address (5 -6 months is too long to consider a "vacation").
He can either come back and update IRCC with the truth and hope that the application will continue to be processed. Or leave the application to be refused and reapply after they returned to Canada. (hopefully he is still a new PR and will continue to meet his RO to sponsor his spouse)
Thanks for your responses - couple of clarifications
1.Father Passed after we went there. Infact he was there for a month after we wet there in the hospitals etc. so did not think about address updates
2. Spouse did not apply under -Inland class. We applied under Family class . The reason we applied under family class was we knew my spouse cant stay longer than 6 months in Canada ( she is here on a visa ) so I doubt how it would constitute a misrepresentation.
1.Father Passed after we went there. Infact he was there for a month after we wet there in the hospitals etc. so did not think about address updates
2. Spouse did not apply under -Inland class. We applied under Family class . The reason we applied under family class was we knew my spouse cant stay longer than 6 months in Canada ( she is here on a visa ) so I doubt how it would constitute a misrepresentation.
Your spouse could extend her stay in Canada before her visitor status expires. But regardless, it has nothing to do with the current condition since both of you are outside.
Correct- however IRCC is not questioning me yet. It just sent a letter to my spouse and she will reply with all our current address details . I was only worried about the misrepresentation part. Re applying we can do when we return to Canada
though irrelevant now- we didnt plan to stay for 6 months as we thought to return in a couple months
1. That makes things much more explicable. I retract the points I'd made in that context.
2. Your spouse could have applied for visa extension but I gather you did not know that. At any rate, good you did not apply under family class, so I don't see an issue there - just own up to it.
I do not on the face of it see a case for misrepresentation. But of course, I'm not a lawyer.
You may run into the issue with your sponsorship; I'd own up to your absence. But they may just be compassionate given the circumstances.
From things they've done with a file or two here before, they may just 'pause' your app until you return. When you do return, make sure to inform IRCC.
Many Thanks for your inputs kind internet strangers . I apologize to hijack this thread - have a good day
I suggest it would be better to be upfront and note that you are both there.
Thanks after taking the medicals today my wife would update my address along with her address+ medical and biometric details.
This is the point where your explanation that you had to return to your home country because of your father and then by events (estate, etc) kept you longer would have most effect - they will know you are away, may as well give a reason.
Similar threads
