I understand but people who are telling the truth should be consider as long as the can produce papers that would explain that they made an honest mistake. Honest mistake and people who are trying to make fraudulent application should not be treated the same.
Misrepresentation on spousal sponsorship
- Thread starter LTL8605
- Start date
No, it seemed that you still didn't get it. There is no way for IRCC to tell who is telling the truth and who is not. The whole process is based on cause of probabilities. And they are fully depending on the materials that provided to them for review. If somehow, they cannot connect all the dots together, in your case that is the date you claimed as common law that against your application for your own PR, then they will raise the questions and conduct a further investigation, and on and on, till they collected all evidences that satisfied the requirements to refuse a case.
Will all fraudulent cases be caught? No, and quit some actually approved even faster than the real ones. But no system in this world is 100% accurate and absolutely fair. Regarding the part of telling truth (No offense), if you ask all criminals that if they are innocent or not, you bet most of them will tell you that they are innocent.
Hi, I lived with my roommate who became my wife for a few years before we applied for spousal sponsorship. She became pr while we were living together as roommate.
Cic asked for a relationship timeline letter, after we replied they approved her as sponsor and gave me aip.
We had proper documentation to prove we were just roommates before ( single on taxes, when we started sharing bills etc...)
All this just to say that like @Rob_TO said it, they only use the information you provided to them.
You should concentrate on explaining why you did submit a paper with the wrong date and hope they understand.
The problem being is that nearly everyone, whether they do it accidentally or on purpose say that it was an honest mistake. The onus is on you, the applicant to prove otherwise. As said previously, you have now submitted conflicting documentation and still it doesn't correctly address your original application. You have clearly documented (by accident or not) that you were common law before you landed. It's not up to IRCC to assume it was an accident and it would be irresponsible if they just let everyone who says it's an accident have a free pass.. It simply is wrong, based on the documents. Now you have to prove otherwise.
Nice to hear some positive comment here. i should have included my taxes too that proves i was single. i think i can easily prove about being single before i get my PR but the only problem is the date on the common law declaration which is really wrong. Anyway, i will just hope for the best.
If, just if you can appear, a verbally explanation definitely will not be enough to prove your case. So hope you know.
Well, i read again the letter from CIC and it didn't say anything about misrepresentation. It only say that i didn't meet the regulation 125(1)(d) therefore i'm not eligible to sponsor. As per my immigration agent, it is not misrepresentation. a false alarm 
You should fire your immigration agent immediately, because of his incompetent. You still didn't get the seriousness of your problem. Although the specific citation doesn't have the word of misrepresentation, and in fact, it is against your wife,Well, i read again the letter from CIC and it didn't say anything about misrepresentation. It only say that i didn't meet the regulation 125(1)(d) therefore i'm not eligible to sponsor. As per my immigration agent, it is not misrepresentation. a false alarm
(125 (1) A foreign national (your wife) shall not be considered a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class by virtue of their relationship to the sponsor if (d) subject to subsection (2), the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national (your wife) was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined.)
unless your wife, then your girlfriend, was listed as a non-accompany family member on your PR application, otherwise you are opening the door for IRCC to investigate your own PR application. Now it is fully depends on IRCC to take a further action to against you or not for misrepresentation on your own PR application.
We sent our reply already so hopefully they will consider our explanation. Without the word misrepresentation on the letter gave me hope for a better result. I will just stay positive
There
i just need to be positive rather than overthinking this. I’m ok that my wife will be denied as long as it is not because of misrepresentation bec we can have a lots of avenues to go. Cheers!
I think it is better for them to investigate because they can find out that we are telling the truth. Their investigation will clear everything up.
The matter of fact is you are not staying positive, you are gambling your future. As if IRCC decided to launch the investigation to against your PR application, they definitely will against you on the ground of misrepresentation, because you omitted the relationship as a common law (based on the information you submitted by yourself) on your PR application and landed as a single.
And worst yet, your application to sponsor your wife hasn't been officially denied. You bet if IRCC decided to deny your wife, it at least will be on the ground of Regulation 117(9)(d), and you know what? That means your wife is excluded as your family member forever, and you will never be able to sponsor her again.
117 (9) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if
(d) subject to subsection (10), the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined.
Paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations — it’s one of the most heartbreaking rules in Canadian immigration legislation. The rule states that a person is no longer considered to be a member of the family class, and therefore can no longer be sponsored for permanent residence, if he was not examined by a visa officer when his sponsor immigrated to Canada.
What do you suggest then? At this point, it all waiting time at all speculation. They might consider misrepresentation or they might not. I have full trust on the immigration system of this country and hopefully it is favorable to us. If not, then i can fight in the court. I understand all of you but misrepresentation is still a speculation and if i can see a small light i front of me i’m still hopeful