117(9)(d) - SPONSORING WIFE

[Dynamide]

Hi All,
Does anyone knows the meaning of the paragraph below.

CANADA GAZETTE :
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2003/20030927/html/regle-e.html

II — FAMILY ISSUES — PART 1; PART 2, DIVISION 2; PART 7; PART 20
What has changed :

The amendments to subparagraph (c)(ii) of the definition of "minimum necessary income" ensure consistency of wording with other parts in section 2 of the Regulations.
The amendment to paragraph 117(4)(a) of the Regulations removes the reference to provincial rules governing adoptions over the age of 18 because no province has such legislation.
The amendments to section 117 of the Regulations ensure that certain family members who were not examined as part of a sponsor's application for immigration to Canada are no longer excluded from the family class and could be sponsored. These family members were originally not examined because they were not required to be examined for administrative or policy reasons. This change affects family members of refugees, persons who submitted humanitarian and compassionate applications in Canada and persons who applied prior to the coming into force of IRPA.
Benefits and Costs
These amendments aim at creating certainty for the immigration program and for family class applicants. Modifications that reflect policy intentions increase transparency and ensure that family class regulations are consistent with policy goals of the Government. The amendments clarify the requirements for sponsors and sponsored family members and correct unintended exclusions from the family class so that the affected family members can be sponsored and immigrate to Canada.


Does this means that if you have declared your wife before coming to Canada but she was not examined.
According to this change - you can sponsor your wife now.???

Cheers.

 

[mitamata]

Did you notice the date on that?

Vol. 137, No. 39 — September 27, 2003

I don't have an answer for you, just wanted to point out that this isn't really a change. At least not a recent one.

 

[Dynamide]

HI,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY - THIS RULE 117(9)(D) CAME INTO FORCE IN JUNE, 2002. SO WHATEVER IS THE DATE IT'S AFTER THIS RULE CAME INTO FORCE. PLEASE IF YOU CAN FURTHER CLARIFY YOUR ANSWER. THANKS.

 

[PMM]

Hi

HI,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY - THIS RULE 117(9)(D) CAME INTO FORCE IN JUNE, 2002. SO WHATEVER IS THE DATE IT'S AFTER THIS RULE CAME INTO FORCE. PLEASE IF YOU CAN FURTHER CLARIFY YOUR ANSWER. THANKS.

What it did was make it so spouses and dependent children of refugee claimants in Canada were not refused because they were not examined. The claimant still had to list them on their application. Also persons applying under H.& C. grounds in Canada, they had to claim the dependents, but they didn't have to be examined. Although if the refugee claimant is accepted, the spouse and children have to examined.

PMM

 

[Dynamide]

Hi PMM,
Ok, but you didn't clarify this sentence 'and persons who applied prior to the coming into force of IRPA. '.
My understanding is that this includes everybody not just the refugees or H&C applicants.

Please clarify.

Rgds.

 

[PMM]

Hi

Hi PMM,
Ok, but you didn't clarify this sentence 'and persons who applied prior to the coming into force of IRPA. '.
My understanding is that this includes everybody not just the refugees or H&C applicants.

Please clarify.

Rgds.

Read the following, it should answer your question.


Exception
(10) Subject to subsection (11), paragraph (9)(d) does not apply in respect of a foreign national referred to in that paragraph who was not examined because an officer determined that they were not required by the Act or the former Act, as applicable, to be examined.


operative words, determined because and officer.

PMM