tomtomato said:
1. We will go back to Calgary this December, and she will be 4 month pregnant. Will she be stopped at the entry? Should we declare that she is pregnant?
She probably shouldn't be prevented from entering. It might depend on whether the officer believes you have sufficient funds to cover health care, etc. It will be safest if you already have employment in Canada or enough savings.
However, if you are asked specifically about the pregnancy and whether she intends to give birth in Canada, it is very important to be honest. Otherwise this could be considered misrepresentation, and it would be a material one because in some circumstances pregnancy is relevant (concerning the cost, mostly).
Obviously, the sooner you go, the less likely she is to get any questions. She could also wear loose clothing, but without overdoing it.
Here is what Manual OP11 says about issuing visitor visas to people who intend to give birth in Canada:
Assessment of TRV applications from persons wishing to enter Canada for the purpose of
giving birth
Under paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, persons born in Canada are Canadian citizens.
This right applies to all persons born in Canada irrespective of the status in Canada of their
parents, other than persons born to accredited diplomats.
There are no elements of IRPA which refer to this right. Giving birth in Canada does not represent
a violation of any terms or conditions which may be applied to a temporary resident. Thus, there is
no provision in IRPA to refuse a TRV solely on the basis of the intent of the applicant to give birth
in Canada.
When it is known that an applicant is pregnant, assessment of the application should focus on the
requirements applied to all applicants for a TRV. The fact of the pregnancy may be an element in
the assessment but only in so far as it affects the assessment of the primary requirements for
issuance of a TRV: Do applicants have sufficient funds? Will they leave Canada at the end of their
period of authorized stay? Are they admissible? Consideration of the pregnancy and the stated or
apparent intent to give birth in Canada must relate back to one of these essential requirements for
TRV issuance.
Guidelines for persons coming forward for medical treatment found in OP 15 may provide officers
with assistance in assessing applications from persons who are known to be pregnant and
intending to give birth in Canada at the time of the TRV application. However, it is important to
note that pregnancy would not normally present concerns regarding medical inadmissibility. While
a "high-risk" pregnancy might create excessive demands, this would normally be speculative and
would not apply to the future child, who would become a citizen at birth; concerns regarding the
demands that may be placed on health and social services by the child after birth in Canada may
not be used in assessing the medical admissibility of the TRV applicant. In applying the guidelines
on temporary residents seeking medical treatment in Canada provided in OP 15, officers should
focus on available financial support as part of their assessment of admissibility.
A medical examination should only be requested in exceptional cases, where the information from
the examination would be material to the assessment of the application.
The application form for a TRV asks the applicant if they or any accompanying family members
have any physical or mental disorders that will require social or health services during their stay in
Canada. Answering "No" to this question should not normally be considered misrepresentation in
the case of pregnant applicants, given the terminology used. Pregnancy may not normally be
viewed as a "medical condition."
However, pregnancy or the intent to give birth in Canada may be material facts in the assessment
of the application which, if we are not advised of the pregnancy, may go unexamined; such facts
may be material to the assessment of arrangements for treatment, of the financial ability to cover
the costs of treatment, or of the intent to depart from Canada, for example. Therefore, in some
cases the intentional concealment of intent to give birth in Canada may lead to an examination of
admissibility under A40.
You should also be honest about your intention of staying in the country and applying for PR. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as she doesn't intend to work and makes it clear she will leave as soon as she is not authorized to stay any longer (for example if her PR application is refused). This is called "dual intent":
Dual intent
An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from
becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of
the period authorized for their stay [A22(2), R183]. The person's desire to work, study or visit in
Canada before or during the processing of an application for permanent residence may be
legitimate. An officer should distinguish between such a person and an applicant who has no
intention of leaving Canada if the application is refused.
An officer should also keep in mind:
• the time required to process an application for permanent residence, because the length of
time will affect the applicant's means of support;
• obligations at home; and
• the applicant's likelihood of leaving Canada if the application is refused.
Refusals
A22(2) is an inclusive—not exclusive—statement. It permits officers to issue a TRV, or approve a
study or work permit, where someone demonstrates legitimate intention to become both a
temporary resident and, at a later date, a permanent resident within the confines of IRPA's
Regulations. This provision of the Act permits officers to be flexible in their assessment of these
cases, since a legitimate intention to become a temporary resident does not preclude an individual
from obtaining permanent resident status while in Canada as a temporary resident. For example,
a provincial nominee (PN) may be issued a one-year work permit; during that year the individual's
PN file could be finalized by the visa post, and then the individual would become a permanent
resident.
In cases where there is dual intent, refusals do not stem from having two intents but rather from
having a single bona fide intent (i.e., to become a permanent resident) and misrepresenting the
second intent (i.e., to become a temporary resident) in order to achieve the first intent. For
example: an applicant for a work or study permit who indicates that they have no intention of
leaving Canada has demonstrated only a single intent—permanent residence. Such an
application would be refused, even if the applicant might qualify for the Canadian Experience
Class (CEC) or the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). This is because the applicant has shown
that they do not respect the terms and conditions of temporary residence, should they not qualify
for a Permanent Resident stream.
Assessing an application where there are dual intent implications is no different from assessing
any other temporary resident application. Each applicant receives the benefit of a procedurally
fair, individual assessment and must, in turn, satisfy the officer that they meet all the requirements
of IRPA's Regulations relating to temporary residence, before any visa is issued. The existence of
the CEC or the issuance of a Provincial Nominee Certificate does not change this. The possibility
that an applicant for temporary residence may, at some point in the future, be approved under a
Permanent Resident Program does not absolve the individual from meeting the requirements of a
temporary resident, as set out in IRPA's Regulations, in particular, R179, requiring applicants to
leave Canada at the end of “the period authorized for their stay.” The inherent rigidity of R179 is
balanced by the flexibility of A22(2), which allows the visa officer to consider an applicant's intent
in relation to the particular circumstances of the case. For example: an applicant for a study permit
who may qualify for the CEC in three years has a different set of circumstances from that of a PN
whose application is near completion and who applies for a work permit, with the support of the
province, due to an urgent need for his or her services.
Officers are reminded to use their own judgment and the flexibility afforded to them by A22(2)
when making decisions in cases with a dual intent aspect. CAIPS and FOSS notes should clearly
demonstrate the officer's reasoning when assessing a case.
tomtomato said:
2. If we arrive in the country successfully, should I sponsor her right away? or should we wait till we have the delivery? My thought is we wait, because even if we submit an application, she cannot proceed with the medical exam (x-ray), and we will need to re-submit because our status have changed.
I think in this circumstance, include a letter of explanation in the application and they will wait for the medical exam. This will cause some delay, but it will be shorter than if you wait to apply. [Edit: See my post below.]
tomtomato said:
3. If we have our baby born in Canada, can we apply health care card for her before the delivery? Or we need to pay for the expense ourselves because she is only a visitor?
My understanding from what I've read on the forum is that you're very lucky you'll be living in Alberta. It's been said on the forum that you can obtain health care for your wife almost immediately if you have a health care card yourself. (In Quebec and Ontario, it's three months after Stage 1 approval, which now takes 10 months.) I imagine this will be easier if you already have a sponsorship application in progress, since it is a requirement that she live in Alberta for some length of time (might be six months to a year).
You should check this out in greater detail with people who have done it because it's possible the conditions may be different if you haven't been living in Alberta for a while yourself.
However, be careful about emphasizing this aspect too much in trying to convince the border services officer that you can cover her expenses for the pregnancy. That's because if it's realized that the province will be paying for the care, unlike in other provinces, this might be more likely to be considered as generating "excessive demand" on the health care system. I'm not 100% sure about this, but this may actually work against you in getting her in.
If you can't find definitive advice from someone more knowledgeable on this aspect of things, it might be safer to enter through a port of entry where officers won't be familiar with Alberta's rules (and whose province's rules are more restrictive). Then if they ask, show them proof of funds to cover pregnancy-related expenses. Even though you probably won't need the funds once you're in Alberta, keep this fact to yourself.
