Divorced PR holder sponsoring wife and kid

[canuck_in_uk]

Wow I actually never knew that you need to report intent...interesting...I should say I never even applied for PR so please do not take anything I say as more than a very uninformed impression. Follow the more veteran users instead.

I gotta say I find it weird that IRCC want not only facts but intents...like, if the marriage is in trouble right now...what if they go to counselling then they save it after all? I mean, can we arrest someone for thinking about a crime before they even do it?

Did you read the very first post? OP flat out said that they are divorcing after PR. This is not a "maybe we won't stay together" situation.

 

[unlucky_chaser]

Did you read the very first post? OP flat out said that they are divorcing after PR. This is not a "maybe we won't stay together" situation.

I did but until it actually happens or at least there are concrete plans, it is all talk. It's like, we're thinking of buying a house, but until you have at least filed for mortgage pre-approval it's all talk. As long as there is a potential scenario in which they change their minds it cannot be considered. I always expect that a law in a civilized country punishes only actual behavior & concrete evidence on intent (assuming that the only place where they shared this in writing is this thread, anonymously).

For example...you go to a police station and say you intend to rob a bank tomorrow, they have to arrest you coz evidence on intent. Someone who accuses you that they heard you talk about robbing a bank, without any further evidence, should never be enough to condemn you.

 

[Wonderland_1010]

Either way, for sure IRCC will ask OP why he was divorced right after landing. This will look very suspicious and will question if there is misrepresentation involved.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I did but until it actually happens or at least there are concrete plans, it is all talk. It's like, we're thinking of buying a house, but until you have at least filed for mortgage pre-approval it's all talk. As long as there is a potential scenario in which they change their minds it cannot be considered. I always expect that a law in a civilized country punishes only actual behavior & concrete evidence on intent (assuming that the only place where they shared this in writing is this thread, anonymously).

For example...you go to a police station and say you intend to rob a bank tomorrow, they have to arrest you coz evidence on intent. Someone who accuses you that they heard you talk about robbing a bank, without any further evidence, should never be enough to condemn you.

"We are thinking of buying a house" is not even close to being equivalent to "we are getting a divorce but doing it AFTER becoming PRs so that we can both immigrate".

As per the OP, they know that they are divorcing, so the wife no longer qualifies as a dependent and must be removed from the app. If they remain married just so that the wife can immigrate, it is a Marriage of Convenience, which is fraud.

 

[keesio]

I gotta say I find it weird that IRCC want not only facts but intents...like, if the marriage is in trouble right now...what if they go to counselling then they save it after all? I mean, can we arrest someone for thinking about a crime before they even do it?

The issue is that the OP made it clear that their plan is to divorce ASAP after they get their PR. It is not something like "we're having martial issues and we may try to work it out but we are not sure what will happen". It is "our relationship is over, we will divorce, we are just sticking together for now strictly for PR purposes".

 

[carolbb23]

I did but until it actually happens or at least there are concrete plans, it is all talk. It's like, we're thinking of buying a house, but until you have at least filed for mortgage pre-approval it's all talk. As long as there is a potential scenario in which they change their minds it cannot be considered. I always expect that a law in a civilized country punishes only actual behavior & concrete evidence on intent (assuming that the only place where they shared this in writing is this thread, anonymously).

For example...you go to a police station and say you intend to rob a bank tomorrow, they have to arrest you coz evidence on intent. Someone who accuses you that they heard you talk about robbing a bank, without any further evidence, should never be enough to condemn you.

but it still fraud what he's doing