Got Procedural Fairness Letter! HELP PLEASE!!

[next444]

You'll be fine. It would be highly unfair for them to refuse your application when you qualify with spouse unaccompanying.
If they don't want couples to go with unaccompanying option, they should simply take it out of their profile or add clauses.
No rules made, no rules broken.

What response did your friend give?

It's kinda weird situation here actually. She's married with her husband non-accompanying. After the ADR requesting her to explained why non-accompanying when living together in Canada, she simply said "it was because at the time of ITA her husband had been making a lot of efforts on language skills but still unable to reach a point that could be selected......Once I get my pr I'll sponsor him“ So long story short, same as everyone else, not enough points.

However, Edmonton VO seems to have caught this weakness and quoted her words above and refusal letter said ” You are admitting to not including your spouse specifically to pass the minimum requirements of R87.1(1) and circumventing the requirements of the class. When your spouse is added into processing of your app, you no longer meet the required points required at the time of ITA"

I'm really confused about this here. Apparently it's non-accompanying so her husband's not ADDED INTO her app, but why this VO added him and said she didn't have enough points??? Just doesn't make sense to me. It was heartbreaking for her... waited for 5 months and got this.

My response was pretty simple: not enough points, that's it.

 

[Fantastica]

It's kinda weird situation here actually. She's married with her husband non-accompanying. After the ADR requesting her to explained why non-accompanying when living together in Canada, she simply said "it was because at the time of ITA her husband had been making a lot of efforts on language skills but still unable to reach a point that could be selected......Once I get my pr I'll sponsor him“ So long story short, same as everyone else, not enough points.

However, Edmonton VO seems to have caught this weakness and quoted her words above and refusal letter said ” You are admitting to not including your spouse specifically to pass the minimum requirements of R87.1(1) and circumventing the requirements of the class. When your spouse is added into processing of your app, you no longer meet the required points required at the time of ITA"

I'm really confused about this here. Apparently it's non-accompanying so her husband's not ADDED INTO her app, but why this VO added him and said she didn't have enough points??? Just doesn't make sense to me. It was heartbreaking for her... waited for 5 months and got this.

My response was pretty simple: not enough points, that's it.

This is insane. She didn't add him because it would reduce her points. She should get a good attorney and appeal this decision immediately. I understand that it is a little more complicated because spouse is already in Canada but there is no rule on the expressentry profile that states that one must include her spouse to qualify. No single rule and what is wrong with circumventing the requirements if one is not breaking any rules?

The people who are circumventing the requirements are actually those who IRCC give the privilege to get married after ITA and add their spouses immediately without even going through the headache of sponsorship.

 

[navinball]

once again 'not enough points' is not a valid excuse to not add spouse. if spouse was added it would reduce her points making her ineligible for the round of invitation. perfectly reasonable explaination given by the officer.

 

[Fantastica]

once again 'not enough points' is not a valid excuse to not add spouse. if spouse was added it would reduce her points making her ineligible for the round of invitation. perfectly reasonable explaination given by the officer.

@navinball
"IF" spouse WAS added she wouldn't qualify you say and I agree. BUT the point is that he WASN'T added so she qualifies.

I think the error on her part is not stating that her spouse would remain on his TRV and will be sponsored later.

NB: Before now, people used to fill unaccompanied and add their spouse before COPR without points recalculated. They circumvented the requirements. I think the VO thinks this is the case with her that is why VO said if her spouse was added at ITA, she would not meet the points. This simply shows the VO doesn't understand that he is not getting PR with her on this application.

An attorney needs to clarify that her spouse would not be accompanying her for COPR stamp and would remain on his TRV till he is sponsored.

Remember the rule states that spouses can be added at any time before COPR so the VO needs to be sure that she would not be adding her spouse for COPR and that he will remain on TRV

 

[sethtammy]

I also got the Procedural Fairness letter on Dec 27th and was given 7 days to submit additional information/documents to allay their concerns regarding my working experience in Canada and foreign. I didn't expect it happened to my file but apparently, I got a tough officer who wants me to give him more details as much as possible.

So, I wrote an explanation letter and submitted it with additional documents required via my MyCIC account 3 days later. However, it's unfortunate that the process of my responding to the procedural fairness letter had been quite a hassle as I submitted a wrong file, missing additional documents required. Then, I contacted to my MP's office and they helped me submit the correct files to IRCC with a request to disregard the wrong file that I accidentally submitted. I was told that by letting my MP's office submit the correct files to IRCC, it may streamline/simplify the process of checking whether Immigration received the appropriate documents.

My correct files were sent to IRCC by my MP on last Monday, then I got a very quick confirmation in the same day that my files were received by the responsible officer. On Tuesday, I got the latest update in my application that had been unchanged since May 2019 that my medical exam was extended another year. I passed my upfront medical exam in May 2019 and it already expired in Nov. Hopefully, it's a good sign and my file has been touching at after a while.

 

[navinball]

@navinball
"IF" spouse WAS added she wouldn't qualify you say and I agree. BUT the point is that he WASN'T added so she qualifies.

I think the error on her part is not stating that her spouse would remain on his TRV and will be sponsored later.

NB: Before now, people used to fill unaccompanied and add their spouse before COPR without points recalculated. They circumvented the requirements. I think the VO thinks this is the case with her that is why VO said if her spouse was added at ITA, she would not meet the points. This simply shows the VO doesn't understand that he is not getting PR with her on this application.

An attorney needs to clarify that her spouse would not be accompanying her for COPR stamp and would remain on his TRV till he is sponsored.

Remember the rule states that spouses can be added at any time before COPR so the VO needs to be sure that she would not be adding her spouse for COPR and that he will remain on TRV

I dont think people understand what 'non accompanying' means. it means spouse will not come to canada. saying you chose that option because it will increase points and bring my spouse later on means 'spouse is accompanying' in actuality and the application will be evaluated as such. so even though she checked 'spouse non accompanying', she doesnt really mean it and it was caught by the officer.

obviously not every officer will see this way and some lienent ones might let go so OP might catch a break.

 

[Fantastica]

I dont think people understand what 'non accompanying' means. it means spouse will not come to canada. saying you chose that option because it will increase points and bring my spouse later on means 'spouse is accompanying' in actuality and the application will be evaluated as such. so even though she checked 'spouse non accompanying', she doesnt really mean it and it was caught by the officer.

obviously not every officer will see this way and some lienent ones might let go so OP might catch a break.

Please what you wrote up there isn't correct.
Unaccompanying simply means spouse isn't going together with me now. It never means spouse would not join me even when I later qualify to sponsor him.

Dictionary meaning of accompanying- "to go along or in company with"
He won't go along doesn't mean he can't join me later.


Below is from IRCC website

"Or, they (applicants) may request that a family member originally declared as non-accompanying be included as accompanying."

Look through link below about saying dependents ain't coming with you and then sponsoring them at a later date.
The reason for submitting PCC and medicals of unaccompanying dependents is to be eligible for future sponsorship.
Link below.

https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=988&top=4

Please note that all people I know who gave reason for spouse unaccompanying as low points got their PPR (although spouses were not in Canada at time of application). But someone on a Group I belong said her spouse got PPR with her unaccompanying even when she was already in Canada (I would have shared screenshot but do not know how to attach images)

 

[next444]

Please what you wrote up there isn't correct.
Unaccompanying simply means spouse isn't going together with me now. It never means spouse would not join me even when I later qualify to sponsor him.

Dictionary meaning of accompanying- "to go along or in company with"
He won't go along doesn't mean he can't join me later.


Below is from IRCC website

"Or, they (applicants) may request that a family member originally declared as non-accompanying be included as accompanying."

Look through link below about saying dependents ain't coming with you and then sponsoring them at a later date.
The reason for submitting PCC and medicals of unaccompanying dependents is to be eligible for future sponsorship.
Link below.

https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=988&top=4

Please note that all people I know who gave reason for spouse unaccompanying as low points got their PPR (although spouses were not in Canada at time of application). But someone on a Group I belong said her spouse got PPR with her unaccompanying even when she was already in Canada (I would have shared screenshot but do not know how to attach images)

I definitely agree with you. Each application is individual and should be treated based on the info and docs submitted at the time of applying. I did not even know that loophole about adding spouse before COPR. Neither of us intend to do so. Problem is that she DID say she’ll sponsor him at a later time once she gets PR, but still, not in this app.

Update: she consulted a reputable immigration lawyer, lawyer stated “ In this case the legality of the decision can be challenged in court since there’s no requirement for applicant to justify why their spouse was not added to their EE application. The VO exceed their authority by imposing this requirement. I therefore believe that you have a good case for appeal.”

She may appeal however it costs a lot money and fime.

 

[Fantastica]

I definitely agree with you. Each application is individual and should be treated based on the info and docs submitted at the time of applying. I did not even know that loophole about adding spouse before COPR. Neither of us intend to do so. Problem is that she DID say she’ll sponsor him at a later time once she gets PR, but still, not in this app.

Update: she consulted a reputable immigration lawyer, lawyer stated “ In this case the legality of the decision can be challenged in court since there’s no requirement for applicant to justify why their spouse was not added to their EE application. The VO exceed their authority by imposing this requirement. I therefore believe that you have a good case for appeal.”

She may appeal however it costs a lot money and fime.

I understand the cost implications of a formal appeal but she could try an informal appeal immediately by getting a letter from the lawyer pleading for her file to be reopened and explaining why she thinks she was unfairly refused. (I know some people who have done this and got PPR when it's obvious they were wrongly refused. She could submit through webform)

She should explain that it is true that if she added him at time of ITA, she would not qualify but then she meets the requirements since she did not add him at ITA and that she would not add him at all on this application as he would remain on his TRV and would not be accompanying her for her landing interview and he would therefore not be getting PPR with her since he is not included in her PR application.

She should explain that she would go through the normal spousal sponsorship process to sponsor her spouse PR after she gets her PR card.

 

[Bunny Thapar]

Hi @next444 friend,

I have some update and a good news.

Got a GHOOOOOSSSSTTTTT UPPPPPDAAAATTTEEEE today in the morning when logged into MY CIC account.

So called CIC and came to know finally my ELIGIBILITYYYYYYYYYY has been PAAAASSSEEEDDDD today in the morning!

YES!!!!!!!!!

No PPR yet but for me this feeling is as equal as getting a PPR!

So below is the status now :

AOR : 1st February, 2019
Category : CEC Inland
Applicants : Me & Spouse
Visa Office : Montreal
Medical : Passed (Medical valid till 22nd Jan 2020 for myself)
Eligibility: PASSED on 10th Jan, 2020 (After Procedural Fairness Letter response on 17th December, 2019)
Criminality: Passed (12th December, 2019)
Security: Passed (12th December, 2019)

Agent said now we have passed all the 4 stages of the application however officer will look at it for one final time before approving and sending a PPR/Interview request.

Not sure how far I am from the GOLDEN EMAIL but 1 thing is for sure that I can have some sound sleep tonight.

I am sure you will get an update soon.

I wish we get PPR next week.

God is great.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Cheers!

 

[Fantastica]

Hi @next444 friend,

I have some update and a good news.

Got a GHOOOOOSSSSTTTTT UPPPPPDAAAATTTEEEE today in the morning when logged into MY CIC account.

So called CIC and came to know finally my ELIGIBILITYYYYYYYYYY has been PAAAASSSEEEDDDD today in the morning!

YES!!!!!!!!!

No PPR yet but for me this feeling as equal as getting a PPR!

So below is the status now :

AOR : 1st February, 2019
Category : CEC Inland
Applicants : Me & Spouse
Visa Office : Montreal
Medical : Passed (Medical valid till 22nd Jan 2020 for myself)
Eligibility: PASSED on 10th Jan, 2020 (After Procedural Fairness Letter response on 17th December, 2019)
Criminality: Passed (12th December, 2019)
Security: Passed (12th December, 2019)

Agent said now we have passed all the 4 stages of the application however officer will look at it for one final time before approving and sending a PPR/Interview request.

Not sure how far I am from the GOLDEN EMAIL but 1 thing is for sure that I can have some sound sleep tonight.

I am sure you will get an update soon.

I wish we get PPR next week.

God is great.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Cheers!

Wow! Congratulations

 

[next444]

I understand the cost implications of a formal appeal but she could try an informal appeal immediately by getting a letter from the lawyer pleading for her file to be reopened and explaining why she thinks she was unfairly refused. (I know some people who have done this and got PPR when it's obvious they were wrongly refused. She could submit through webform)

She should explain that it is true that if she added him at time of ITA, she would not qualify but then she meets the requirements since she did not add him at ITA and that she would not add him at all on this application as he would remain on his TRV and would not be accompanying her for her landing interview and he would therefore not be getting PPR with her since he is not included in her PR application.

She should explain that she would go through the normal spousal sponsorship process to sponsor her spouse PR after she gets her PR card.

Yes she’s going to see Matthew Jeffery the immigration lawyer in Toronto next week and determine which route she’ll take. Either submit via webform or appeal as a judicial review.

I’ll keep you guys updated.

 

[next444]

Hi @next444 friend,

I have some update and a good news.

Got a GHOOOOOSSSSTTTTT UPPPPPDAAAATTTEEEE today in the morning when logged into MY CIC account.

So called CIC and came to know finally my ELIGIBILITYYYYYYYYYY has been PAAAASSSEEEDDDD today in the morning!

YES!!!!!!!!!

No PPR yet but for me this feeling is as equal as getting a PPR!

So below is the status now :

AOR : 1st February, 2019
Category : CEC Inland
Applicants : Me & Spouse
Visa Office : Montreal
Medical : Passed (Medical valid till 22nd Jan 2020 for myself)
Eligibility: PASSED on 10th Jan, 2020 (After Procedural Fairness Letter response on 17th December, 2019)
Criminality: Passed (12th December, 2019)
Security: Passed (12th December, 2019)

Agent said now we have passed all the 4 stages of the application however officer will look at it for one final time before approving and sending a PPR/Interview request.

Not sure how far I am from the GOLDEN EMAIL but 1 thing is for sure that I can have some sound sleep tonight.

I am sure you will get an update soon.

I wish we get PPR next week.

God is great.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Cheers!

I am so thrilled for you my friend! Woo hoo! What a huge relief. Now just the final wait!

Did your file start being processed in Edmonton then got transferred to Montreal?

 

[Bunny Thapar]

I am so thrilled for you my friend! Woo hoo! What a huge relief. Now just the final wait!

Did your file start being processed in Edmonton then got transferred to Montreal?

Thanks dear.

No initially it was at Calgary and then got transfered to Montreal on 5th July, 2019 and its still there.

I wish the PPR comes sooner.

I wish the best for you too.

 

[next444]

Update: My friend who got refused because of non-accompanying spouse inland, she consulted 2 immigration lawyers today and decided to go for the judicial review. Both lawyers said they had never seen a case like this and believe she would have a good case to challenge VO's decision. Wish the best luck for her!!!