Rare for me with respect to your considered and thought-out posts: I outright disagree with you here, or at least underlining that you have missed the point.
Note, I am not disagreeing on the points of fact (eg that unexamined/undeclared family members are a misrepresentation and make them inadmissible).
We know that; the point is different. That there clearly is an issue or problem of communication here, and given the severity of the consequences, it would be better for all concerned if IRCC found a way to communicate this more effectively.
I was not addressing
how-things-should-work. In fact I was trying to dodge that question, skirt the issue. But in reference to this particular aspect of how things work, how they work is very much tied to the core importance of marital status and declaring spouses and dependent children in the process of acquiring PR status. So I made an effort to drive home just how important, how "
material," this is, to make clear what a pivotal role this information has.
As I noted, in jumbled words as I am wont to do, unfortunately, both the Federal Court and the IAD have referenced the j
urisdictional limitations imposed by the definition of who (or more precisely in this context who is NOT) a member of the family class, who can be sponsored for PR (if both sponsor and applicant otherwise meet the qualifying requirements). The
absence-of-jurisdiction door is very difficult to open; actually it is more a wall than a door.
I will say there are all sorts of situations in which I feel IRCC's information fails to adequately communicate what is at stake.
I don't know that zoos need to post additional cautions for its more dangerous residents, bears or tigers or venomous snakes. There are no special cautions about speeding posted in many school zones, including none other than simply a sign posting the reduced speed limit for the school zones in my neighbourhood. There are no warning signs where I bank that robbing it might result in arrest and jail time.
But yeah, where IRCC says (in multiple sources) that a PR may be entitled to credit toward the Residency Obligation if they need to work abroad for a Canadian employer, failing to alert PRs that qualifying for that credit requires meeting substantially more stringent requirements than that, I am disappointed that IRCC is not doing a better job communicating.
And from what I have seen, IRCC communications still tend to be heavily laden with boilerplate information that is not pertinent to the client and which often confuses clients.
So I do not disagree with the proposition that better communication is called for, and especially in regards to matters which can have a profound impact on an individual's life.
In the meantime, the
@Ptushar0209 situation appears to be outside the routine procedures and attendant communications, peculiar to an inland application in the time of covid and the incidental timing of events. This distinction warrants emphasizing because if
@Ptushar0209 has much chance of being able to sponsor his spouse, that chance almost certainly depends on whether the manner and sequence and substance of the procedures and attendant communications compromised procedural fairness sufficient to be cause for an exception to who is defined to be a member of the family class for purposes of sponsoring a PR visa application.
Which is to recognize the
@Ptushar0209 situation is, probably, different enough to be addressed individually, relative to the procedural fairness in how his case proceeded, including in particular the last steps and communications in the process leading to his actually becoming a PR.
But that really is talk-to-a-LAWYER stuff.
In regards to the broader question as to the impact of failing to declare a family member, in the ordinary or usual case, which is what I think your observations, in effect
there-should-be-better-communication observations, are about, again, as usual, I was trying to dodge that question, trying to skirt the issue, but at the same time trying to make it clear how declaring family members is in no way incidental information but goes to the core of the PR visa applicant's eligibility for a grant of PR status. However one feels about the adequacy of IRCC communications in regards to this subject, to understand how the rules currently work (barring some exception in a particular case, perhaps for
@Ptushar0209, or at least one might hope) it is necessary to recognize the core importance of truthfully and completely disclosing family members in the process . . . as I tried to note with emphasis, even if there is some information one could arguably quibble about whether it is "material," there is no doubt about marital status, or about spouses and dependent children, that information is clearly, unequivocally, unquestionably material.
And this is true on a broader scale, in regards to the way things actually work. Because it is really important for applicants and prospective applicants, for all IRCC clients, to recognize that there is a huge difference between mistakes in fact, or unintended omissions, regarding incidental information (which can nonetheless still be "material") versus failing to be truthful and complete in regards to the core, essential elements in the respective transaction. Maybe it comes across as an empty tautology but it warrants emphasizing:
when it matters, it matters. Marital status matters.
By the way, you reference the situation in which a couple can be deemed in a marital relationship based on cohabitation. And yes, that situation actually does show up in some of the cases. Sometimes with a twist . . . the indicators of cohabitating in a marital relationship can sometimes fall short of sufficiently establishing the relationship for purposes of qualifying for sponsorship or being an included family member in a PR application, but after the fact similar circumstances can be sufficient for IRCC to deem it a marital relationship that should have been declared. The system is far from perfect. It is, after all, a bureaucracy.
Cases involving children can be especially heart-wrenching. One of the cases I was reading recently involved a child born after the person became a PR. Child could be sponsored (given date of birth after date of PR's landing). The child's mother could not. As I recall, either the IAD or a FC justice (I forget which particular case it was) suggested that the PR sponsor the child (born abroad) and then the mother could pursue an independent application for PR based on H&C considerations, emphasizing the best interests of a minor child living in Canada. My memory is not clear, but I think this was one of those cases where the IAD or court definitively stated there was no jurisdiction to even consider granting the spouse a PR visa based on a sponsored application, because as a matter of definition the spouse is NOT a member of the family class. Again, no jurisdiction rules pose especially onerous hurdles.
Again, I am referencing this NOT to address
how-it-should-be. I am emphasizing what the rules are and how they work. And how important it is for those making applications to IRCC to pay attention to what matters, and remember,
when it matters, it matters.
For those applying for PR visas, marital status matters, big time. Right up to the end.
