MEDICAL UPFRONT INQUIRIES

[tupas.alyssa]

Hello,

We just submitted our Spouse Visa application in Mississauga like 3 days ago. I am currently in the Philippines. We are thinking, to save us from the hassle of waiting for the request letter from the embassy to do the medical exam, you think can I just go to St. Lukes or IOM and just do the Upfront medical exam? So in any case we will receive the file number, we will just post the medical exam results to the embassy?

I just want to ask for your opinions since some of you already done it. Thank you so much. Your response will be highly appreciated.


Thanks,

Lisa

 

[handsup]

See your checklist, if it is written there to submit an upfront med then go for it, otherwise do not do it until they ask you to do so.
In email they write it clearly to not to go for Med or Re-med until we ask you

 

[tupas.alyssa]

Thank you.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Hi

You should have done the medical before submitting the app. It's possible that your app may be returned as incomplete or delayed while they wait for it. You can do it now or wait and see if they either request it or return your app.

 

[BrianDell]

"It's possible that your app may be returned as incomplete..."

No, that is not going to happen. The CIC website is quite clear that an upfront medical is an OPTION and an option only available to a class that is higher priority for processing and therefore more likely to be processed before the medical expires and that's family class.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/guides/3905e.pdf

13
PROOF OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION
Include for yourself and each of your family members, proof of completion of the upfront medical examination from the Panel Physician.

Statement at the beginning of the checklist: If there is a conflict between this guide and any other versions or publications, this document and its instructions take precedence and are to be followed, meaning that the checklist takes precedence over anything else posted by CIC.

As per the checklist, proof of the upfront medical is a REQUIRED document to be submitted with the application.

 

[BrianDell]

"proof of the upfront medical is a REQUIRED document"

If that's true please refer me to a single case where a spousal application was returned because proof of the upfront medical was not included.

In the mean time, I pulled up the CPP-Ottawa spreadsheet because I knew there was at least one person in there who didn't submit the medical upfront, and of the fist 80 rows, guess who has the fastest time from application submission to COPR/visa issued? Why, the person who didn't submit upfront medicals (and, no, there was no typo here because Zarilenth stated explicitly in this forum the medical was not done until a request came to do it:"We got a request to do it ASAP with sponsorship approval, and sent it in a couple weeks later...")

 

[mikeymyke]

"proof of the upfront medical is a REQUIRED document"

If that's true please refer me to a single case where a spousal application was returned because proof of the upfront medical was not included.

In the mean time, I pulled up the CPP-Ottawa spreadsheet because I knew there was at least one person in there who didn't submit the medical upfront, and of the fist 80 rows, guess who has the fastest time from application submission to COPR/visa issued? Why, the person who didn't submit upfront medicals (and, no, there was no typo here because Zarilenth stated explicitly in this forum the medical was not done until a request came to do it:"We got a request to do it ASAP with sponsorship approval, and sent it in a couple weeks later...")

The Document checklist for INLAND applicants says the upfront medical is optional. The one for outland says it's required. Zarilenth has an American spouse and looking at the country specific checklist for US applicants, it clearly says that the upfront medical is required for outland.

Maybe Zarilenth got really lucky or something, but the checklists all say the medical is required. The OP is Filipino, and the Filipino checklist says it's required. And read what canuck_in_uk said, he said it's POSSIBLE the app could be returned. Yes there's a chance the OP could get lucky and they'll just ask for a medical rather than return the application, but who really wants to take that chance especially when the checklist says the medical is required? Having your app returned is a risk that could delay your file by 2-3 months.

 

[BrianDell]

"it clearly says that the upfront medical is required"

I disagree that it "clearly says that". It also says "each of your family members" is to also get a medical done, and if one refuses to consider everything CIC has indicated about what "family member" means except what it says on the checklist, one could equally argue that family members who never intend to immigrate must get an upfront medical using the checklist-trumps-everything-else argument. We know from elsewhere (not the checklist) that in fact it's *accompanying* family members who also need a medical exam.

What is clear is that medical exam is on the checklist, which I read as meaning applicants are to address the matter before applying, and the website says that "there are TWO ways" to go about this. The website also says "You CAN contact a panel physician..." not "Contact a panel physician..." (never mind "must", "required to", etc)

If "Zarilenth got really lucky" to not have her application returned then Marrigold was also really lucky. And we haven't found anyone who was "unlucky" with respect to Zarilenth and Marrigold's visa office.

Even if we just look at Filipino applicants, Dirkorver123 sent to Mississauga without doing an upfront medical and the file still got passed on to Manila. Ditto for karla (karla's timeline:
apply: Feb 2013
sponsor OK:March
File transfer: April
Medical done: AUGUST 2013
PPR: August)

Now it is true that that there is a person, ellaine, who had her application returned instead of sending it on to Manila, but I don't believe ellaine's case is in fact comparable, because ellaine did not really choose the wait-until-requested "way", she chose the upfront way and then failed to submit the clearly required documentation for that choice. I say clearly required here because the website (at least), in the section for the upfront "way", indisputably says "must attach that form to your application". This isn't a generic "include all documents" but a specific "must" for a specific document. It also makes sense from a policy perspective since there is a reminder need with respect to those applicants who forgot to submit a document or appear to be under the misimpression it will never be required. They are distinguishable from those applicants who have indicated that they are aware of the need for a medical (per the checklist) and are just waiting for instruction.

I'll add that if Mississauga was seeing a lot of the same applications twice because the first go-round was sent back following panel physicians saying they can't or won't do upfront exams (my case) or misinterpreting the website, CIC would state clearly on the website that "Wait for instructions once you have submitted your application" is not a "way" available to all classes and CIC would furthermore be motivated to educate or crack down harder on its panel physicians who say they don't do upfront exams.

Anything is "possible", but not anything is reasonable, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect one's application to be returned when no one else who is similarly situated has ever reported having their application returned (with that being the sole reason for return).

 

[canuck_in_uk]

The checklist states to include proof of the upfront medical, not "proof that you've addressed the matter"; it is not the least bit ambiguous. The checklist is the be-all and end-all for an application, beating anything the guides or other sites say. By your argument, an applicant could not include IMM0008 and every other form and just wait for CIC to request it. Just because it's listed on the checklist doesn't mean it actually needs to be included, eh?

It is ALWAYS a possibility for an app to be returned as incomplete if an required item on the checklist isn't included. In case you aren't aware, this forum doesn't contain the experiences of every single person applying to immigrate to Canada, so just because you haven't seen it on the forum doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

[BrianDell]

I am not the only one on this forum who read all the resources on this issue and came away with the understanding that an upfront medical is an option, canuck_in_uk. I note that in general, the checklist is less demanding than what you find on the website, not more.

"an applicant could not include IMM0008"

No, that is not my argument. I said one has to take into consideration what else the CIC has said and I do not see anywhere in any guide or on the website any suggestion that including IMM0008 is merely optional. I also said ignoring what else CIC has said can lead to incorrect conclusions like thinking the applicant's non-accompanying mother needs a medical because the checklist just says "family member" and doesn't elaborate.

"this forum doesn't contain the experiences of every single person applying to immigrate to Canada"

Of course, but if it has never been reported on this forum or any other online forum in the world, then it's not reasonable to believe it will happen to the original poster in the presence of positive reports on this forum (or elsewhere) from similarly situated people who said that it did not happen to them. The original poster, like I and others on canadavisa, clearly believed that there is an option here and redirecting us to the checklist (that we are already quite aware of) does not address the reason why we believe there is an option.

For what it is worth, I find it rather facile to just tell people on forums like this to always be as a paranoid as possible about what's needed. Readers could adopt that point of view without coming here to talk about it. What people come here for is to find out what's practically needed based on other people's interpretation of the requirements and, especially, other people's actual experience of success or rejection.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

You continue to reference what is said in the rest of the CIC websites; the checklist takes precedence over any of that in terms of what is required to be included in the app.

If a person has their mother do a medical, that is their mistake in not understanding CIC's definition of "family member". And to correct your previous post, non-accompanying family members must also undergo a medical, not just accompanying. If an applicant doesn't include a non-accompanying family member's medical, their app will be delayed while they either obtain the medical or the necessary documentation to exclude the family member from the Family Class and from the application.

 

[BrianDell]

"You continue to reference what is said in the rest of the CIC websites..."

Yes, outrageous behaviour. Especially for a "newbie".

"not understanding CIC's definition of 'family member'"

And from where did you derive your particular "understanding" from? The website, perchance? Or the checklist which you say "takes precedence over" any website statement (like the mother-excluding website statement "Your family members include your spouse or common-law partner, your dependent children and any children that are their dependent children")? You are correct that I originally mis-stated this point about the checklist apparently defining "family member" more broadly than the website by suggesting the website primarily narrowed the definition by distinguishing on the point of accompanying or not (moral of the story, at least for me, being consult the website for confirmation).

I should think that if the conflict is as truly obvious and intractable as you contend, CIC would edit one or the other to remove the obvious conflict.

In any case, I would direct readers following this thread to rhcohen2014's observations in the "submitting application without medical exam receipt and police clearance" thread: ..."they are NOT necessarily required to submit UPFRONT. They are 'required' for the application to be processed and approved."

 

[canuck_in_uk]

And from where did you derive your particular "understanding" from? The website, perchance? Or the checklist which you say "takes precedence over" any website statement (like the mother-excluding website statement "Your family members include your spouse or common-law partner, your dependent children and any children that are their dependent children")? You are correct that I originally mis-stated this point about the checklist apparently defining "family member" more broadly than the website by suggesting the website primarily narrowed the definition by distinguishing on the point of accompanying or not (moral of the story, at least for me, being consult the website for confirmation).

I should think that if the conflict is as truly obvious and intractable as you contend, CIC would edit one or the other to remove the obvious conflict.

I've never said to ignore the website; what I've said several times now is that the checklist takes precedence in terms of what is required in the application.

There are a LOT of instances of the CIC website being unclear and having conflicting information.