PLEASE HELP - Family detainment while spouse under age Schedule A question 6

[microsysn]

Hello anyone able to help with this question.....

Have you, or, if you are the principal applicant, any of your family
members listed in your application for permanent residence in
Canada, ever:

J) Been detained, incarcerated or put in jail

My spouse's family was sponsored in 1996 along with her family where the family's sponsor form had "YES" to the above question,
as during war they were detained by non-government forces (not break any law..my spouse was with family & about 3 years old then).

In 2009 (under age 18) family sponsor forms were declined since "NO" was selected for detainment question above

Now I am filling her spousal sponsorship ..the detainment happened when she was 3 yrs old,
should I select "YES" and explain in brief detail or in lot of detail what happen?

Thank you!!

 

[microsysn]

anyone have any ideas? thanks!

 

[canadianwoman]

That question really means 'detained' by the government. If someone is kidnapped, for example, it is true they are being detained, but they would not have to answer 'yes' to that question. Since they were detained by non-government forces during a war, they did not have to answer 'yes' - in my opinion.
However, they did answer 'yes'. There is a problem when there are conflicting answers on different applications for the same person. So no matter whether you answer 'yes' or 'no', you are going to have to explain in detail.

I would answer 'yes' to be in agreement with the previous application, then explain.

The person who was 3 years old when detained is your wife, is that correct? And you are sponsoring her to come to Canada?

 

[microsysn]

Hello thanks for your response.

Yes, I agree they could have chosen no during the original time filling the form, but now that it happened, it's better to choose yes and explain as you said.

And yes the principal applicant I am sponsoring now is my wife, who was 3 years at the time the "detainment" happened...and yes sponsering just her to come to Canada...last time she was a dependant child and her parents was the principal applicant on the sponser forms.

Thanks for your input on this.

 

[Awesomeg]

Hello thanks for your response.

Yes, I agree they could have chosen no during the original time filling the form, but now that it happened, it's better to choose yes and explain as you said.

And yes the principal applicant I am sponsoring now is my wife, who was 3 years at the time the "detainment" happened...and yes sponsering just her to come to Canada...last time she was a dependant child and her parents was the principal applicant on the sponser forms.

Thanks for your input on this.

I strongly advise you to say No in the answer,...

If you want your application to be denied then go ahead and answer yes,

You say "No" and if you wish you can explain what happened when she was 3 years old,
which was not being detained.

Please, listen and answer "No".... and further explain in additional notes....

that will cover everything....

Whish you good luck

 

[microsysn]

Thanks for your input & clarifying your message.
I am wondering if any others have any different view on this?
I am not sure if I should go with CIC or "simplify" the answer...and select no as described below.

She was not detained... the answer is NO...

She did not apply for permanent Residence.. the answer is No...

Again... you need to explain all the details in a separate paper... and
explain that she was part of the application but she was 3 when her parents applied....

Make your life simple.... you can chose to explain in a separate paper
or explain in the appeal... I think it is easier to explain in a separate paper now...

Remember that she was 3 and she did not apply... her parents did...
and she was part of the application.

Good luck

The issue is this question says if it "EVER" happened, and so age is not a factor?
I spoke to immigration canada, and they also hinted the same.
also for same question letter d) Refused permanent resident visa ..which we have to select YES as this did happen to her when she was a dependant child under her parents sponsering. So regardless, we still have to choose YES ..and explain why her previous sponsoring didn't work out?

Or you think for detained we can choose NO, and choose YES for previously being refused permanent resident visa.

Thanks for your help.

 

[bartjones]

I agree with canadianwoman. If the answer was 'yes' on a previous application, you want to be consistent so as to avoid CIC suggesting misrepresentation. An allegation of misrepresentation will be far more difficult to deal with than the detention issue itself. Answering 'yes' along with the explanation you have provided here, should not IMO result in a denial of your application.

If you want your application to be denied then go ahead and answer yes,

Just how exactly do you feel CIC could deny someone a permanent residence visa on the basis of the applicant being detained by a non-government entity during wartime at the age of three?

 

[microsysn]

Thank you for your opinion bartjones & everyone else, appreciate it

 

[canadianwoman]

Yes or no, you definitely have to explain the circumstances.
Also explain the circumstances of the refused visa - you have to answer 'yes' to that question, but a detailed explanation should be attached.

 

[Awesomeg]

I agree with canadianwoman. If the answer was 'yes' on a previous application, you want to be consistent so as to avoid CIC suggesting misrepresentation. An allegation of misrepresentation will be far more difficult to deal with than the detention issue itself. Answering 'yes' along with the explanation you have provided here, should not IMO result in a denial of your application.

Just how exactly do you feel CIC could deny someone a permanent residence visa on the basis of the applicant being detained by a non-government entity during wartime at the age of three?

The best thin is to consult with an immigration lawyer....
this thing of speculating about the issue... yes, or No....

The best thing is to consult with an expert because I don't feel that
the advise of saying "Yes" in the form is the proper advise.....

If it comes from an immigration lawyer I will take it...
but in this case the ones advocating for it don't have anything to lose...

while the person applying has everything in the game.

the true is that she has never been denied because she has never applied...
she was part of an application but she was not the one applying.... plain and simple...

In order to be imputable to her the action she is the one that need to be applying and she never applied...

Your logic may complicate things...
to answer yes.... when she did not applied at the age of 3 ?????

 

[microsysn]

Thanks for your detailed explanation!
Yes...better to get it clarified. Will see how to proceed..thanks again.