Sponsored underage child got married and hid from her parents while coming

[Madal]

Dear all,

A man has sponsored a family of six, father, mother, two boys and two girls. One of the girls got secretly married after the sponsor. She gave birth to a child. When the family was called for interview, she was still under age 16. She was not living with her parents and parents did not know that she got married and had a child and husband. The reason that she was hiding and still hiding from her parents about her marriage was that her husband and love was from despised people whom they had no intermarriage, from minority group. She has a baby and is now pregnant. The officer processed the case without meeting the girl and sent the family to proceed with medical exam.

The girl did not have time to report her case to the embassy still afraid of their parents to disclose her case. She went directly to medical exam. She told the doctors examining her that she has a child and husband thinking that they will inform the embassy and that was the only chance she had to disclose her case.

 

[truesmile]

Out of the family that includes the father, the mother, 2 boys and 2 girls. Which one is "the man"? What is the category of sponsorship? You have left too many details missing for forum members to comment. But then, what is your question exactly?

I'll make some assumptions. If the 'already married' girl with child and pregnant wishes to be excluded from whosever application this is, she has probably gotten her wish. Being married already will have excluded her from being sponsored under whatever category the application was submitted under.

 

[Madal]

Sorry to clarify the case. The sponsored family of the pregnant girl is consisting of her father, mother, two of her brothers and one sister. They all arrived in Canada. The question is that the girl left her husband and a child behind, which she did not have chance to disclose to the embassy during the interview, because the interview was conducted with her presence.

What the girl want now is to disclose her marriage, her child and husband and be legally able to sponsor them.

Madal

 

[truesmile]

Just so you are aware, I still am not clear . . . "family of six" sponsored by WHOM? Who is this "man"?

Anyway, since her husband and child went undeclared on the application and during landing procedures, they are now "excluded" under paragraph 117 (9), from ever being sponsored under the Family Class. They will have to find another way to immigrate to Canada. If the girl DID have a chance to declare them, she herself would have been disqualified from being sponsored. Just because she was able to "sneak" through the system, that doesn't open the door for her now (extended) family.

 

[zardoz]

No only that. She has committed "misrepresentation" and could lose her PR status. In theory, so did the principal applicant...

 

[zardoz]

Sorry to clarify the case. The sponsored family of the pregnant girl is consisting of her father, mother, two of her brothers and one sister. They all arrived in Canada. The question is that the girl left her husband and a child behind, which she did not have chance to disclose to the embassy during the interview, because the interview was conducted with her presence.

What the girl want now is to disclose her marriage, her child and husband and be legally able to sponsor them.

Madal

She should have declared when she "landed" as a PR as she had to be there to sign the COPR document. There is no excuse for not disclosing then.
I think she has no realistic chance of ever sponsoring them.

 

[Madal]

One more point. She was a child when she got married. She is still a child who had got married to unwanted man (according to her parents). It was only her sponsor who could have told her to add her husband and the child if she got married, even he did not know that. If her parents would tell her, they were not aware of that too.

The question is if she was not interviewed by an officer who also tells every family member to disclose such kind of stories, how on earth did the child know the rules. She is very disadvantaged and she is the only victim. That is how our community sees the case. What is the solution?

Did anyone know an answer?

 

[Obronibini]

One more point. She was a child when she got married. She is still a child who had got married to unwanted man (according to her parents). It was only her sponsor who could have told her to add her husband and the child if she got married, even he did not know that. If her parents would tell her, they were not aware of that too.

The question is if she was not interviewed by an officer who also tells every family member to disclose such kind of stories, how on earth did the child know the rules. She is very disadvantaged and she is the only victim. That is how our community sees the case. What is the solution?

Did anyone know an answer?

if cic was a place to joke and come up with justifications and explainstions am sure non of us will be here. Cic don't care about all of that ! The rules are clear and they won't take any excuses . Ignorant of the law they say is no excuse . It even strange how a kid can get married secretly . That's my opinion though. Cic won't take all this . If you didn't declare you can't sponsor . Maybe she need to go back to marry her guy again etc and start the relastionship again . ( I don't know if that's even possible ) cic won't take those explainstions . Sorry .

 

[taffy7]

One more point. She was a child when she got married. She is still a child who had got married to unwanted man (according to her parents). It was only her sponsor who could have told her to add her husband and the child if she got married, even he did not know that. If her parents would tell her, they were not aware of that too.

The question is if she was not interviewed by an officer who also tells every family member to disclose such kind of stories, how on earth did the child know the rules. She is very disadvantaged and she is the only victim. That is how our community sees the case. What is the solution?

Did anyone know an answer?



She now wants to sponsor a man to Canada and her child but you say it was an unwanted man by her parents .This young women married this so unwanted man , had a child by him and came to Canada.If this man is unwanted how does she purpose to support this man when he gets here.Weather the parents or sponsor knew about this , she will not be able to sponsor her child or husband. She is very luck to still be here.

 

[blueangel371115]

I'm seriously questioning the whole validity of this post since things are kind of vague and also, I'm not sure about Canada ( if the marriage occurred here, again confusing) but in my home state, not sure of elsewhere, at her age she would have needed a parent's signature to even file for a marriage license. So they, more than likely, knew about it or the marriage isn't legal. Someone can correct me. but too much here doesn't make sense.

 

[keesio]

I am going to assume that she was a dependent of one of her parents. If that is the case, since she was legally married at the time , I'm pretty sure she is not eligible for sponsorship since she would no longer be a dependent of her parents anymore - even if she is still a minor.

Not only can she not sponsor her husband and child, but if she tries to, CIC may find out that she was never eligible for PR in the first place and may take action to revoke it on grounds of misrepresentation.

 

[keesio]

I'm seriously questioning the whole validity of this post since things are kind of vague

If you think this one is confusing, check out some of the other posts by the OP....

 

[blueangel371115]

that bad, sheesh

 

[truesmile]

If you think this one is confusing, check out some of the other posts by the OP....

"Immigration Consultant" in a country where they're unregulated, perhaps??

 

[zardoz]

"Immigration Consultant" in a country where they're unregulated, perhaps??

That's my assumption... Look at the salutation in http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/a-canadian-citizen-who-is-married-to-a-refugee-women-with-three-children-t196064.0.html;msg3038032#msg3038032