+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445
Client Portal

Sponsoring my girlfriend and kid

messi23 said:
Oh man.......Are there no other option or way to process it ?
Click to expand...

No, not even the prime minister can make an exception for you. Now you can never sponsor your child forever. See this example case below. Really sorry about that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-island-mother-appeals-for-son-s-sponsorship-1.1402511.

And Ponga, I don't know if having his wife sponsor the child would work because I believe not declaring means the child is excluded from the family class, meaning the child in CIC's eyes, is not considered a family member any more and cannot be sponsored.
 
The rule based on Regulation 117(9)(d) is there to prevent the "Excessive Demand Exemption" that is granted to Family Class applications being used to bypass a medically inadmissible dependant within the economic immigration classes. Therefore I believe that the "marry the mother" scenario is doomed to failure.
 
messi23 said:
Oh man.......Are there no other option or way to process it ?
Click to expand...

No.

The only way I can see is if you voluntarily revoke your own PR status, and then try to apply again for PR from scratch and this time include your child and wife (after you get married) on the application.
 
zardoz said:
The rule based on Regulation 117(9)(d) is there to prevent the "Excessive Demand Exemption" that is granted to Family Class applications being used to bypass a medically inadmissible dependant within the economic immigration classes. Therefore I believe that the "marry the mother" scenario is doomed to failure.
Click to expand...

I've heard of this... but i can't remember exactly what the loophole was... could someone briefly explain it?
 
keesio said:
I've heard of this... but i can't remember exactly what the loophole was... could someone briefly explain it?
Click to expand...
The only loophole is via an H&C exemption based on the best interests of the child, which in this case probably won't apply. If however you are referring to the EDE loophole, it works like this...

1) PR applicant has medically inadmissible dependant, therefore is also inadmissible.
2) Applicant doesn't declare dependant and therefore gets PR.
3) New PR now tries to sponsor inadmissible dependant under family class with medical exemption.
4) Job done...

Except of course for 117(9)(d) blocks 3) and may also cause 2) to be revoked for misrepresentation.
 
zardoz said:
If however you are referring to the EDE loophole, it works like this...

1) PR applicant has medically inadmissible dependant, therefore is also inadmissible.
2) Applicant doesn't declare dependant and therefore gets PR.
3) New PR now tries to sponsor inadmissible dependant under family class with medical exemption.
4) Job done...
Click to expand...

Oh yea, that's it.

yeah, that is a big deal. I now understand why they have the rule. It is a harsh rule because I think there are so many cases of people doing it accidentally. But I understand the importance of it.
 
I still think that CIC should create a way for a person that has honestly made a tragic mistake (and not blatantly tried to skirt the `EDE' loophole) to keep their family together...in Canada.

Would it be so much more work for the Visa Officer to ask a person at landing:
"Has your marital status changed since you submitted your PR application"?
"Do you have children that were born after you submitted your PR application"?

If a person answers untruthfully, then by all means they should have to deal with the consequences, but...what about a case where the person honestly had no idea that they needed to disclose this information at landing. In a situation such as this OP, there is now a child (and perhaps a mother) who will likely not be able to live in Canada as a family. Is that really fair to the child? Will his/her life be better because of this? NO!

At the very least, there should be a policy in place where the PR would forfeit their PR and start over (including perhaps a monetary penalty) that would allow them to include their child. It would be a win-win for the applicant, his/her child AND Canada.
 
Ponga said:
Would it be so much more work for the Visa Officer to ask a person at landing:
"Has your marital status changed since you submitted your PR application"?
"Do you have children that were born after you submitted your PR application"?
Click to expand...

They do ask you this on landing. They asked my wife if there was any change in her family status like divorce or if she had any children, etc (yes they did explicitly ask about marital status and if she had any kids). But I don't think all the landing officers are consistent in asking this (some I think just quickly ask if anything changed since the application). And there may be some issues with language barrier. What I think would be best is if CIC sends you a form with your COPR which states "I swear that since the date of my application, there has been no change in my marital/common-law/conjugal status and I have not had any children" and they have to bring the form with them and sign it in front of the landing officer. That would give them time before hand to read and understand the form and also get translation help beforehand. And if they still sign it even though it is not true, then they really have NO EXCUSE.
 
Ponga said:
At the very least, there should be a policy in place where the PR would forfeit their PR and start over (including perhaps a monetary penalty) that would allow them to include their child. It would be a win-win for the applicant, his/her child AND Canada.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, I don't see what this isn't possible. I've never seen a rule that says you can't forfeit your own PR and then try to re-qualify and apply again from scratch, this time including all necessary dependents/spouses.
 
Rob_TO said:
As I mentioned above, I don't see what this isn't possible. I've never seen a rule that says you can't forfeit your own PR and then try to re-qualify and apply again from scratch, this time including all necessary dependents/spouses.
Click to expand...

I think Ponga was suggesting there should be a new exception. Right now the law is super strict.
 
keesio said:
I think Ponga was suggesting there should be a new exception. Right now the law is super strict.
Click to expand...

Right now there is no law that I can see, that would stop someone from forfeiting their PR status and trying to apply again from scratch.
 
Rob_TO said:
As I mentioned above, I don't see what this isn't possible. I've never seen a rule that says you can't forfeit your own PR and then try to re-qualify and apply again from scratch, this time including all necessary dependents/spouses.
Click to expand...
Well then perhaps people should stop saying that a person (in this situation) "Can never sponsor their [family member]."
 
Rob_TO said:
Right now there is no law that I can see, that would stop someone from forfeiting their PR status and trying to apply again from scratch.
Click to expand...

oh, i misunderstood.

but I thought this was prevented.... that a spouse and dependents that were omitted from an application for a particular individual can never be sponsored or accompany that person ever again in any form? I've always heard that on this forum.
 
keesio said:
oh, i misunderstood.

but I thought this was prevented.... that a spouse and dependents that were omitted from an application for a particular individual can never be sponsored or accompany that person ever again in any form? I've always heard that on this forum.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of a case where someone actually renounced their PR status, and then attempted to re-qualify again from scratch and this time include a dependent/spouse that was not included in their previous application.

I don't see why the dependent/spouse would be excluded on the 2nd application, since they would be fully subject to the medical excessive demand criteria. This is just my opinion though if there is case history or a rule stated somewhere that says otherwise, please let me know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.