Spousal sponsorship

[tuyen]

It sounds like you both might be right. If you are sponsoring someone else's children (meaning either your spouse's children (who are not yours), or your children's children), then you have to prove the income. If you are sponsoring your biological children, there's no income requirement. Does that sound right?

It actually makes no difference if the children are biologically yours with your spouse, or if the child is your spouse's with another person. The only thing that matters is whether or not they're outside of Canada and are needing to be sponsored into the country.

 

[frege]

Yeah...I know, but the Sponsorship Guide doesn't always go into full detail. For that, we have to turn to the actual Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227), and in Section 133(4), we get the following list for when exceptions are made to the minimum income requirement:

In this case, her situation falls under paragraph 4(a), because she's the sole applicant, with no children, so her sponsor doesn't have to worry about minimum income.

But to further the discussion, paragraph 4(b) says that there's also an exception made if the person being sponsored is the spouse, and that spouse has one dependent child. This means that any MORE than one dependent child, and the minimum income rule will apply.

Thanks for pointing that out. The wording is very confusing.

I mean, if a person has two children, can you say that they have "a child"? I would say yes.

What if they have four children, only one of whom has no dependent children? Then can you say that they have "a dependent child who has no dependent children"? Well, they don't have two of them.

I've looked at the CIC operational manuals and I can't find a clear interpretation there either. IP 2 says:

"The ability to meet the minimum income requirement is mandatory, unless the sponsor is sponsoring a spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner or a dependent child where the child has no dependent children of their own."

The use of the word "or" makes no sense to me here.

Do you know of a source that clarifies how this is actually interpreted? Your interpretation seems the most likely one, but it doesn't seem like a slam dunk.

At least the Quebec instruction guide is very clear on this: "your spouse, de facto spouse or conjugal partner and their dependent children if they in turn do not have one or more dependent children."

 

[tuyen]

Thanks for pointing that out. The wording is very confusing.

I mean, if a person has two children, can you say that they have "a child"? I would say yes.

No, because in that case, they would have to say "children" instead of "a child".

And if you think about it, it makes logical sense that one child is okay with no minimum income requirement. But what happens when you have a guy who's sponsoring his wife with 7 children? It would be really foolish for the Canadian government to completely overlook an income requirement in such a case.

What if they have four children, only one of whom has no dependent children? Then can you say that they have "a dependent child who has no dependent children"? Well, they don't have two of them.

It wouldn't matter, because once you're over the one-child threshold, you have to prove a minimum income. Also, once you have a situation where a child has a dependent child of her own, the minimum income rule automatically applies.

I've looked at the CIC operational manuals and I can't find a clear interpretation there either. IP 2 says:

"The ability to meet the minimum income requirement is mandatory, unless the sponsor is sponsoring a spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner or a dependent child where the child has no dependent children of their own."

The use of the word "or" makes no sense to me here.

The word "or" is used for separating different sponsor categories. So for example, you could sponsor:
- your spouse
- or your child

Usually a child will come WITH the spouse, but that's not always the case. Sometimes it's necessary to sponsor just a child by herself. For example, if she was living with her mother in another country, and her mother died...then you would have to sponsor just the child by herself.

Do you know of a source that clarifies how this is actually interpreted? Your interpretation seems the most likely one, but it doesn't seem like a slam dunk.

It's not my interpretation - it's the exact wording as specified by Canada's immigration law.

At least the Quebec instruction guide is very clear on this: "your spouse, de facto spouse or conjugal partner and their dependent children if they in turn do not have one or more dependent children."

Whether it's Quebec's instruction guide, or some other instruction guide, the key word there is "guide". If you don't get specific answers in a guide, then you have to go directly to the place where the specific law is referenced.

 

[frege]

I don't agree that the wording is as unambiguous as you say it is. But your interpretation seems most likely to me.

The word "or" is used for separating different sponsor categories. So for example, you could sponsor:
- your spouse
- or your child

In that case, if we only went by the manual, the restriction that you mention of there being only one child wouldn't seem to apply. For example, if you have a wife and she has two children, then each one of the three individually falls into one of the categories listed with the "or." And there's nothing else in the manual that I can find about a one-child limitation.

 

[tuyen]

I don't agree that the wording is as unambiguous as you say it is. But your interpretation seems most likely to me.

The wording I quoted comes directly from the immigration laws of Canada, so I can't offer you anything in regards to its interpretation. And if there's any kind of "layman's guide" to that whole thing, I've never seen nor heard of it.

In that case, if we only went by the manual, the restriction that you mention of there being only one child wouldn't seem to apply. For example, if you have a wife and she has two children, then each one of the three individually falls into one of the categories listed with the "or."

Well...not exactly, because a wife with two children is no longer an "or" situation, but rather an "and" situation. It's the wife, AND two children, so they would be grouped together on the application.

And there's nothing else in the manual that I can find about a one-child limitation.

You won't find anything else in the manual because they don't go into that level of detail. The only place to get down to the nuts-and-bolts level is in the actual laws...and if there's something in those laws which isn't clear, you'd have to go to a lawyer who has precisely that kind of experience with sponsorship of multiple children, or to hear actual examples of people who have emigrated to Canada with multiple children, and find out if the sponsor had to meet an income requirement.

 

[frege]

Well...not exactly, because a wife with two children is no longer an "or" situation, but rather an "and" situation. It's the wife, AND two children, so they would be grouped together on the application.

So if it's a wife and one child, you accept that it's "or", but if it's two children, then it's "and" all of a sudden? I seriously doubt that a person who had only the manual to go on would be able to piece that together. That's all I'm really saying about the manual.

I think you're stretching things to say imply that everything is perfectly clear and unambiguous. The way the rules are applied may be exactly as you say, but that doesn't mean that their wording is clear.

If you don't know of any other sources, that's okay.

 

[Leon]

The manual immigration uses, that is immigrations interpretation of the law states:

Sponsors of dependent children and of spouses, common-law partners or conjugal partners (unless they have dependent children who have dependent children of their own) do not have to meet financial requirements, but they do undertake to provide for the basic necessities of the sponsored applicants so that the applicants do not need social assistance. Applicants may be refused for financial reasons under A39 if they are unable or unwilling to support themselves and their dependent children and there are not adequate arrangements for their care and support.

So.. that means that there immigration does not have a specific income requirement for sponsors of spouses and dependent children, even if there are 7 children. However, they can still refuse if it looks like the family will end up on welfare.

I have not exactly been looking for cases where people have been refused for that reason but I heard of one case where a man was refused to sponsor his spouse. He was working in a restaurant making only $8000 a year or so (maybe he was making more under the table, who knows). Immigration said that they did not see how he would support his wife on $8000 a year and even though they said that she would also work upon arriving, immigration knew, probably from an interview, that her English skills were almost non-existant so they didn't find this plausible and therefore refused.

 

[frege]

The manual immigration uses, that is immigrations interpretation of the law states:

So.. that means that there immigration does not have a specific income requirement for sponsors of spouses and dependent children, even if there are 7 children. However, they can still refuse if it looks like the family will end up on welfare.

I have not exactly been looking for cases where people have been refused for that reason but I heard of one case where a man was refused to sponsor his spouse. He was working in a restaurant making only $8000 a year or so (maybe he was making more under the table, who knows). Immigration said that they did not see how he would support his wife on $8000 a year and even though they said that she would also work upon arriving, immigration knew, probably from an interview, that her English skills were almost non-existant so they didn't find this plausible and therefore refused.

By now, Tuyen had me convinced otherwise.

 

[tuyen]

So if it's a wife and one child, you accept that it's "or", but if it's two children, then it's "and" all of a sudden?

Everyone who gets listed on an application will be under the "and" category. Whether it's one adult and one child, or two adults and four children, it's all "and" if they're part of the same sponsorship. The only time it's "or" is if there's only one person on the application.

I seriously doubt that a person who had only the manual to go on would be able to piece that together. That's all I'm really saying about the manual.

The manual is pretty clear in most cases, but if someone makes a mistake with their application because the manual wasn't clear, they will be notified by CIC to provide the necessary corrections or additions on the application.

I think you're stretching things to say imply that everything is perfectly clear and unambiguous. The way the rules are applied may be exactly as you say, but that doesn't mean that their wording is clear.

It's one of those things where if something isn't clear enough for someone, they should definitely get help with the application. The sponsorship guide even has a section about how to obtain assistance.

 

[frege]

Everyone who gets listed on an application will be under the "and" category. Whether it's one adult and one child, or two adults and four children, it's all "and" if they're part of the same sponsorship. The only time it's "or" is if there's only one person on the application.

My basic point is that there's no way that you can read a distinction between the spouse having one child or two children into that sentence in the manual.

 

[tuyen]

So.. that means that there immigration does not have a specific income requirement for sponsors of spouses and dependent children, even if there are 7 children. However, they can still refuse if it looks like the family will end up on welfare.

But that's an income requirement. If they're going to refuse someone because the person doesn't make enough money and is likely to end up on welfare, then the reason they refused is because they didn't meet an income requirement. Whether or not that requirement is stated clearly or is simply unwritten and implied, it's still very much in effect, and someone would have to be delusional to think that they won't look at your income when you're sponsoring a wife with multiple children.

I have not exactly been looking for cases where people have been refused for that reason but I heard of one case where a man was refused to sponsor his spouse. He was working in a restaurant making only $8000 a year or so (maybe he was making more under the table, who knows). Immigration said that they did not see how he would support his wife on $8000 a year and even though they said that she would also work upon arriving

Exactly...and that backs up what I was saying. If they're able to refuse someone who was sponsoring just his wife, imagine how much MORE likely it will be that they'll refuse a wife with multiple children when there isn't enough income.

The manual - and even Section 133(4) clearly says that if the spouse is the sole applicant, there's no income requirement. And yet they still refused that application. So the lesson here is, forget about trying to nitpick the meaning of "child" versus "children", and use common sense which tells you that when there are red flags in your application (such as inadequate income), they won't hesitate in rejecting you.

 

[frege]

But that's an income requirement. If they're going to refuse someone because the person doesn't make enough money and is likely to end up on welfare, then the reason they refused is because they didn't meet an income requirement. Whether or not that requirement is stated clearly or is simply unwritten and implied, it's still very much in effect, and someone would have to be delusional to think that they won't look at your income when you're sponsoring a wife with multiple children.

I think there's an important distinction you're missing here.

The official minimum necessary income requirement concerns only the sponsor's income.

When the official minimum doesn't apply, they take into account the earning potential of both parents, as well as any help they might get from relatives.

 

[KKRSTNA]

Looks like my latest question has made a lot of activity...

 

[jack83]

Quote from: frege on December 18, 2012, 07:19:51 pm
I'm not so sure that it would be a good idea to try to avoid mentioning that you're getting married. In the U.S., there's a fiancé visa, but there's no such thing in Canada, so what do they expect you to do if you want to get married in Canada? Exactly what you are doing. I think it might be worse to try to hide it.

You can get a return ticket for six months from now, as you'll have six months in the country as a visitor.

You're allowed to enter Canada as a visitor even if you intend to apply for permanent residence. The border officer just needs to believe that you won't work, you won't study, and you'll leave *if* your application is rejected or your time in Canada runs out for another reason. You just need to say that you'll leave if you're not allowed to stay. Make sure you can prove that you have enough money or your fiancee has enough income to support you while you're in Canada, so they don't think you'll want to work.

If you do the in-Canada procedure it will take about 14 months to become a PR if they accept immediately that your marriage is genuine. In that case, you can work and study after about 6 months. You can stay in Canada for the entire process. If they need an interview because they're concerned about the genuineness of the marriage, the process can be *very* long and you can't work until it's over.

If you do the outside-Canada procedure, you'll go through the Rome office if you live in Greece and are a citizen of Greece. That will take about 6 to 15 months. You can't work in Canada until the end of the procedure. You can stay in Canada as a visitor, but unlike the in-Canada procedure, you have to keep renewing your visitor status every six months, and the renewal isn't automatic. (Most people on the forum who are from developed countries haven't had problems with this process.) On the other hand, if you are rejected, you'll find out sooner and you'll have better appeal rights than with the in-Canada process.

OK! Now I have 2 different opinions.
Can anyone else help me out with his opinion?
The plan is to get married in Canada, and I will stay there for 6 months knowing that I can't work (my fiancee and I are fiancially ok to support this). The question is if I have a 3 or 4 month return ticket to my country, can I stay in Canada as long as we are approved and cancel/throw away the return ticket if we get married within the first month?
Any other thoughts you have please let me know!

 

[computergeek]

OK! Now I have 2 different opinions.
Can anyone else help me out with his opinion?
The plan is to get married in Canada, and I will stay there for 6 months knowing that I can't work (my fiancee and I are fiancially ok to support this). The question is if I have a 3 or 4 month return ticket to my country, can I stay in Canada as long as we are approved and cancel/throw away the return ticket if we get married within the first month?
Any other thoughts you have please let me know!

CBSA may not allow you to enter if they think your intent is not to leave. The purpose of the return ticket is to demonstrate that you intend on leaving.

Generally, what most people say is they are coming for a visit to friends/family/camping/skiing, etc. CBSA generally doesn't ask for a return ticket for someone from a visa exempt country, but they can do so. I'm not sure from which country you are coming, but odds are that unless you raise their suspicions, you'll just be granted entry into the country.

You need to walk a fine line here: telling the truth but not volunteering information that won't help you or will invite further questions. Having answers to the follow-up questions - that's why you have a return ticket (you can buy a refundable one if you want, so you won't waste it if you cancel it.)

If you then get married and apply outland, you can ask to remain in Canada for the process. Or you can file inland, in which case you include an application for an open work permit with the PR application and you can remain in Canada under implied status.