Who would like to explain the "at the time of that application"117(9)(D)? Does it include "the first time landing"
- Thread starter joe zhao
- Start date
Thank you for your suggestion, but I doubt any lawyer could wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.
No, as I explained earlier, my specific situation is that while I do lack knowledge of the immigration Act, I have not violated section 117(9)(d), nor have I knowingly broken the Act, nor have I caused any harm to Canada. What harm could a newborn baby possibly cause to Canada that would warrant IRCC using a distortion of the Act to jeopardize his future?
I somehow doubt that grammar is going to be useful in an arguing in court that IRCC has made an error. Canadian courts balance "Letter of Law" with "Intent of the Law". What is the intent of the legislation...to exclude those who were not declared or examined before the coMpletuon of the immigration process (I.e. landing).
my specific situation is that while I do lack knowledge of the immigration Act, I have not violated section 117(9)(d), nor have I knowingly broken the Act, nor have I caused any harm to Canada. What harm could a newborn baby possibly cause to Canada that would warrant IRCC using a distortion of the Act to jeopardize his future?
Grammar is a fundamental social norm and a part of public human rights. If the courts do not recognize universally accepted grammar, why should the government force students to receive grammar education? Doesn't this create a double standard in law enforcement? If Canadian courts seek a balance between "legal text" and "legal intent," when the double standard of "legal intent" is applied, human will overrides the law. If the courts believe that the "legal text" is flawed, the correct approach is to amend and improve the law itself. Adopting a double standard is wrong and will inevitably harm the interests of all the public. The legislative intent of 117(9)(d) is very clearly to exclude those who intentionally harm Canadian interests. Those who plan to intentionally harm Canadian interests through immigration have only one chance: they must have the intent to cause harm when they apply for immigration. This is precisely what section 117(9)(d) explicitly stipulates as a precaution: "at the time of application." The bill has cleverly used this point in time to exclude all opportunities for intentional harm.
I didn't know that grammar was a human rights issue. Talk to your lawyer about filing a H&C claim with your argument. Your child was born in 2011 so why didn't you take care of this over 10 years ago?
Talk to a lawyer instead of arguing on a public forum. No one here can help you.
Well good luck. Not much point in expressing an opinion as you are quite settled in your interpretation (asking for an explanation or debate was obviously not the original intent of the post). Many have tried and I suspect most have failed at challenging the law. Maybe you'll get lucky, but use a lawyer.
I know that no one can help me with this kind of thing. I just want to leave a topic here so that families in the same situation as me can find some relevant information, and so that those in need can receive some perspectives on the problem and help them make judgments.
Please, just take your grammar point to a lawyer and pose the question to them.
You're suffering from a rather severe case of motivated reasoning - you want the answer to be 'this is a point of grammar' but it is not (and to the extent it is, you're still wrong).
But I draw your attention to points made in my previous post: this was NOT your only communication from IRCC, and indeed, it does NOT rely upon your understanding of the regulations. Refer to the other communications you received from IRCC, and also disclosures available on their websites, which repeat (and repeated) numerous times that you MUST advise them of change of family composition. Any procedure that would review this (i.e. in internal appeal or through courts) would take into account whether any ambiguity in the regulations is clarified (or not) in other communications. You had those communications.
You did not need to understand or even refer to the regulations. Check your COPR.
I am looking at one in front of me: it states "Dependant(s) Information - Have you any dependants other than listed below?" (My bold). [In the one that I am looking at, the newly-minted PR was made to write NO, to circle it, and then initial beside it - and I know for a fact the officer asked about this, although it was rather brief and perfunctory, the officer did ask - eg "are these all of your dependants", and the individual did ask a brief question for clarity. (If you were not made to circle and initial, I think that has no impact, given the lack of ambiguity in the subsequent section and other communications, but feel free to ask a lawyer.)]
Beneath this is "remarks," signature block of the immigration officer, and "I hereby certify that the above statements are true and correct and that I fully understand the conditions imposed." (Date/sign by applicant).
Although not many would choose to do so, 'remarks' here could very well have included any hand-written statement (correction or otherwise) that you wished to make, eg "I have another dependent not listed above, here are the details." I assume you did not write anything in, to correct the record or otherwise.
So to sum up: you attested to the truthfulness of the info above, in front of a witness, with the opportunity to ask questions and insert any remarks if needed, and you did not. Whether intentional or not, you misrepresented your family composition.
Going back to this some years later - when you clearly haven't checked the correspondence that you had - and claiming there is bad grammar in the regulations (that - let's be clear - you probably did not read back then, either) is motivated retrospective reasoning. The regs didn't affect your reasoning then - at all; it's only useful to you if it fixes things. It's understandable, you're trying to find an error - and if it actually was an outright error, I would support and say all the more power to you.
But it wasn't an error - I think you're wrong on the syntax, and you're definitely wrong on the supporting documentation (which serves to clarify the syntax and remove the interpretation you're hanging your argument upon). You can't just hide your head in the sand and pretend it's not there.
You're suffering from a rather severe case of motivated reasoning - you want the answer to be 'this is a point of grammar' but it is not (and to the extent it is, you're still wrong).
But I draw your attention to points made in my previous post: this was NOT your only communication from IRCC, and indeed, it does NOT rely upon your understanding of the regulations. Refer to the other communications you received from IRCC, and also disclosures available on their websites, which repeat (and repeated) numerous times that you MUST advise them of change of family composition. Any procedure that would review this (i.e. in internal appeal or through courts) would take into account whether any ambiguity in the regulations is clarified (or not) in other communications. You had those communications.
You did not need to understand or even refer to the regulations. Check your COPR.
I am looking at one in front of me: it states "Dependant(s) Information - Have you any dependants other than listed below?" (My bold). [In the one that I am looking at, the newly-minted PR was made to write NO, to circle it, and then initial beside it - and I know for a fact the officer asked about this, although it was rather brief and perfunctory, the officer did ask - eg "are these all of your dependants", and the individual did ask a brief question for clarity. (If you were not made to circle and initial, I think that has no impact, given the lack of ambiguity in the subsequent section and other communications, but feel free to ask a lawyer.)]
Beneath this is "remarks," signature block of the immigration officer, and "I hereby certify that the above statements are true and correct and that I fully understand the conditions imposed." (Date/sign by applicant).
Although not many would choose to do so, 'remarks' here could very well have included any hand-written statement (correction or otherwise) that you wished to make, eg "I have another dependent not listed above, here are the details." I assume you did not write anything in, to correct the record or otherwise.
So to sum up: you attested to the truthfulness of the info above, in front of a witness, with the opportunity to ask questions and insert any remarks if needed, and you did not. Whether intentional or not, you misrepresented your family composition.
Going back to this some years later - when you clearly haven't checked the correspondence that you had - and claiming there is bad grammar in the regulations (that - let's be clear - you probably did not read back then, either) is motivated retrospective reasoning. The regs didn't affect your reasoning then - at all; it's only useful to you if it fixes things. It's understandable, you're trying to find an error - and if it actually was an outright error, I would support and say all the more power to you.
But it wasn't an error - I think you're wrong on the syntax, and you're definitely wrong on the supporting documentation (which serves to clarify the syntax and remove the interpretation you're hanging your argument upon). You can't just hide your head in the sand and pretend it's not there.
Thank you for your detailed explanation, but the last document I received from IRCC was for my visa. At that time, I didn't know I would have a son in the future, so I don't remember any other documents from IRCC reminding me of this issue. In short, my unfamiliarity with IRCC procedures is a problem. Ultimately, the key to this issue is not me, nor is it about "legal intent." The key is that IRCC only needs to change "at the time of that application" in 117(9)(d) to "before the time of first landing" or "before the time of PR CARD issues," and the problem will be solved. It's that simple, but IRCC just won't do it and wants to make things unclear and complicated.
Thank you! Most people seek good fortune, but I only seek the truth, because those who seek good fortune only care about themselves, while seeking the truth benefits society. Yes, I know that no one can help me with this kind of thing. I just want to leave a topic here so that families in the same situation as me can find some relevant information, and so that those in need can receive some perspectives on the problem, and help them make judgments. This is a living example; even in Canada, before the law, the individual is merely a weaker party. On this issue, only facts can persuade emotions, and reason can clarify reality.
If this society is not good, not fair, it fundamentally negates the meaning of my immigration here.
You got more than the visa. You received, at minimum, a COPR. You're telling us that you didn't read the documents carefully.
You said that you got the visa in October, and that your son was born in January. So are you really saying at that point - October - you did not know about the pending birth? When did you find out about it?
By the way - I looked at the legislation and the regulations with a bit more attention to certain areas. The act variously uses phrases like 'submitted application' (i.e. time/date of submission), 'pending application' (an application in progress), and examination (of the applicant etc by IRCC), part of what happens while the application is pending. There's also reference to the fact that an examination is not complete until finalized. Which is to say: your so-called 'strict' interpretation is, IMO, simply wrong. That said - legislation and regs are specific types of writing, and few non-professionals should risk just reading it and thinking they're 'right.' That applies to me as much as you.
So see a lawyer. They'll give you a professional opinion, in context, with the right training to parse. I think they'll tell you your 'strict' interpretation is not supported.
