Hello everyone,
I'm hoping to get some clarity on a very specific and confusing situation for our spousal sponsorship application. We’ve received a lot of conflicting advice, so I want to present the full scenario and the different arguments we've encountered. We would be so grateful for insight, especially from RCICs, immigration lawyers, or anyone who has gone through something similar.
The Situation:
My partner (the applicant) and I (the sponsor) were travelling to Canada for a visit. During a layover *before* reaching a Canadian Port of Entry (POE), a CBSA officer cancelled my partner’s eTA over the phone.
- Official Reason Given: The officer found my partner "inadmissible to Canada under section 41(a) of the IRPA in that you are intending to remain in Canada permanently and are not in possession of the prescribed document."
- Context: It was not at the border, and the officer advised reapplying for the eTA once circumstances change.
- The Questions on the Form:
On the sponsorship forms, there are two key questions:
1. Been refused... a visitor or temporary resident visa?
2. Been refused admission to, or ordered to leave, Canada?
Our dilemma is whether the eTA cancellation counts as a "yes" to both, one, or none of these. We will be providing a detailed letter of explanation regardless of our answer.
- The Arguments for How to Answer:
Here’s a summary of the conflicting advice we've seen. We’re trying to figure out which line of reasoning is most accurate and safest.
Question 1: "Been refused a visitor or temporary resident visa?"**
The Case for Answering YES:
Reasoning: This is the safest, most conservative approach. The *spirit* of the question is to disclose any negative decision related to temporary travel. An eTA cancellation based on inadmissibility is functionally the same as a visa refusal. Since IRCC will see this in their system anyway, ticking "Yes" and explaining it avoids any risk of being accused of misrepresentation (a 5-year ban under IRPA s.40).
The Case for Answering NO:
Reasoning: This is the most technically accurate answer. IRCC's own website clearly states that an eTA is **not a visa**. The question specifically asks about a "visa." Since an eTA is a different type of travel authorization, a cancellation is not a visa refusal. The full story can be told in the letter of explanation without incorrectly answering the question.
Question 2: "Been refused admission to Canada?"
The Case for Answering YES:
Reasoning: The practical *effect* of the officer's decision was a refusal of admission. The formal finding of "inadmissibility" under the IRPA effectively barred entry to Canada, even if it happened remotely. It was an official refusal to allow entry.
The Case for Answering NO:
Reasoning: This is a strong argument based on procedure. "Refused admission" is a specific legal event that happens *at a Canadian Port of Entry* (like an airport or land border) after an examination. Because my partner never reached the border, he was never formally examined or refused admission at a POE. The eTA cancellation *prevented* him from travelling to Canada to seek admission.
Our Request:
Given these arguments, we are looking for experienced opinions.
1. How did you answer if you had an eTA or TRV cancelled before reaching the border?
2. For any RCICs or lawyers, which approach do you advise to ensure full transparency while remaining factually accurate?
Thank you so much for taking the time to read and share your expertise. It is deeply appreciated.
I'm hoping to get some clarity on a very specific and confusing situation for our spousal sponsorship application. We’ve received a lot of conflicting advice, so I want to present the full scenario and the different arguments we've encountered. We would be so grateful for insight, especially from RCICs, immigration lawyers, or anyone who has gone through something similar.
The Situation:
My partner (the applicant) and I (the sponsor) were travelling to Canada for a visit. During a layover *before* reaching a Canadian Port of Entry (POE), a CBSA officer cancelled my partner’s eTA over the phone.
- Official Reason Given: The officer found my partner "inadmissible to Canada under section 41(a) of the IRPA in that you are intending to remain in Canada permanently and are not in possession of the prescribed document."
- Context: It was not at the border, and the officer advised reapplying for the eTA once circumstances change.
- The Questions on the Form:
On the sponsorship forms, there are two key questions:
1. Been refused... a visitor or temporary resident visa?
2. Been refused admission to, or ordered to leave, Canada?
Our dilemma is whether the eTA cancellation counts as a "yes" to both, one, or none of these. We will be providing a detailed letter of explanation regardless of our answer.
- The Arguments for How to Answer:
Here’s a summary of the conflicting advice we've seen. We’re trying to figure out which line of reasoning is most accurate and safest.
Question 1: "Been refused a visitor or temporary resident visa?"**
The Case for Answering YES:
Reasoning: This is the safest, most conservative approach. The *spirit* of the question is to disclose any negative decision related to temporary travel. An eTA cancellation based on inadmissibility is functionally the same as a visa refusal. Since IRCC will see this in their system anyway, ticking "Yes" and explaining it avoids any risk of being accused of misrepresentation (a 5-year ban under IRPA s.40).
The Case for Answering NO:
Reasoning: This is the most technically accurate answer. IRCC's own website clearly states that an eTA is **not a visa**. The question specifically asks about a "visa." Since an eTA is a different type of travel authorization, a cancellation is not a visa refusal. The full story can be told in the letter of explanation without incorrectly answering the question.
Question 2: "Been refused admission to Canada?"
The Case for Answering YES:
Reasoning: The practical *effect* of the officer's decision was a refusal of admission. The formal finding of "inadmissibility" under the IRPA effectively barred entry to Canada, even if it happened remotely. It was an official refusal to allow entry.
The Case for Answering NO:
Reasoning: This is a strong argument based on procedure. "Refused admission" is a specific legal event that happens *at a Canadian Port of Entry* (like an airport or land border) after an examination. Because my partner never reached the border, he was never formally examined or refused admission at a POE. The eTA cancellation *prevented* him from travelling to Canada to seek admission.
Our Request:
Given these arguments, we are looking for experienced opinions.
1. How did you answer if you had an eTA or TRV cancelled before reaching the border?
2. For any RCICs or lawyers, which approach do you advise to ensure full transparency while remaining factually accurate?
Thank you so much for taking the time to read and share your expertise. It is deeply appreciated.
