Thank you Everyone for the comments. I agree that there is nothing much left to do at this point except seeing a good lawyer.
Thanks Again
Thanks Again
Marital Status Single before landing
- Thread starter sahilk
- Start date
This June date is what interests me - there was NO, ZERO communication between you and IRCC before this was sent to you by email? This sounds wrong - I don't believe they send this by email unsolicited. (Or not usually).
The point I am trying to make is that there are really (at present) two different COPR 'paths.'
The COPR-printed-outland (as a result of passport request): although entitled 'confirmation of permanent residence', the holder is NOT a permanent resident until it is signed/counter-signed at border by CBSA officer (processing the landing) and the (new) PR. For the PR this also constitutes their confirmation that nothing has changed (the text specifically says above is true). "Last chance" to make any corrections of note. But once this is done, it is the first principal document attesting to PR status. (As far as I'm aware this is almost always provided in printed version with physical photos, but even if it were 'electronic', its use is limited until processed at the border.
Virtual/eCOPR/email version: this is a final, complete COPR - sent by email and specifically says 'now a PR' (or something like that). No physical signatures. As far as I'm aware, these are ONLY (at least now) sent to applicants who are (supposed to be) inland. That 'supposed to be' includes a form of statement/oath that the applicant is physically in Canada. I believe it also includes reiteration/statement that the biographical info etc is true (eg including marital status is correct). [Those who get this while abroad, for whatever reason, have some difficulties but apparently it can be corrected - usually while still abroad.] Note, I don't think the eCOPR has marital status, but not certain - at any rate the confirmation of status would have happened before.
Your story claims that nohting like this step of commhnicating with you before the (e)COPR was sent happened. I can't speak to that. Also you flew/entered Canada on the work permit (which should have been cancelled before), and then (I guess) the CBSA officer waved you through because presumably thought you'd already landed (in-country).
Mistakes like this could have happened. I don't know.
I still doubt it will help you with the spouse sponsorship, but a lawyer would be able to give you proper advice. Perhaps there is something there in that procedures were being changed during covid. Or perhaps you forgot the step that I referred to - but at any rate govt will claim it was your fault anyway.
Note in my post above I've noted that there are two related-but-different procedures, copr for someone abroad and inland. What you are describing / claiming is that somehow your file was handled in-between the two and missing a couple steps.
Hence: complete documents. EVERYTHING. To your lawyer.
Who may think worth trying to demonstrate that steps were missed, by government. Proving you got and acted on all documents and/or that any missteps were by govt and not you will not be easy (if lawyer suggests going this way).
I don't want this to be taken as advice by anyone here BUT: in the very worst case scenario, an applicant who arrives at the border and needs to declare married status (for whatever reason) should absolutely declare the spouse at landing. Signing the COPR that nothing has changed and all is true when it is not would be FAR worse.
That said: I agree it should be done before travelling. I agree it is too late.
But making the correction at the border is pretty much the last chance, the absolute last chance.
Background: there have been cases of PRs - rare though- making this change at border. After much pain and some messy legal work, SOME were able to fix it.
I do not know how CBSA handles. But in terms of actionable info for anyone in this case: absolutely DO NOT sign statement on COPR that says you are single if you're married (which it does by having applicant signing statement that 'all info above is true and complete' or similar legal language).
Even better: follow instructions and declare marriage before travelling/attempting to land.
The few scenarios I've seen on this forum, CBSA has refused landing and told the individual their application needs to be modified to add the spouse.
In the name of COPR I only received one piece of communication from IRCC which exactly looks like this:
https://welcome-to-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Case-5.pdf
If this letter is not considered as COPR then I have whole other thing to deal with now (please let me know in that case)
Other than that I never received any document from IRCC. This is the letter I showed to immigration along with my work permit at the POE when I came back. As mentioned earlier I was never asked any questioned and officer let me go through.
I have seen other COPR letter and what I received was way different than others. For example:
http://imagizer.imageshack.com/a/img905/4437/9ZjDRe.jpg Detailed information
https://en.cachina.ca/m/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=376 Specifically asked if applicant is outside Canada
This is all about COPR on my part. I never signed any document stating that I am entering as a single person. In fact, I was never asked or issued with Detailed COPR that stated me that I am "single". Till date, I am wondering about my own landing process
I was wondering if they ever send me link for virtual landing/or asked if am outside-inside canada as landing process changed accordingly but I had no communication regarding it but I never received any link or information about virtual landing. I followed the procedure that was on my COPR information letter and I received my PR card.
About address change - I was stuck backhome due to COVID lockdown. My perm address on file never changed during whole process. I signed for online portal and all the immigration communication were flowing through my online account
Last edited:
As far as messages that I received from immigration in my PR application online profile. There are altogether 4 letters that I have seen from start to end.
1. Confirmation of online Application - Jan 5, 2020
2. AOR - Jan 5, 2020
3. Biometric collection letter - Jan 24, 2020
4. Information letter - June 4 (This is what I showed at POE and used to receive my PR card )
1. Confirmation of online Application - Jan 5, 2020
2. AOR - Jan 5, 2020
3. Biometric collection letter - Jan 24, 2020
4. Information letter - June 4 (This is what I showed at POE and used to receive my PR card )
Last edited:
This is very true in my case. I had absolutely no communication from IRCC other than what I have already stated.
I don't know for certain. This first document you link to has the phrase "If you have a Confirmation of Permanent Residence (CoPR) document in-hand, please send it along with one photo that ... etc". To me, that implies that this document is NOT a CoPR - it seems rather plainly so, and it has this sentence underlined for emphasis. (It also says if you leave Canada,' which seems to me to imply that IRCC believes that you were in Canada at the time of receiving this letter).
So I honestly can't make sense of what happened in your case. This does seem to be at the worst part of the covid shutdowns for IRCC, so things were confused.
Actually, there is currently a pilot program allowing an exemption to the life-time ban precluding the sponsorship of undeclared family members . . . BUT it appears to be available for only for some, NOT all PRs. Indeed, the exemption appears applicable only to PRs who themselves arrived in Canada "as a refugee or as a sponsored spouse or child."
See:
https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=1493&top=14
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...al-instructions-agreements/excluded-2021.html
Also see Tomoloju v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 134402 here: https://canlii.ca/t/jlj67 (no relief per pilot program; sponsorship of undeclared child not allowed)
and Ahmed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 134362 https://canlii.ca/t/jlj5x (pilot program applicable; sponsorship of undeclared spouse allowed)
A couple things leap out.
Even if @Ptushar0209 does NOT meet the criteria for the pilot program (appears he doe NOT), this may suggest that IRCC could be exploring relief from the severity of the life-time ban beyond the scope of the pilot project. Note even the pilot project alone, with a fairly limited scope, is a major deviation from prior law, policy, and practice. So there may be cracks in what has been a very hard-and-fast application of the ban. Conclusion: See a LAWYER. See a lawyer to explore what may be available now that has not been available in the past . . . again, by SEEING a LAWYER.
HOWEVER, in Contrast . . . it warrants emphasizing that this really is, ordinarily, among the more hard-and-fast, strictly applied provisions. As I noted in my previous post, with emphasis:
And that really is how it has been: NO RELIEF AVAILABLE . . . but now there is the pilot program, which is an exception, an exemption, and as I noted may (emphasis on this being a possibility, NO sign it is a probability) suggest IRCC could be exploring relief beyond the scope of the pilot project. BUT it warrants repeating just how hard-and-fast this has been consistently applied.
As @scylla referenced, examples of similar cases, actual cases as officially reported, can be found through fairly simple searching at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/ and I cite and link a couple above. Make no mistake, sometimes these cases can result in procedures to terminate the PR's status based on misrepresentation (one of those I read recently brusquely dismissed the PR's assertion the landing officer OK'd landing even though the PR acknowledged there were undeclared family members, dismissing her account as "highly unlikely" and insufficient for the IAD panel to even consider the landing officer made a conscious decision not to require an examination of the undeclared children). That is typically only in the more egregious cases, but it highlights just how serious misrepresentations related to declaring family members are considered.
I do not mean to be a party-pooper, and I for-sure concur in suggestions to see a competent, reputable LAWYER (not a consultant) to review the case in detail, but it warrants emphasizing that absent some additional movement by IRCC in the direction of allowing relief beyond the scope of the pilot project, the prospects of obtaining relief are extremely low.
It is noteworthy that many of the actual cases state that IRCC/CIC does not have jurisdiction to even allow relief based on H&C grounds. Likewise the IAD, no jurisdiction to consider relief based on H&C grounds. The reasoning is basic statutory interpretation: the undeclared marital partner is NOT considered "a member of the spouse or common-law partner" class; they simply cannot be sponsored because they are not a member of the class of persons who can be sponsored. (Not to be confused with a possible independent H&C application for PR by the affected family member, but the hurdles for that are high.)
In regards to whether IRCC should somehow make it more clear to individuals engaged in the process of becoming a PR that a change in marital status requires notifying IRCC and subjecting the new family member to examination, I generally do not comment much about what the rules should be, trying to stay focused on understanding what they are and how they work. But in this context, to understand how things actually work, it is absolutely necessary to recognize the importance of notifying IRCC of changes in information of this magnitude.
In particular, in the context of applying for PR status in Canada, there is no doubt, none whatsoever, that basic vital statistic information about the applicant is material, and that includes marital status. And claims based on not knowing or misunderstanding this, or failing to know its importance, have little to zero prospect of being persuasive. The forms and information and documents that must be submitted with the PR application make it abundantly clear that ANY spouse and ALL dependent children must be declared and that even a dependent child or spouse who will not be immigrating, even if they are not-accompanying the applicant, they must be examined.
It may not be popular to put the burden so clearly on applicants, but IRCC leniency and flexibility in regards to minor discrepancies and mistakes of fact should not be confused as limiting the extent to which applicants are expected to be truthful and complete. In regards to some matters, sure, there can be some variability, and differing opinions, in whether this or that detail is considered "material" information. But there is no doubt about marital status. None about dependents. This information is fundamental to the applicant's eligibility to land as a PR. All dependents as well as a spouse MUST be EXAMINED. If a spouse or dependent is not admissible, the PR applicant is not eligible for a grant of PR status. Hardly gets any more material than this.
See:
https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=1493&top=14
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...al-instructions-agreements/excluded-2021.html
Also see Tomoloju v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 134402 here: https://canlii.ca/t/jlj67 (no relief per pilot program; sponsorship of undeclared child not allowed)
and Ahmed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 134362 https://canlii.ca/t/jlj5x (pilot program applicable; sponsorship of undeclared spouse allowed)
A couple things leap out.
Even if @Ptushar0209 does NOT meet the criteria for the pilot program (appears he doe NOT), this may suggest that IRCC could be exploring relief from the severity of the life-time ban beyond the scope of the pilot project. Note even the pilot project alone, with a fairly limited scope, is a major deviation from prior law, policy, and practice. So there may be cracks in what has been a very hard-and-fast application of the ban. Conclusion: See a LAWYER. See a lawyer to explore what may be available now that has not been available in the past . . . again, by SEEING a LAWYER.
HOWEVER, in Contrast . . . it warrants emphasizing that this really is, ordinarily, among the more hard-and-fast, strictly applied provisions. As I noted in my previous post, with emphasis:
At the least, what is reported tends to indicate the ban on sponsoring an undeclared marital partner is almost always enforced, and perhaps so much so it is virtually always.
And that really is how it has been: NO RELIEF AVAILABLE . . . but now there is the pilot program, which is an exception, an exemption, and as I noted may (emphasis on this being a possibility, NO sign it is a probability) suggest IRCC could be exploring relief beyond the scope of the pilot project. BUT it warrants repeating just how hard-and-fast this has been consistently applied.
As @scylla referenced, examples of similar cases, actual cases as officially reported, can be found through fairly simple searching at https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/ and I cite and link a couple above. Make no mistake, sometimes these cases can result in procedures to terminate the PR's status based on misrepresentation (one of those I read recently brusquely dismissed the PR's assertion the landing officer OK'd landing even though the PR acknowledged there were undeclared family members, dismissing her account as "highly unlikely" and insufficient for the IAD panel to even consider the landing officer made a conscious decision not to require an examination of the undeclared children). That is typically only in the more egregious cases, but it highlights just how serious misrepresentations related to declaring family members are considered.
I do not mean to be a party-pooper, and I for-sure concur in suggestions to see a competent, reputable LAWYER (not a consultant) to review the case in detail, but it warrants emphasizing that absent some additional movement by IRCC in the direction of allowing relief beyond the scope of the pilot project, the prospects of obtaining relief are extremely low.
It is noteworthy that many of the actual cases state that IRCC/CIC does not have jurisdiction to even allow relief based on H&C grounds. Likewise the IAD, no jurisdiction to consider relief based on H&C grounds. The reasoning is basic statutory interpretation: the undeclared marital partner is NOT considered "a member of the spouse or common-law partner" class; they simply cannot be sponsored because they are not a member of the class of persons who can be sponsored. (Not to be confused with a possible independent H&C application for PR by the affected family member, but the hurdles for that are high.)
In regards to whether IRCC should somehow make it more clear to individuals engaged in the process of becoming a PR that a change in marital status requires notifying IRCC and subjecting the new family member to examination, I generally do not comment much about what the rules should be, trying to stay focused on understanding what they are and how they work. But in this context, to understand how things actually work, it is absolutely necessary to recognize the importance of notifying IRCC of changes in information of this magnitude.
In particular, in the context of applying for PR status in Canada, there is no doubt, none whatsoever, that basic vital statistic information about the applicant is material, and that includes marital status. And claims based on not knowing or misunderstanding this, or failing to know its importance, have little to zero prospect of being persuasive. The forms and information and documents that must be submitted with the PR application make it abundantly clear that ANY spouse and ALL dependent children must be declared and that even a dependent child or spouse who will not be immigrating, even if they are not-accompanying the applicant, they must be examined.
It may not be popular to put the burden so clearly on applicants, but IRCC leniency and flexibility in regards to minor discrepancies and mistakes of fact should not be confused as limiting the extent to which applicants are expected to be truthful and complete. In regards to some matters, sure, there can be some variability, and differing opinions, in whether this or that detail is considered "material" information. But there is no doubt about marital status. None about dependents. This information is fundamental to the applicant's eligibility to land as a PR. All dependents as well as a spouse MUST be EXAMINED. If a spouse or dependent is not admissible, the PR applicant is not eligible for a grant of PR status. Hardly gets any more material than this.
Rare for me with respect to your considered and thought-out posts: I outright disagree with you here, or at least underlining that you have missed the point.
Note, I am not disagreeing on the points of fact (eg that unexamined/undeclared family members are a misrepresentation and make them inadmissible).
We know that; the point is different. That there clearly is an issue or problem of communication here, and given the severity of the consequences, it would be better for all concerned if IRCC found a way to communicate this more effectively.
For an imperfect analogy, when a zoo has several visitors maimed by bears in a year, the zoo should not fall back on the defence that the zoo had a 12 by 14 inch sign at the entrance saying "careful, the animals can be dangerous."
They can put up bigger, clearer, more explicit signs. [Okay, the very imperfect part of this analogy is they'd likely have to revisit the physical barriers at the bear exhibit, it's not just the signs. Although perhaps there's something there, too - there could be changes to law / regs akin to improving the cage that would go a long way to feeling more fair, like - thinking out loud - make the effective ban/inadmissibility not lifetime but for a five year period.]
There are many, many parts of the IRCC instructions and documentation that are vague, unclear or somewhat poorly written. (I could give some examples but more frequently the consequences are much less significant).
And the evidence to this is that the same questions or parts of the form for relatively simple aspects keep coming up again and again as problems.
This is no way absolves the applicants from taking responsibility or elides the materiality of family information. It's simply a recognition that somehow the message is not getting across and is causing (disproportionately?) severe consequences. It's also particularly important in a context where a very high proportion of applicants do not have English or French as a first language.
This is an issue where communications specialists have actual information on what works and what doesn't (well, some of them do). And since changing the communications approach requires no change in law, it quite possibly would save quite a lot of money and trouble in the long term (after all, the pilot project you rightly refer to above is certainly not free of costs). Changing communications approaches can also be tested (live in field) using comparison groups.
I bolded two sentences of yours: "If a spouse or dependent is not admissible, the PR applicant is not eligible for a grant of PR status. Hardly gets any more material than this." I don't mean to pick on this particular phrasing or terminology, but this is a good example of the problem - what percentage of readers (even with good English but without specialized training in the subject matter) would be able to get from this terminology to the conclusion "If you omit to include a family member at any point (for example, a person you marry or become common law with during the PR process and before landing), that person will be banned for life from being sponsored by you"? I bet very, very few would parse this correctly and draw the correct conclusions.
And note, I'm not claiming my version is the best or most simple. Better might be a bright red STOP! sign symbol (emojis are sometimes better!), with an explicit warning: You must include any spouse, child or other immediate family member. (new line) If you get married during the process, you must advise us immediately. (new line) If you are living with someone, you must advise us as soon as time living together exceeds 12 months. (new line) You must include them EVEN IF they do not intend to move to Canada. (new line) [big, bold letters, bright red] If you do not do so, they will be banned from sponsorship by you FOREVER.
To repeat: it's an issue of communicating simply, clearly and with proper emphasis on importance and consequences.
Just because we have a speed limit sign, we still put extra signs in school zones with extra warnings to communicate "this speed limit is particularly important here." (Again, please excuse the imperfect parts of this analogy.)
