PFL for Non-accompanying dependents (ages 19&20)

[Trolls22]

PFL (Non-Accompanying dependents ages 19&21 y.o)


I received PFL for my non-accompanying dependents (step-children) who now resides abroad with the mother. In 2024,we received ADR of revised forms of IMM documents/Sched A and police clearances.Unfortunately,the children of my husband from previous marriage refused to cooperate to have them examined( medical exams, producing police clearances and essential informations).Hence,i and my husband provided notarized LOE and requested removal of the non-accompanying dependents from our application. We also provided notarized and translated screenshots conversations as an evidence that they don’t want any of their information in our application.

Fast forward: Just a few days ago I received PFL that I am ineligible under PNP class.The officer note is to apply Humanitarian & Compassionate relief (take note it’s different from refugees and asylum seekers).This H&C refers to asking IRCC to consider my application due to impossibility in good faith that due to the uncooperative nature of the third party to consider our application.With the PFL is a statutory declaration to sign that in future we are unable to sponsor the children.It says that signing this form doesn’t means that your application is approved.

Does anyone experienced or heard about same case as mine?

 

[Naturgrl]

You need an immigration lawyer and beyond the expertise of most members. In your original application you outlined that you would never sponsor the children and were aware of this.

 

[Trolls22]

You need an immigration lawyer and beyond the expertise of most members. In your original application you outlined that you would never sponsor the children and were aware of this.

Hi thanks for your reply..I consulted 2 different lawyers. I sticked with the reasonable one that outlined the situation.She wrote 5 pages of memorandum explaining every detail of my case and we also signed affidavit acknowledging that we can’t sponsor the children in future. The second lawyer said that my application is likely to be refused,so I did not proceed with her coz she haven’t even examined the case carefully and just concluded decision based on her presumption. My question is,does someone from this group encounter similar case as mine?

 

[Naturgrl]

Hi thanks for your reply..I consulted 2 different lawyers. I sticked with the reasonable one that outlined the situation.She wrote 5 pages of memorandum explaining every detail of my case and we also signed affidavit acknowledging that we can’t sponsor the children in future. The second lawyer said that my application is likely to be refused,so I did not proceed with her coz she haven’t even examined the case carefully and just concluded decision based on her presumption. My question is,does someone from this group encounter similar case as mine?

This is really a first for PFL but instead apply for H&C. H&C takes years and years to process. Seems like IRCC just wants to refuse PR to applicants.

 

[Trolls22]

This is really a first for PFL but instead apply for H&C. H&C takes years and years to process. Seems like IRCC just wants to refuse PR to applicants.

it was explained to me that this H&C relief is not a brand new application..We are asking for H&C to grant us an exemption for not having our non-accompanying children examined. I hope that they look in through this that applicants can’t be granted PR status due to impossibility of the 3rd party uncooperative nature…I find it irrational though IRRC has a rule that accompanying and non-accom needs to be examined.I hope they have an exemption of this case

 

[Naturgrl]

it was explained to me that this H&C relief is not a brand new application..We are asking for H&C to grant us an exemption for not having our non-accompanying children examined. I hope that they look in through this that applicants can’t be granted PR status due to impossibility of the 3rd party uncooperative nature…I find it irrational though IRRC has a rule that accompanying and non-accom needs to be examined.I hope they have an exemption of this case

Who explained H&C to you that way? H&C is a separate process or at least has been. Maybe it is a way for IRCC to keep applications in the queue indefinitely. It has always been the "rule" than all accompanying and non-accompanying children need to take the medical. This has always been the rule so not irrational but a long standing policy.

 

[Trolls22]

Who explained H&C to you that way? H&C is a separate process or at least has been. Maybe it is a way for IRCC to keep applications in the queue indefinitely. It has always been the "rule" than all accompanying and non-accompanying children need to take the medical. This has always been the rule so not irrational but a long standing policy.

The lawyer…and together with the PFL that was sent to me was a signed declaration that I cannot sponsor my step-children in future that if granted under H&C

 

[Naturgrl]

The lawyer…and together with the PFL that was sent to me was a signed declaration that I cannot sponsor my step-children in future that if granted under H&C

So you have done all that you can do at this time. Hopefully approved soon.

 

[Trolls22]

So you have done all that you can do at this time. Hopefully approved soon.

Yes we did…I hope they will consider our explanation

 

[Naturgrl]

Yes we did…I hope they will consider our explanation

Always feel sorry for the children who will never be able to be sponsored.

 

[Trolls22]

Always feel sorry for the children who will never be able to be sponsored.

they grown adults that made a decision for themselves as they are living comfortably in the US with their mom and new family.

 

[Naturgrl]

I never said that they are grown adults living in the US! Sorry, 19 is not an adult. Don't create a post that I never wrote!!!

 

[Trolls22]

Ohh sorry,my bad.I pressed something in my keypad..Whatever it was,i was the one who said that statement and I’m accountable dor that

 

[armoured]

Who explained H&C to you that way? H&C is a separate process or at least has been. Maybe it is a way for IRCC to keep applications in the queue indefinitely. It has always been the "rule" than all accompanying and non-accompanying children need to take the medical. This has always been the rule so not irrational but a long standing policy.

I think this interpretation is wrong - there are of course H&C applications (the ones right now that are getting overloaded), but H&C relief (or leniency) is a general concept/process used all over in IRCC, including for non-compliance with the RO, etc - many are somewhat routine.

This is the first time I've seen it called this way for this particular set of circumstances and the use of a formal PFL, implying that the applicant will be refused (it's normal usage). My guess is either it's an officer or their boss who's decided to make this more formal for some reason, or some slightly new approach. (Why? I don't know. Maybe as a way to make it clear that this is exceptional, or to make the acceptance of this 'can never sponsor in future' thing a more formal trade-off, perhaps because they think it'll be more defensible if ever appealed. [My guess is it wouldn't make a difference, but a guess.]) Maybe it's just another 'paper it to cover your ass' thing.

That said: I think the lawyer who has suggested taking the route of doing what they ask for and thinking it's in good faith and (probably) won't be refused. This comes up - well not often, but it's not rare. They tend to drag it out and go through a few rounds of this, to make sure it's a genuine situation. But I don't recall many cases resulting in outright refusal (unless it's cases of the principal applicant just refusing to provide anything, but again - don't recall any).

 

[Naturgrl]

I think this interpretation is wrong - there are of course H&C applications (the ones right now that are getting overloaded), but H&C relief (or leniency) is a general concept/process used all over in IRCC, including for non-compliance with the RO, etc - many are somewhat routine.

This is the first time I've seen it called this way for this particular set of circumstances and the use of a formal PFL, implying that the applicant will be refused (it's normal usage). My guess is either it's an officer or their boss who's decided to make this more formal for some reason, or some slightly new approach. (Why? I don't know. Maybe as a way to make it clear that this is exceptional, or to make the acceptance of this 'can never sponsor in future' thing a more formal trade-off, perhaps because they think it'll be more defensible if ever appealed. [My guess is it wouldn't make a difference, but a guess.]) Maybe it's just another 'paper it to cover your ass' thing.

That said: I think the lawyer who has suggested taking the route of doing what they ask for and thinking it's in good faith and (probably) won't be refused. This comes up - well not often, but it's not rare. They tend to drag it out and go through a few rounds of this, to make sure it's a genuine situation. But I don't recall many cases resulting in outright refusal (unless it's cases of the principal applicant just refusing to provide anything, but again - don't recall any).

Posting under Family sponsorship so making an assumption it is a family application and not through an economic stream like Express Entry. Not sure under what program OP applied for.

OP is doing the right thing with the lawyer.