In addition to what was offered by
@Besram (which I did not see until I was posting this) . . .
Are there examples of people triggering RO inquiry by applying to sponsor spouse or other family members ?
Yes. That is what I said in my previous post. You can do some of your own homework and find several such reports, and attendant tales of woe, here in this forum (sure that requires some effort and can be time consuming). Or, do the homework and research RO breach IAD decisions at the CanLII site for the IRB, see
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/
I have done a lot of both. I do a lot of the homework for others. I have offered you what I have learned doing the homework. FWIW.
Will research more on the subject because the cic website text on the matter suggests PR can sponsor spouse unless there is on going investigation for RO.
You already quoted language to the contrary, language that appears to come from IMM 5289, the guide for sponsoring a spouse or dependent child, which states (again) that if [the sponsor] has "
failed to respect [the sponsor's]
residency conditions" the IRCC "
won’t start processing [the]
sponsorship application until a final decision related to the situation has been made."
This is NOT complicated. Obscure. Or even vague. Among the information the sponsor provides, as part of information in the "Sponsorship Evaluation," is address and employment history for the five years preceding the date of the application. No need to guess all the reasons why this information is required to recognize that it is at least in significant part about evaluating whether the sponsor has "
failed to respect [the sponsor's]
residency conditions." And remember, making misrepresentations in these forms, in addition to being a crime (even if not often prosecuted), can constitute independent grounds for inadmissibility and termination of PR status (not just denying the application). Address history, for example, for purposes of such applications, is about where the individual has in fact actually resided, not like the address of a friend or family member
one-can-use without actually living there, like one might use in dealing with banks or other kinds of accounts.
Those who fudge, do so at their peril.
As I attempted to illuminate in my previous post: if a PR who has not complied with the PR Residency Obligation files an application with IRCC that requires IRCC to evaluate the PR's status, that process can (probably is likely to, but we do not have actual statistics sufficiently to know the numbers) trigger the investigation. In that event, that is if in the initial stage of the sponsorship process, during which the sponsor's eligibility is being evaluated, a more or less formal inquiry (investigation) into the PR's compliance with "residency conditions" is triggered, then no decision will be made on the sponsorship application until there is a final determination, until there is a Residency Determination, and even then ONLY if that Residency Determination is a favourable outcome.
No advanced degrees in political science or jurisprudence necessary, no special expertise in immigration law, to recognize that the government body which is charged with implementing and enforcing Canadian immigration policy and laws will employ methods and means to in fact enforce the rules. You can read and re-read all the available information with blinders, focusing on an interpretation which appears to give you a green light, but if you want to understand how things work and what the actual RISKS are, better to take off the blinders and make an effort to read and understand the available information recognizing what the government's role is, and in particular understanding its mandate to apply and enforce the rules.
As noted before, there are indeed variable outcomes for different PRs notwithstanding making such applications when they are in breach of the RO. Perhaps the most common report seen in this forum comes attendant queries about why is the sponsorship application taking so long, and then little or no follow-up so we do not know the final outcome for those individuals. But again, we also see reports from some who end up being issued a 44(1) Report and Departure Order. And some who encounter no problem. But not enough reports, and especially not enough reported detail, to figure out what the difference is between those Reported, those suspended, and those who have no problem.
