Are you sure I'll receive a COPR document along with my visa? Does receiving the visa mean I'm already a permanent resident? Also, do you mean I know I'll definitely receive the visa in October, but I intentionally concealed information about my unborn son from IRCC? What would my motive be? You said you studied the legislation and regulations with a bit more attention to certain areas. Please let me understand, does "that an examination is not complete until finalized" refer to before issuing the visa or before landing? What document indicates that an examination has been completed?
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
I do not fully understand your question - you're phrasing this as if it is something still in process, and not in the past. So I will try to answer but given the confused phrasing, I don't wish to mislead.
-Someone who is an applicant and whose application is approved, will receive a visa that allows them to travel to Canada (once!), i.e. it is valid only for entry to Canada to become a PR. (The applicant is not yet a PR and the visa has an expiry date.)
-The COPR - confirmation of permanent residence - is issued along with that visa and provided to the applicant. Before it is completed and signed/executed etc at the border/port of entry, it is only a draft (essentially). (There are other documents provided together with these the visa and COPR, mostly informational and basic instructions, and two PR-sized photographs.). Repeat, at this stage, applicant is not yet a PR.
-Once completed (at the border/port of entry, and referred to still as 'landing' or first landing, although that term is somewhat archaic), the COPR is a permanent part of the record and it is at that point that the applicant becomes a PR - not before. The COPR serves temporarily (from the day of landing and only once completed) as proof of the PR status (until a PR card is received) - and after that as a record of the individual becoming a PR. This date will be listed on the PR card and various databases as the date of becoming a PR.
This visa/COPR process and documentation has been in place for quite some time - I believe since 2005 or 2008 or so. Closer to 20 years + than to ten years.
-I repeat that included in that information, and on the COPR, is info that you are obliged to report to IRCC of any change in your family status.
You write:
[Again I'm confused here by your present-tense phrasing - perhaps there's a rhetorical point I'm missing.]
I said (paraphrasing) that whether intentional or not, you withheld material information when you did not disclose you had a child, as required. Assuming you signed the COPR at border (as all do), you signed a statement with false information. You had received correspondence (and it is clear on the COPR) that made this clear. "Motive" does not enter into it. (If you wish to discuss motive and intentionality and whether that is something that can be legally disputed - you need a lawyer. Pointless to bring up here - very difficult and finer point of law.)
My understanding from the section of the Act (law) that I saw was that 'examination not complete until finalized', in the context of a PR applicant/application, meant admitted to Canada with PR status (i.e. finalization of the COPR at port of entry).
My point overall was that your argument seems to rely upon 'at the time of application' meaning at the time of submission of the initial application package. And there are several points in the Act (legislation) and the regulations where reference is made to the application processing or being processed and submission of the application - and while none of these are defined precisely (that I could see), reading in combination with the requirements for 'examination' as an integral part of the application (and any related requirements placed upon the applicant such as appearing for interviews, providing information (truthfully), etc), I see no way to support reading the act according to your 'strict' interpretation, i.e. that 'at the time of application' can ony be read as 'as at the date of submission of the application package.'
As I've now stated several times (sorry for repeating), given that IRCC also provides information in correspondence, etc., stating clearly that you MUST advise them of change in family composition (i.e. more or less dependants), there's effectively zero chance that your strict interpretation will hold up. It's not - in my opinion - supported in any way.
For example: every applicant (as far as I'm aware) receives an AOR (acknowledgement of receipt) some weeks (typically 30-90 days) after submission of the application package. I've just opened one to check - amongst other things it reads "If your circumstances change you have to let us know (see address, fax number and email address below).
More particularly, we want to know about a:
- Change in family composition including new born, divorce, marriage etc.
I have bolded to draw your attention to the relevant part.
This is very much a form letter. Some minor aspects may change. But 'you have to let us know' is very clear language, and you surely received some form of this message, more than once.
[Editadd: I just checked and realised I'd sent text from the AOR2, a second 'your file is being processed' provided with some apps, a few months after AOR1. But the language is also in the AOR1, on the 'you must tell us if you have a kid' is on both of them, not quite but almost identical.]
Last edited:
So I think there are some important details missing from your posts.
> Your sponsor immigrated to Canada under an immigration category that is not included under the public policy.
There is a public policy, that is still ongoing - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...en/who-you-can-sponsor/undeclared-family.html
If your letter is missing that language, I'd go through the requirements of the pilot and see if you meet all the requirements. It's possible that a mistake was made and you do qualify for this - in which case you'd appeal and include a copy of the public policy plus a letter of explanation which would explain that your son should have qualified under the pilot.
Other lawyers have pointed out the following, that while complex to navigate it's possible to get an undeclared child sponsored if one was unaware of the child's existence upon landing: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/can-he-sponsor-his-undeclared-son/ & https://www.visavio.ca/immigration-...-hidden-family-rule-blocks-73-of-sponsorships
This has been confirmed by other members of this forum in the past as well, see for example https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...eclared-child-what-to-do.372011/#post-4736676
So basically, the child might be allowed to be sponsored by IRCC if you had genuine ignorance and didn't know you had a child at the time you landed - but you really need a good lawyer if you were to attempt this. There's a similar case reported earlier this year on this forum, see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/undeclared-child.869839/
From what the lawyers have written online, if neither the public policy or the genuine ignorance applies, then the child would need to find a way to come to Canada independently via some other stream or programme. Failing that, only an H&C application is left as an option - but this again requires a good lawyer and even then has low odds of success.
Edit: Whatever happens, good luck!
I was at a land crossing, and showing my paper COPR to the immigration official there.
I was asked, "Any changes to family composition?"
I replied, "Huh? What's that mean?"
I was informed, "Did you have a baby or get married?"
I proudly stated, "Not officially married yet but I recently reached common-law status!"
I was told, "COPR is not valid. You can't get PR yet. You need to talk to IRCC and get a new COPR issued that includes your common-law partner."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
... so that began an odyssey that took nearly a decade to resolve, but in the end we received our PR together.
As you might guess, I was quite upset at the time. Now I realized what a big favour that officer did for me.
(Of course, the reason for this policy in the first place is because IRCC needs to be able to inspect a whole family before letting someone from that family immigrate, or else that one person can sponsor the rest of the family to immigrate under family class without regard to things like the cost to healthcare etc. I'm guessing this is also why economic streams weren't including in the pilot - the ones that were are all streams where the usual health requirement doesn't apply.)
Hmm, how did you become a PR? Was it via an economic stream like Express Entry, or some other way? This is important.
Do you have this language in the above letter?
> Your sponsor immigrated to Canada under an immigration category that is not included under the public policy.
There is a public policy, that is still ongoing - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...en/who-you-can-sponsor/undeclared-family.html
If your letter is missing that language, I'd go through the requirements of the pilot and see if you meet all the requirements. It's possible that a mistake was made and you do qualify for this - in which case you'd appeal and include a copy of the public policy plus a letter of explanation which would explain that your son should have qualified under the pilot.
Also important - when did you learn that your son was born?
Other lawyers have pointed out the following, that while complex to navigate it's possible to get an undeclared child sponsored if one was unaware of the child's existence upon landing: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/can-he-sponsor-his-undeclared-son/ & https://www.visavio.ca/immigration-...-hidden-family-rule-blocks-73-of-sponsorships
This has been confirmed by other members of this forum in the past as well, see for example https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...eclared-child-what-to-do.372011/#post-4736676
So basically, the child might be allowed to be sponsored by IRCC if you had genuine ignorance and didn't know you had a child at the time you landed - but you really need a good lawyer if you were to attempt this. There's a similar case reported earlier this year on this forum, see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/undeclared-child.869839/
I agree with all the other folks who've said this is indeed the case.
From what the lawyers have written online, if neither the public policy or the genuine ignorance applies, then the child would need to find a way to come to Canada independently via some other stream or programme. Failing that, only an H&C application is left as an option - but this again requires a good lawyer and even then has low odds of success.
Edit: Whatever happens, good luck!
I confess that once upon a time, I didn't do this either.
I was at a land crossing, and showing my paper COPR to the immigration official there.
I was asked, "Any changes to family composition?"
I replied, "Huh? What's that mean?"
I was informed, "Did you have a baby or get married?"
I proudly stated, "Not officially married yet but I recently reached common-law status!"
I was told, "COPR is not valid. You can't get PR yet. You need to talk to IRCC and get a new COPR issued that includes your common-law partner."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
... so that began an odyssey that took nearly a decade to resolve, but in the end we received our PR together.
As you might guess, I was quite upset at the time. Now I realized what a big favour that officer did for me.
(Of course, the reason for this policy in the first place is because IRCC needs to be able to inspect a whole family before letting someone from that family immigrate, or else that one person can sponsor the rest of the family to immigrate under family class without regard to things like the cost to healthcare etc. I'm guessing this is also why economic streams weren't including in the pilot - the ones that were are all streams where the usual health requirement doesn't apply.)
OP mentioned economic class. See post #3 couple pages before.
You did indeed get a bit lucky, in the sense that you actually listened to what the officer said. Many don't seem to, nor read the information sent to them.
This is NOT, however, one of those "well it was hidden in the fine print" things. It's reasonably clear. It's repeated multiple times, in multiple docs (with language like 'you must advise us if anything important changes' - do people not think getting a spouse is important? - rhetorical question). It's on the COPR - and you're signing a doc saying all those things are truthful, and a doc that's only a single page, without any dense text.
I do not wish to blame you hear but to underline - it's a big deal, everyone knows it's a big deal, and they're told it's a big deal - and then some just omit it.
Now I state all of this harshly enough (above) - but I still make two comments on this:
1) The one thing IRCC does NOT do is lay out clearly the consequences, that if you omit your spouse, you will NEVER be able to sponsor that spouse.
I think it's a simple thing of fairness that - while they do state repeatedly that you must inform them - serious permanent consequences should be clearly and simply be communicated. In capital letters, preferably. IF YOU DO NOT INFORM US OF A SPOUSE OR COMMON LAW PARTNER, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SPONSOR THAT SPOUSE. For example.
It's a perversion of common sense fairness to not communicate the specific consequences, clearly, when the seriousness is not obvious to applicants.
2) While leaving out a spouse is serious, I still think it's excessively so, and can be fixed, fairly easily. Make it a five-year ban on sponsoring, and remove the exemption from the 'excess health costs' policy that spouses being sponsored benefit from.
Oh absolutely. It's entirely my bad for not reading the COPR (I was planning to the day of, then I put it off until I was actually at the border crossing, and then of course I was too busy to actually do any reading at that point - but no excuses, I had plenty of time to do a reading well beforehand. Lesson learned.)
In my case the officer helpfully pointed out the exact written sentence on my COPR regarding this.
I guess what I don't get about this is, how can someone NOT listen to what the officer says? Like, the officer knows that my family composition has changed (because the officer asked me and I answered truthfully), thus that person is not going to approve and sign the COPR no matter what I say or do (and rightly so). Even if I think the one officer is just off base somehow, if I go to another POE and try with a different officer, that new official would just give me the same response.
(I suppose it's possible that another officer might have forgotten to ask me that question before signing and approving the COPR, but I'm assuming this is rare and not supposed to happen - they are always supposed to ask.)
I mean, that's not the only potential consequence, right? In the absolute worst case, IRCC can decide that one intentionally committed a material misrepresentation in obtaining PR - and thus strip that status away, followed by a removal order.
Agreed. I did double check all my documents after the fact, and while there was indeed plenty of mention of the need to inform about this, there was nothing on the potential consequences. Actually, the officer I spoke with didn't mention these either. It wasn't until I got back home and searched online (which led me to this forum) that I learned about that.
I imagine this might factor into a lot of people's thoughts on here. Like if someone parks their car in the wrong spot for half an hour, that's technically a violation of the law - but the penalty may be no more than a $25 fine. Or - not bothering to update the address with the library when you move. Perhaps technically wrong but easily fixable. Whereas a situation like this may not be fixable...
This is a really good idea! I agree with you - the penalty should be proportionate to the violation.
I don't know how much it's required for the officer to ask, TBH. In my experience (limited!), they do.
I actually am a tiny bit sympathetic to those who maybe miss what the officer says on this - it is a classic environment where one can be a bit overwhelmed, often it may not be native language, it feels stressful, and it /probably/ can feel a bit like ticking all those boxes on the customs form (what am I supposed to say? and not what is the truth to this specific question - note I am NOT saying one shouldn't tell the truth on the customs form, but it's easy to fall into the rhythm of 'what box should I check?').
The problem is, some do it purely on the basis of "not a big deal, can fix this later, right?". No - no, you cannot.
Potentially. As far as I'm aware they stick to just the lifetime ban for the spouse/children who are not declared. (For some this may amount to the same thing, in that they won't/can't stay without their family).
Yes - we'd all think that the death penalty for parking violations is excessive. And so in some circumstances, the ONLY fair approach is to be clear about what the consequences are, SPECIFICALLY.
I realize now I wrote this entire screed only in the context of a spouse, but equally true for children - just so that all realize it does apply to anyone who should have been disclosed (and checked) as an immediate family member.
Ah, you are right. Makes sense to me now.
Agreed 100% - if the specific consequences were clear and made clear at every stage of the process, the "what box should I check?" types of mistakes would be less likely to happen.
Yeah - like if I forget to update the address on my library card after moving, that really is a "not a big deal, can fix this later, right" scenario. In particular I can easily see this mistake happening for a PR candidate who doesn't have one of the official languages of Canada as a native language - Saskatchewan only requires a CLB level of 4 for example for some SINP nominees: https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residen...ominee-program/language-requirements-for-sinp
Same here. Considering how important this is, and how an officer asking can save the day - I really think they should ask, even if not required to. I'd even be in favour of making this a requirement (on the basis that the immigration official - whose job it is to know immigration law - has a better chance of catching this before it's too late than the applicant themselves who either didn't understand well enough or who was misled by a bad immigration consultant).
I did find some anecdotal evidence on this forum that it's not always asked - but these are old (from 2018).
There's also https://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/tvai5-spousal-pr-application-after-marriage-canada.html which is from this year, but more ambiguous. (Does the statement "We did not inform the IRCC about our marriage because we were unaware of this requirement, and no one informed us about it" mean that the officer didn't ask at all? Or perhaps the officer did ask but didn't clearly say it was a requirement to report if there was a change?)
(Incidentally, this leads to a success story - one of those OPs was able to sponsor their spouse successfully a few years late, see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...age-before-landing.556484/page-4#post-9095386 - but it seems an important factor is that OP wrote to IRCC the day after.)
While looking up the other thing I did notice this, https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...etting-the-pr-visa.571881/page-2#post-7090791
Someone reported (again anecdotally) that someone elsse did get investigated for misrepresentation, but in the end that person did manage to keep their PR.
I wonder what the stats on this are. I agree - this seems like it would be the case most of the time, but in many cases from CanLII we see that sometimes the one in Canada lives apart from the rest of the family for years while trying to win a reunification case. (Of course, it's possible that when it's clear that they can't win, they do give up on Canada and move back.)
Obviously we cannot know for sure that all officers always ask - but in the end, that discussion boils down to "did they sign a document saying everything is truthful that lists their family members?" - if so, irrelevant if the officer asks, because you signed a document saying this (see next para for what it says).
Now, in our case, the officer also asked each person to initial beside the family info - and the statement there on the COPR that reads (in bold) "Have you any dependant(s) other than listed below."
So the thing that 'we were unaware and no one informed us" - it simply does not hold water. And won't hold up to a serious challenge (without some other mitigating circumstances).
Interesting. I never got that far when I had a paper CoPR, and by the time I got mine reissued it was an eCOPR. For that one I definitely missed this, I only see it now on my eCOPR only after you told me that this section exists.
I totally agree from a legal point of view. You signed it, you should have known what you were signing.
But I am convinced by your checkbox example that some folks may well misunderstand this or believe it's a trivial mistake that is trivial to fix afterwards. But if the officer always asks and explains properly, then I think most folks would end up just backing out and amending their CoPRs before trying to land again.
Hmm. That's a good point - being separated from very young children for those first years might be a bigger deal (a lot of children left out seem to be newborns who were born right before landing). I wonder if as another solution, it might be viable to change the law to allow a "redo" - applicant can re-apply for PR, with the same locked in points etc if applicable, and reinclude the missing family members. The catch now being that - since this is a redo - the applicant might lose PR if one of the family isn't admissible (say due to medical inadmissibility).
I want to underline (not so much for you but for anyone else who reads this who is looking into it):
-it is EXTREMELY serious and shows how important it is to READ THE DOCS YOU GET FROM IRCC AND BEFORE SIGNING ANYTHING.
-We see lots of cases of this here, and effectively ZERO where IRCC does not take it seriously, and as far as we have any information, the VAST MAJORITY (like 99.9%) are NOT SUCCESSFUL. They are banned from sponsoring their spouse/common law partner - for life.
I know I'm being pedantic, but I want it to be clear: the fact that I, personally - just a person on the internet - think it's excessive and that they should do a better job of warning people is of ABSOLUTELY ZERO use to anyone in looking at this. These are the rules as IRCC seems to implement them, period. Until they change it - and there is no indication that IRCC intends to or even sees this as an issue - PAY VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION. What happens to you and your family is your own responsibility.
Again, fine to discuss what should be done here on this board. But it has - for the time being - ZERO value to anyone reading this, except to take it as a warning that they MUST declare all of their dependants.
I don't know about the eCOPR - I am warning that the text in the COPR (paper version) is VERY clear, just that people do not pay attention to it. (Or think it can be fixed later - and it can't).Interesting. I never got that far when I had a paper CoPR, and by the time I got mine reissued it was an eCOPR. For that one I definitely missed this, I only see it now on my eCOPR only after you told me that this section exists.
Similar threads
