Skip to main content

Spousal sponsorships - 5 year ban

On March 2, 2012, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations ("Regulations") were amended to preclude a sponsor from sponsoring a spouse, common-law partner, or conjugal partner for a period of 5 years if the sponsor himself or herself became a permanent resident as a result of being sponsored by a former spouse.

The new amendment reads like this:

(3) A sponsor who became a permanent resident after being sponsored as a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner under subsection 13(1) of the Act may not sponsor a foreign national referred to in subsection (1) as a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner, unless the sponsor
(a) has been a permanent resident for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the day on which a sponsorship application referred to in paragraph 130(1)(c) is filed by the sponsor in respect of the foreign national; or
(b) has become a Canadian citizen during the period of five years immediately preceding the day referred to in paragraph (a) and had been a permanent resident from at least the beginning of that period until the day on which the sponsor became a Canadian citizen.

Any applications that were received by immigration prior to March 2nd will be processed under the old rules (ie. no 5 year waiting period). All new applications are subject to this new amendment.

Until now, a sponsor was prevented from sponsoring a second (or subsequent) spouse for a period of 3 years after the arrival of their first spouse. This stemmed from the period of the undertaking that sponsors are required to sign, during which time they are financially responsible for the sponsored person.

The new regulations apply exclusively to the sponsored person who has just gained permanent residence. I would have thought it logical for the Minister to impose a waiting period on the sponsored person which corresponded with that which sponsors are already subjected to (ie. 3 years). I suspect the more lengthy period is meant as a punitive measure for individuals the Minister has assumed came with fraudulent intent, in marriages of convenience.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What? There's a backlog?

If you work in immigration, it's no secret that most applications seem to take an inordinately long time to be reviewed. That's the case for almost all applications whether overseas or in-Canada. Well, it seems the government is trying to do 'something' about it.



The BRO-V
The first change is to in-Canada H&C (humanitarian & compassionate) applications for permanent residence. Until now, all H&C applications were filed to the Case Processing Centre in Vegreville ("CPC-V"). Unfortunately, CPC-V did not make a decision on any applications where it felt that an interview was needed (99% of cases, it seems). So, all of those files would get transferred to the local CIC office where the applicant lived. For us, the Calgary office became EXTREMELY backlogged. Last year, I got a letter on a file telling me (and my client) that it was going to take 7 years for the Calgary office to make a decision! Now, for many people, the longer it takes, the better it i…

Refugee (Asylum) Claims - Understanding the Process

There has been a lot of news coverage about the influx of refugees (asylum seekers) into Canada via the United States, particularly into Quebec. This post is meant to explore who is entitled to make such a claim in Canada and what claimants can expect.

Eligibility to make the claimCanada and the US have entered into what's called a "safe third country agreement". Essentially, both countries consider the other to be relatively equal in terms of refugee protection and the refugee process. As such, there is an expectation for claimants to make their refugee claim in the first of these two countries. 
The practical consequence of this agreement is that it prevents individuals crossing from the US into Canada at a land border from making a claim in Canada. 
There are exceptions to this agreement: If the claimant has family in CanadaIf the claim is made at an in-land officeIf the claim is made at an airportThere are other eligibility factors as well, but this is the main issue aff…

Credibility vs. Plausibility in Refugee Claims

I recently appeared before the Federal Court on a judicial review of a negative Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision. The claimant was a Cuban national accused of flouting Cuba's currency controls.  The Applicant was self-represented at his refugee hearing before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). As such, the corroborative evidence was far from idea. However, the RPD did find him to be detailed and consistent in his evidence. The RPD rejected the claimant's documents alleging they could not be independently verified to be authentic. However, the RPD made no actual efforts to verify the documents. The RPD also made a host of negative plausibility findings, which it said disposed of the claim in light of the lack of verifiable corroborative documents. The claimant exercised his appeal rights to the RAD, which agreed that the RPD had no basis to find the claimant's documents to be fraudulent. However, the RAD simply dismissed the claimant's corroborative documents…