Justice Khosa’s point by point rebuttal of Sharif family’s conflicting public statements

Pakistan

The wait is over. The apex court just delivered the ‘historic verdict’ in the most anticipated Panama case today.

It was neither a clean chit nor a disqualification. As expected, the citizens find themselves confused and unclear as to what this legally convoluted and complex decision – that apparently does nothing substantial in the eyes of common people – could mean for the people involved in it or politics in general.

It seems the verdict remains what the political parties take out of it to suit their interests. The PML-N declared ‘victory’ while the opposition welcomes it with mixed feelings.

The people demanding PM’s disqualification contended with the fact that the verdict was split 3-2 among the five-judge bench, with two dissenting notes in the judgement by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed. The two judges ruled against PM Nawaz Sharif, saying he should be disqualified, whereas the other three were in favour of forming a JIT.

Following are the problems and weak points that the verdict identifies in the PML-N’s narrative:

PM’s address to the nation: A plethora of contradictions and unclear stance

PRIME MINISTER MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF ADDRESSING THE NATION ON APRIL 5, 2016.

Pointing out problems in the PM’s address to the nation on April 5, 2016, the verdict spells out problems for the PM’s own stance. It goes on to cite following problems:

* Did not mention setting up and sale of the factory in Dubai at all.

* Did not explicitly mention any particular resource for acquisition of the properties in London.

* Did not mention that the sale proceeds of the factory in Jeddah were used to acquire the properties in London but maintained that the proceeds were used by his two sons for their new business.

* Did not even hint at any investment made in Qatar and the subsequent settlement upon which the whole edifice was built by his children.

* Proceeds of sale of the factory in Jeddah mentioned as the source of funds for his two son’s business but the said sons maintained that investment with Al-Thani family of Qatar was the source of funds for Hassan Nawaz Sharif business.

PM’s address to the National Assembly: New things with unmentioned details

In his address, the PM claimed his father reached Dubai for the purpose of business and established a factory with the name of Gulf Steel comprising of 10 lac square feet of area.  This factory, he said, was sold for $9 million and established another factory in Jeddah which was again sold to buy flats in London.

However, the verdict notes legal complexities and casts doubt:

* Setting up and sale of a factory in Dubai mentioned for the first time.

* No reference made to any investment in Qatar.

* Clearly stated that no money for the factory in Jeddah or the flats in London went from Pakistan. However, it was not clearly stated that no money went from Pakistan for the factory in Dubai.

* The stance about “purchase” of the flats in London was not supported by his children and he produced nothing before the nation, the National Assembly or this Court to explain or justify the claimed purchase.

* In his address to the nation he stated that sale of the factory in Jeddah was the source of funds for his sons’ business but in this address he stated that proceeds of sale of the factory in Jeddah were used to purchase the flats in London.

Sharif’s evidence in the Supreme Court: A suspicious sudden and unprecedented denial

Nawaz Sharif submitted his statements before the apex court. In his statements, he outrightly denied the ownership of property in London, a previously unmentioned ‘fact’ while his clarifications for London flats.

The court notes:

* Never denied possession of the four properties in London.

* Never said that the said four properties belong to his children.

* Did not mention sale of the factory in Jeddah being the sources of funds for acquisition of the flats in London as mentioned in his speech in the National Assembly.

* No mention of the factory in Dubai, the factory in Jeddah or any investment in Qatar.

Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif contradicts children

Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif, first lady of Pakistan, while putting weight behind husband’s claims that the flats were indeed “purchased”, also contradicts the stance of her children.

The honourable court observes that:

* Children were studying in London in the 1990’s.

* Supported her husband’s stance that the flats in London had been “purchased”.

* Contradicted the stance of her children that the flats were acquired in 2006.

Mariam Nawaz Sharif retracts her claims to protect father? The court finds so!

In an interview aired on Geo News on November 8, 2011, Mariam said: “I do not have any property in Central London, in fact far from it, I do not own any property even in Pakistan. I live with my father. I fail to understand from where they have dug out properties belonging to me, my mother, my sister or my brothers.”

However, the court, while citing this interview, finds it inconsistent with her current stance. The court notes: ” In 2011 she denied that she or her siblings owned any property in London whereas her stance before this Court is that her brother Hussain Nawaz Sharif owns the relevant four properties in Central London since 2006 and she is a trustee of those properties for the said brother since 2006.”

Mariam makes new questionable claims

Salman Aslam Butt, the counsel for Sharif family, submitted a joint concise statement of the children of Nawaz Sharif including Maryam Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz.

It was contended that Maryam Nawaz was not and had never been the beneficial owner of any of the properties or the entities and she had never made any contribution/payment in relation to the consideration or expenses pertaining to the properties or the entities nor had derived any benefit therefrom.

The court was further informed that the entities were being managed under a trust arrangement for the sole benefit of respondent No. 7, Hussain Nawaz with Maryam Nawaz, respondent No. 6 being the trustee thereof.

However, the court found that the claims were new and unfounded. It said: “Did not mention that she was a trustee for respondent No. 7 in relation to Nielsen Enterprise Limited also.”

Mariam contradicts her own statements, gets grilled more by the court

Mariam had further informed the court that she came to know of the settlement in Qatar regarding the flats in London in 2005 when she was asked to become a trustee for her brother. By saying so, she, unwittingly, puts herself in trouble as she is on record to say that she never knew about the flats, even in 2011 she expressed obscurity.

The court points out two loopholes in the new ‘unfounded’ claims:

* That meant that she knew about acquisition of the flats in London by one of her brothers since 2005 but in her interview in 2011 she categorically denied knowledge of any property of his brothers or sister in London.

* She maintained that she had been asked to become a trustee for her brothers in respect of the flats in London in 2005 whereas the flats had statedly been transferred in favour of her brother in 2006. This established that the flats were already owned by the brother since before the so-called settlement of business in Qatar.

Hussain Nawaz Sharif: New contradictions and ‘stories’

In an Interview with journalist Hamid Mir on Capital Talk, Hussain Nawaz said: “The sale of the factory in Saudi Arabia fetched “us” a very good amount and that money was then “officially transferred” to Britain.”

He further said: “From that officially transferred money to Britain I had obtained three properties in London through “mortgage”. Those properties are still mortgaged and the mortgage amount is still being paid for them gradually. “We”, again said “I”, had “purchased” those properties in 2006.”

“All the assets were distributed in 2005 whereafter my father ceased to have any “legal” connection with his sons’ businesses but according to Shariah “everything belonging to me is his” and even I am owned by him.”

The court found new claims and ‘stories’ as unsubstantiated. The claims, the court maintained, lacked all neccessary proofs.

The honourable court points: 

* No document produced to show that any amount was officially transferred from Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom after sale of the factory in Jeddah.

* No proof of any mortgage created for acquisition of the properties in London has been produced.

* The story about mortgage was a totally new story and completely contradictory to the other stories based upon purchase or settlement in Qatar.

* A document produced by respondent No. 1 before the Court showed that after the death of Mian Muhammad Sharif in 2004 his inheritance had been settled in 2009 with distribution of assets.

* Under Shariah respondent No. 7 was not an heir of his grandfather Mian Muhammad Sharif and, thus, he did not inherit anything from him in 2004. After the death of the grandfather in 2004 all his assets, including any investment in Qatar, automatically devolved upon his heirs including respondent No. 1. So, respondent No. 1 was one of the owners of the assets which were statedly transferred in favour of respondent No. 7 in 2006 and that is why respondent No. 7 might have said that “everything belonging to me is his”.

Claims of Sharif family completely destroyed, belied: Honourable court

In one of the interviews, Hussain contended that in 2005 he sold a factory in Saudi Arabia and proceeds of that factory were used to purchase these properties. “This is the source and there is nothing except this.”

“The factory that was installed in Saudi Arabia was sold in 2005 by us and a part of those proceeds was used to purchase the properties in London. The companies that were holding those properties were purchased.”

The court responds vehemently to this completely baseless claims. It says: 

* The subsequent stand that the properties in London had been acquired through a settlement of an investment in Qatar stood completely destroyed.

* The subsequent statement of the gentleman from Qatar to the effect that bearer shares of the relevant companies were delivered to respondent No. 7 in exchange of settling approximately 8 million US Dollars from an investment in Qatar was completely belied.

A case of obvious and deliberate suppression of facts: Court

A Joint concise statement filed by children of premier Sharif which dates back to November 07, 2016, said: “Source of funds, resulting in vesting of beneficial ownership of the entities and, consequently the properties in Respondent No. 7, in January 2006, was the investment made by late Mian Muhammad Sharif, in the year 1980, from the sale proceeds of his steel business in Dubai.”

The court calls it a ‘deliberate suppression of facts’:

* The first statement of the gentleman from Qatar was dated November 05, 2016 but that was not mentioned in this concise statement filed two days later.

* A case of obvious and deliberate suppression of facts. Qatar was not even mentioned.

* The statement of the gentleman from Qatar dated November 05, 2016 mentioned the amount of investment but this concise statement did not.

* Did not mention setting up or sale of the factory in Jeddah which, according to respondent No. 7’s interviews, was the source of funds for purchase of the properties in London.

New story of PM’s children about Qatari involvement underwent a sea change, lacks proof: Court

Joint supplementary concise statement filed by respondents Sharif children of November 15, 2016 had said that the four flats in London had been purchased by Al-Thani family of Qatar through two offshore companies, the said family had allowed late Mian Muhammad Sharif and his family to use the said properties whilst bearing all the expenses relating to them including ground rent and service charges and ultimately in 2006 the account between Al-Thani family and Respondent No.7 was settled through which the properties were transferred to him by delivery of the bearer shares of the companies to a nominee of respondent No. 7.

The court refutes the claims and expresses shock over new change, the verdict says:

* The story jointly put forward by the children of respondent No. 1 underwent a sea change. Al-Thani family and investment in Qatar was introduced and permissive user of the properties in London was disclosed.

* Contradicted by respondent No. 8’s interview with BBC in 1999 according to which he was then a student living in these flats which had been taken on rent and the rent for the same was sent from Pakistan on a quarterly basis.

* Contradicted by both the parents of respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 who have consistently maintained that the said properties had been “purchased” or “bought”.

* No material produced to show who paid the utility bills and taxes, etc. relevant to the said properties before 2006.

Hassan Nawaz contradicts mother, gets contradicted by father and Qatari man

In an interview on Hard Talk, BBC London in November 1999, Hassan Nawaz categorically stated that he was a student with no earnings of his own, he did not own the relevant flats in London but he was living in the same on rent and the money for his living in those properties came from Pakistan on a quarterly basis.

However, the court notes extreme contradictions and inconsistencies with other family members, it says:

* Contradicted by his mother who had told Guardian newspaper of London that the said flats had been “bought” because the children were studying in London.

* Contradicted by his father who never talked about taking the relevant flats on rent.

* Contradicted by two statements of the gentleman from Qatar who maintained that permissive possession of the flats had been given to the family of Mian Muhammad Sharif with no charge.

The world’s best country? The results are in

Can you spot the winner? - chungking - Fotolia
Can you spot the winner? – chungking – Fotolia

The world’s best country? According to an annual ranking by the media company US News, it’s Switzerland. Given its high GDP per capita (11th best in the world, according to the IMF, at $60,787) and life expectancy (2nd overall, at 83.4 years), history of pacifism, and fantastic Alpine scenery, that’s hardly surprising.

At a glance | Why is Switzerland so great?

Less expected is the country taking third spot: the UK. US News reckons Britain (which has the 28th best GDP per capita; 20th best life expectancy; a history of warfare; no Alpine scenery) is better than Germany, Japan, Sweden, Australia and Norway. What’s working in its favour? The rankings take into account nine categories: Adventure, Citizenship, Cultural Influence, Entrepreneurship, Heritage, Movers, Open for Business, Power and Quality of Life, but certain factors are more important. Citizenship (“cares about human rights, cares about the environment, gender equality, progressive, religious freedom, respects property rights, trustworthy, well-distributed political power”) contributes to 16.95 per cent of the overall ranking, for example, while for Heritage (“culturally accessible, has a rich history, has great food, many cultural attractions”) it’s just 3.17 per cent.

It turns out Britain is pretty awesome too - Credit: This content is subject to copyright./Loop Images
It turns out Britain is pretty awesome too – Credit: This content is subject to copyright./Loop Images

A total of 80 countries were considered; the top 50 is as follows:

  1. Switzerland
  2. Canada
  3. United Kingdom
  4. Germany
  5. Japan
  6. Sweden
  7. United States
  8. Australia
  9. France
  10. Norway
  11. Netherlands
  12. Denmark
  13. Finland
  14. New Zealand
  15. Singapore
  16. Italy
  17. Luxembourg
  18. Austria
  19. Spain
  20. China
  21. Ireland
  22. United Arab Emirates
  23. South Korea
  24. Portugal
  25. India
  26. Thailand
  27. Russia
  28. Brazil
  29. Greece
  30. Israel
  31. Poland
  32. Saudi Arabia
  33. Mexico
  34. Qatar
  35. Malaysia
  36. Turkey
  37. Czech Republic
  38. South Africa
  39. Indonesia
  40. Vietnam
  41. Panama
  42. Argentina
  43. Philippines
  44. Peru
  45. Egypt
  46. Hungary
  47. Costa Rica
  48. Morocco
  49. Croatia
  50. Sri Lanka

The list is at odds with last year’s Telegraph Travel Awards survey of more than 70,000 readers, who named New Zealand, for the fourth consecutive year, their favourite country. The Maldives came second, followed by South Africa, Japan and Burma.

Best countries

Our ranking, of course, was based on the experience for the traveller, rather than quality of life for citizens.

Each year a handful of organisations – including PwC, Mercer and The Economist – also rate the world’s cities, according to “liveability”. They placed London, Melbourne and Vienna, respectively, at number one. Your favourite city? That would be Cape Town.

Which really is the worlds best city?22 reasons why Cape Town is the world’s best city

Refugee vetting in U.S. and Canada already ‘extreme,’ experts say

Canada and the U.S. are closely aligned when it comes to screening migrants.

A displaced Iraqi boy waits to receive food aid at the al-Khazer refugee camp. Canada and the U.S. have similar measures for screening refugees before they come to North America.
A displaced Iraqi boy waits to receive food aid at the al-Khazer refugee camp. Canada and the U.S. have similar measures for screening refugees before they come to North America.  (MAHMUD SALEH / AFP/GETTY IMAGES FILE PHOTO)  

U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans for “extreme vetting” of migrants may seem a stark contrast to Ottawa’s “openness” approach, but the two countries’ systems are more closely aligned than many people would like to believe.

Trump’s stance on immigrants and refugees cannot be more different from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s. That contradiction was on full display at their joint news conference at the White House after the two leaders’ recent first meeting in Washington.

“We cannot let the wrong people in and I won’t,” Trump told to reporters, vowing a program of “extreme vetting” for migrants. “It’s much more than toughness. It’s a stance of common sense.”

Trudeau added, “We continue to pursue our policies of openness towards immigration and refugees without compromising security.”

Despite the general impression that Canada has more tolerant and lax border security than its neighbour to the south, experts on both sides of the border say the countries have similar security screening processes to keep suspected terrorists and criminals out.

“We’ve had a very close partnership with Canada. Canadians are our trusted counterparts. Obviously there’s a tremendous amount of information-sharing between our intelligence and law enforcement services,” said John Sandweg, former acting general counsel to the Department of Homeland Security and former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“I have never had a sense that there are any concerns about the quality of the Canadian screening. Certainly, there’s a sense in the U.S. that Canada is more open and welcoming than the U.S., but not in a way that compromised security or adopted lesser standards from the security perspective.”

In January, Trump created an international uproar when he signed the executive order to suspend America’s refugee program and immigration to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — out of terrorism concerns. The moves have been blocked by U.S. courts.

Sandweg said the U.S. already has a thorough screening system, especially for refugees, with multi-layered interviews, biographical information and biometrics matching, as well as multiple checks against databases and watchlists run by different intelligence and enforcement agencies.

The U.S. State Department, Homeland Security, National Security Directorate, National Counterterrorism Centre, FBI, Department of Defense, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are all involved in the process, which includes at least three interviews, three fingerprint screenings and three background checks.

“I have no idea how you can enhance the vetting system (more) than it already is. It is run against the entire U.S. holdings. It is not just looking for just name matches. It is also looking for links and association of friends and family members to addresses and telephone numbers, any sort of matches that might raise suspicion,” said Sandweg.

Displaced people wait in line with their possessions to be relocated to other camps outside Mosul, Iraq, in November. Trump created an international uproar when he signed the executive order to suspend America’s refugee program and immigration to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries out of terrorism concerns.
Displaced people wait in line with their possessions to be relocated to other camps outside Mosul, Iraq, in November. Trump created an international uproar when he signed the executive order to suspend America’s refugee program and immigration to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries out of terrorism concerns.  (SERGEY PONOMAREV)  

“The officers are exceptionally versed in the conflict areas, in the history and culture. They are very skilled in terms of ferreting out people’s stories. Things like barring someone from the country could sound appealing to the public but I don’t think it is a real improvement in any way.”

Peter Showler, former chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, pointed out that none of the 19 terrorists in the attacks on the U.S. on September 11 were refugees and none were from the seven countries included in Trump’s travel ban. In European terror attacks, including those in Paris and Brussels, most were either born or raised in Europe, and many were of Moroccan descent.

Showler said Republican politicians and media in the U.S. like to paint Canada as “the weak link” in the North America’s security parameters and blame Ottawa for lax border enforcement.

“It is all fear-mongering nonsense,” said Showler, who recently worked as a consultant in Beirut for the United Nations Refugee Agency. “In Europe, those involved in the attacks were second-, third-generation immigrants who were petty criminals, disengaged in the host country and converted to be terrorists. It is so much easier to find a scapegoat than to look at the real security issues. It is easy to dump on the refugees.”

Toronto immigration lawyer Robin Seligman said the U.S. and Canada are much more aligned in their border enforcement since the Sept. 11 terror attacks on America.

Both countries have adopted similar measures, including the use of biometrics technology, to screen overseas travellers before they come to North America. In Canada, the global case management system has been in place for years to allow authorities to access migrants or visitors records for such things as criminality and personal details.

The U.S. and Canada systematically check the others’ visa and immigration databases for immigration and border related purposes, including visa and refugee resettlement applications, for third country nationals, said Immigration Canada spokesperson Nancy Caron.

In 2013, the bilateral information sharing based on a biographic match (name, date of birth and passport number) was implemented. The biometric-based information sharing began in 2015, which helps facilitate legitimate travellers and protect against identity fraud.

“The impression of us being lax in security is incorrect. Officials here know ahead of time if the person trying to come in ever had a deportation order or was a criminal,” Seligman said.

“Trump’s extreme vetting rhetoric is just for public consumption. It is not backed up by any substance. The hysteria is unjustified. Canada is doing a good job at vetting.”

Despite the general impression that Canada has more tolerant and lax border security than its neighbour to the south, experts say the countries have similar security screening processes to keep suspected terrorists and criminals out.
Despite the general impression that Canada has more tolerant and lax border security than its neighbour to the south, experts say the countries have similar security screening processes to keep suspected terrorists and criminals out.  (DELIL SOULEIMAN)  

How refugees get to Canada

Those destined for resettlement from camps overseas are first screened by the United Nations Refugee Agency, whose “refugee status determination” process includes detailed interviews, and biometric and anti-fraud measures such iris scanning. The registration data is then entered into a global system. War criminals are flagged.

The refugees are then triaged and about 1 per cent of them are selected for resettlement by countries like Canada and the U.S. The most vulnerable individuals such as women, children, the elderly and sick are given priority. The others will remain in their initial host country, with the expectation that they would be repatriated to their homeland when the circumstances change.

Canadian visa officers then interview the candidates, identify any inconsistencies in their stories, collect their biographical information and biometric data such as fingerprints and digital photos, and run their names through databases of the Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, RCMP and Interpol.

Upon arrival at the port of entry, the border agency again checks the identity of the new arrivals as the last gatekeeper. Enforcement officials retain the right to turn away travellers based on suspicions about their identity or documents.

Those refugees who make it to Canada on their own and then make inland asylum claims don’t have to go through the United Nations screening, but they must still undergo all the checks and clearances to be considered admissible to Canada before they are scheduled for an asylum hearing by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Source: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

How refugees get to the U.S.

The same screening by the United Nations Refugee Agency applies to refugees destined for resettlement from camps. Candidates referred to the U.S. are interviewed by the Department of Homeland Security, which looks for fraud and considers credibility. Officers also verify the refugee’s biographical information, take fingerprints, and gather details on the individual’s history, refugee experience and other information. The officers then decide if the person qualifies for refugee status under U.S. law.

Multiple, detailed security checks are carried out by the State Department and Homeland Security based on the refugee’s information, comparing biometrics, personal data, and the refugee’s application against U.S. government databases and terrorism watchlists from security, counterterrorism, military and intelligence agencies. The process includes three background checks and three fingerprint screenings.

Cases are then reviewed at U.S. immigration headquarters, while some are referred for additional assessment before final approvals by Homeland Security.

Refugees must go through a final security check before leaving for the U.S. and upon arrival at an American airport.

Asylum seekers inside the U.S. must file their asylum claims within one year of their arrival. They must go through extensive fingerprinting, background and security checks to determine eligibility before their cases are reviewed by asylum officers.

Source: Department of Homeland Security, State Department, Human Rights First

Canada’s New Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program a Fresh Opportunity

Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program – 2017

Through this program, the federal government — together with the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island — aim to welcome 2,000 newcomers and their families to the Atlantic region of Eastern Canada in 2017. Much of this region is sometimes referred to as ‘the Maritimes’.

Background

 
In July, 2016, Canada’s Minister of Immigration met with the provincial premiers (heads of government) of the four Atlantic provinces. Together, they worked to establish a new immigration pilot program for the region. The federal and provincial government alike recognize that these provinces need more newcomers who can establish themselves in the labour market and local communities.The three-year pilot program has been established to help address resource gaps that sectors are facing, and to help businesses attract and retain global talent. The program will also support population growth, help to develop a skilled workforce, and increase employment rates in the region.The pilot program forms part of an overall Atlantic Growth Strategy that will focus on the following five priority areas:
  • skilled workforce and immigration;
  • innovation;
  • clean growth and climate change;
  • trade and investment; and
  • infrastructure.
According to the targets announced in Canada’s 2017 Immigration Plan, the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program will facilitate the entry of 2,000 principal immigrants into Atlantic Canada in 2017.

Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program: the next steps

All principal applicants arriving in Canada under the pilot program will have a job offer from a designated employer and an individualized settlement plan for themselves and their family.Starting in early March, 2017, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will begin accepting applications for permanent residence through this program.
 
 

How the pilot program works

This is an employer-driven program, with significant involvement from employers in the provinces.
Once a designated employer finds a candidate who meets their employment needs and the program criteria, that employer will need to first offer them a job. Employers do not need to go through the process of obtaining a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) under this program.
Once the candidate has accepted the job, the employer will connect the candidate with a designated settlement service provider organization for a needs assessment and to develop a settlement plan. Employers will also support the long-term integration of the new immigrant and his or her family, if applicable, so they can reach the goals of their settlement plan once they arrive in Canada.
Employers that need to fill a job vacancy quickly will have access to a temporary work permit, so that the candidate and his or her family can come to Canada as soon as possible. In order to obtain this work permit, candidates will need:
  • a valid job offer;
  • a letter from the province; and
  • a commitment to apply for permanent residence within 90 days of the temporary work permit application.

Employer designation

Employers that would like to hire skilled immigrants under the pilot program must apply to the province(s) in order to receive designation. Employers with locations in multiple provinces will require separate a designation for each province. Employers must meet certain requirements, including a commitment to support the newcomer and his or her family as they integrate into their new life in Atlantic Canada.

Candidate requirements

The Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program has two programs for skilled workers:
  • Atlantic High-Skilled Program
  • Atlantic Intermediate-Skilled Program
and one program for international student graduates:
The work experience, education, and job offer required will depend on whether the individual is applying as a worker or as an international student graduate. The other requirements are the same for both.See the table below for a review of the requirements.
 
Atlantic Intermediate-Skilled Program (AISP)
Atlantic High-Skilled Program (AHSP)
Atlantic International Graduate Program (AIGP)
Job offer from a designated employer
  • Full time
  • Indeterminate
  • NOC 0, A, B or C
  • Full time
  • One-year contract
  • NOC 0, A or B
  • Full time
  • One-year contract
  • NOC 0, A, B or C
Skilled work experience
  • One year in occupation related to job offer
N/A
Education
  • Completion of at least high school
  • Educational Credential Assessment or Canadian credential is required
  • Two-year post-secondary diploma from a publicly funded learning institution in the Atlantic region
Language
Level 4 of the Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) in English or the Niveau de compétence linguistique Canadien in French
Provincial endorsement
Letter of endorsement
 

12 January 2017.

The government of Ontario has made a number of important announcements regarding its Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP), one of Canada’s Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs). Through these programs, provinces may welcome newcomers who will be able to settle into life in the region and effectively contribute to the community. As Canada’s most populated province, Ontario continues to be a popular immigration destination.
On January 12, the provincial government stated the following on its website:
‘The Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) has fulfilled its 2016 federal nomination allocation. The OINP will continue to process applications. Any additional nominations will go towards Ontario’s 2017 allocation. The OINP will continue to introduce online application systems in 2017 to make it easier for clients to apply and improve processing times.’
The move towards more online application systems is in line with the latest trends in Canadian immigration processing at the federal and provincial levels. The most well-known example of this move toward online processing is the federal Express Entry selection system. Indeed, the OINP includes two streams aligned with Express Entry: the Human Capital Priorities Stream (currently closed to new applications) and the French-Speaking Skilled Worker Stream (currently open to new applications).
In May, 2016, the OINP announced that is was placing a temporary pause on the intake of new applications under certain streams. The province stressed the temporary nature of this pause, and it is expected that streams will reopen or be launched in the near future.
The current status of OINP may be reviewed in the table below.
OINP Stream Status Additional Notes
Human Capital Priorities Temporary pause on Notifications of Interest (NOIs) being sent as of February 16, 2016. Aligned with federal Express Entry system.
French-Speaking Skilled Worker Open — OINP continues to accept and process applications. Aligned with federal Express Entry system.
Temporary pause in effect as of May 9, 2016. Job offer not required.
Temporary pause in effect as of May 9, 2016. Job offer not required.
International Student with a Job Offer Open to eligible candidates whose job offer has been approved through the Employer Pre-screen application process. Previous education requirement is not Ontario-specific; graduates who studied in any province may be eligible.
Foreign Worker Open to eligible candidates whose job offer has been approved through the Employer Pre-screen application process. Job offer must meet the prevailing wage level in Ontario for that occupation.
Corporate Open — OINP continues to accept and process applications. Successful applicants obtain Temporary Work Permits before Permanent Resident status may be obtained.
Entrepreneur Open — OINP continues to accept Expressions of Interest. Successful applicants obtain Temporary Work Permits before Permanent Resident status may be obtained.

New application package from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) clarifies the application process for sponsoring a spouse or common-law partner.

Canada’s spousal and common-law partner sponsorship immigration program has been responsible for reuniting many thousands of couples and families, and is one of the many progressive features of Canada’s immigration system that set it apart from other nations’ policies. However, the spousal sponsorship immigration program is monitored to detect what are known as “marriages of convenience.”
A marriage of convenience is defined as a relationship that is entered into primarily for the purposes of immigration, and therefore is not genuine. Visa officers have a number of tools at their disposal to detect marriage fraud, including document checklists, interviews, and home visits. Coupled with these measures, IRCC has recently released detailed application packages for individuals sponsoring a spouse or common-law partner. These application packages, introduced in December 2016, clarify the document requirements for applicants.

By the numbers

According to the latest data from IRCC, 2,288 applications for spousal sponsorship were refused in 2015 because the applicants were deemed to be in a marriage of convenience. This represents 6.1 percent of all permanent residence applications that were refused that year. Between 2013 and 2015, 119,838 permanent residence applications were refused, of which 5.1 percent were in the spousal sponsorship class. As of January 8, 2016, 778 applications were being investigated under suspicion of a marriage of convenience.
The data clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of applications to sponsor a spouse or partner are recognised as genuine. IRCC’s overview as of June 2016 showed an approval rate of 86 percent for applications submitted under spousal/common-law partner and dependent child sponsorship classes.
There are two grounds for refusal of an application for spousal or common-law partnership, centred around the definition of a genuine relationship. A visa officer may refuse an application on the grounds that the relationship was entered into for the purposes of immigration, or is not genuine — i.e., a marriage of convenience. A second grounds for refusal occurs if a person breaks off a genuine relationship in order to enter into another relationship for the purposes of immigration, and then resumes the former relationship in order to sponsor that spouse/common-law partner for permanent residence.

Proving a genuine relationship

Genuine couples may provide a wide range of documents and proofs of their relationship during the application process. Documents proving shared finances and shared property ownership or rental carry weight in an application, but a couple does not have to be living together at the time of submitting an application in order to prove a genuine relationship. Photographs, travel itineraries, insurance policies, wills, and further documents may all be considered in the processing of an application.
As the above brief overview of document requirements demonstrates, visa officers take a wide range of documents into account when assessing the genuineness of a relationship. If an officer is in doubt, he or she may request further documents. The applicants may also be called to interview — in which case, the spouses or partners are generally interviewed separately. Under the principle of procedural fairness, further documents or an interview are requested before a refusal may be issued, and the results of further documents or an interview may also result in a positive outcome for the applicants.

Commitment to reunification

The government has set itself a target to welcome 64,000 new Canadians applying through the spousal/common-law partner and dependent child sponsorship classes in 2017. IRCC has introduced measures to improve the application and settlement process for sponsored spouses and common-law partners. These measures include decreasing application processing times to 12 months, and a commitment to repealing the conditional permanent residence clause in 2017.

About 1,400 immigrants a year ordered removed from Canada for residency non-compliance

The number of permanent residents issued removal orders at port of entry has risen from 605 in 2008 to 1,413 in 2014.

An average of about 1,400 Canadian immigrants are intercepted at the border each year and ordered removed from the country for not fulfilling their residency obligations, the Star has learned.

Although these newcomers can appeal to a tribunal to restore their permanent resident status under humanitarian considerations, only one in 10 succeeds in the process, according to government data.

“The tribunal is supposed to be immigrants’ last resort as the Parliament has given it the discretionary power to give immigrants a second chance if they breach the law,” said immigration lawyer Lawrence Wong, who obtained the data through an access to information request.

“But that second chance in reality is hard to come by. The national sentiment is pretty much the same. If you are an immigrant, don’t make a mistake. If you do, we want to see you kicked out.”

It’s believed to be the first time data about the loss of permanent residency at ports of entry has been made public, revealing the extent of residency noncompliance among immigrants trying to get back to Canada after lengthy stays overseas, said Wong.

Canada’s immigration law requires permanent residents to be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days in every five-year period in order to maintain their status. Otherwise, their residency will be revoked.

According to the Canada Border Services Agency, on average 1,423 permanent residents a year were stopped at the border for failing the requirement from 2010 to 2014, the most recent statistics available. During the period, Canada accepted some 260,000 newcomers annually.

The number of removal orders issued against these individuals had risen sharply to 1,413 in 2014 from 605 in 2008, when former Conservative Immigration Minister Jason Kenney took over the department and cracked down on fraud.

Across Canada, Quebec had the highest detection rate; more than a third of the removal orders were issued in the province against the non-compliant immigrants returning to Canada.

Between 2008 and 2014, a total of 3,575 immigrants were slapped with removal orders for residency non-compliance at Pierre Elliot Trudeau airport in Montreal, dwarfing the 439 and 972 people respectively intercepted at Toronto’s Pearson airport and the Vancouver International Airport.

The numbers do not include those who had their permanent residency revoked due to criminality and misrepresentation, who were refused travel documents to return to Canada or who applied to voluntarily relinquish their permanent residence.

While all these immigrants who lost their status can appeal to the immigration appeal division based on errors in law or humanitarian and compassionate grounds such as hardship from separation with family in Canada, the border services agency data show their success rate hovers at about 10 per cent — and has declined in the past few years.

Those who successfully restored their permanent resident status dropped significantly from 127 or 17 per cent of 746 appellants in 2008 to 78 or 7.7 per cent of 1,008 people in 2014.

“Once you are issued a removal order, the chances of saving your permanent status are really very limited,” said Wong.

Ontario to Introduce Online Immigration Application Systems and Improve Processing Times

The government of Ontario has made a number of important announcements regarding its Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP), one of Canada’s Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs). Through these programs, provinces may welcome newcomers who will be able to settle into life in the region and effectively contribute to the community. As Canada’s most populated province, Ontario continues to be a popular immigration destination.
On January 12, the provincial government stated the following on its website:
‘The Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) has fulfilled its 2016 federal nomination allocation. The OINP will continue to process applications. Any additional nominations will go towards Ontario’s 2017 allocation. The OINP will continue to introduce online application systems in 2017 to make it easier for clients to apply and improve processing times.’
The move towards more online application systems is in line with the latest trends in Canadian immigration processing at the federal and provincial levels. The most well-known example of this move toward online processing is the federal Express Entry selection system. Indeed, the OINP includes two streams aligned with Express Entry: the Human Capital Priorities Stream (currently closed to new applications) and the French-Speaking Skilled Worker Stream (currently open to new applications).
In May, 2016, the OINP announced that is was placing a temporary pause on the intake of new applications under certain streams. The province stressed the temporary nature of this pause, and it is expected that streams will reopen or be launched in the near future.
The current status of OINP may be reviewed in the table below.
OINP Stream Status Additional Notes
Human Capital Priorities Temporary pause on Notifications of Interest (NOIs) being sent as of February 16, 2016. Aligned with federal Express Entry system.
French-Speaking Skilled Worker Open — OINP continues to accept and process applications. Aligned with federal Express Entry system.
Temporary pause in effect as of May 9, 2016. Job offer not required.
Temporary pause in effect as of May 9, 2016. Job offer not required.
International Student with a Job Offer Open to eligible candidates whose job offer has been approved through the Employer Pre-screen application process. Previous education requirement is not Ontario-specific; graduates who studied in any province may be eligible.
Foreign Worker Open to eligible candidates whose job offer has been approved through the Employer Pre-screen application process. Job offer must meet the prevailing wage level in Ontario for that occupation.
Corporate Open — OINP continues to accept and process applications. Successful applicants obtain Temporary Work Permits before Permanent Resident status may be obtained.
Entrepreneur Open — OINP continues to accept Expressions of Interest. Successful applicants obtain Temporary Work Permits before Permanent Resident status may be obtained.

Operational Bulletin 588 (modified) – December 13, 2016

Change in the definition of a dependent child

Summary

This Operational Bulletin (OB) provides operational guidance to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) staff regarding regulatory amendments introducing a new definition of “dependent child” to section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) effective August 1, 2014.

Effective August 1, 2014, the new definition of “dependent child” will apply across all IRCC lines of business, including temporary residents.

Table of contents

1. Background

The pre-amendment definition of a dependent child includes children who are under 22 years of age and not a spouse or common-law partner, or who are 22 years of age or older and dependent on a parent either because they are a full-time student or they have a physical or mental condition.

Before these amendments, procedures to “lock-in” the age of a dependent child at a specified point in time in the processing of a permanent resident application were broadly described in the Regulations (sections 121, 128, and 142) for the family and refugee streams, and further clarified in operational manuals (OP 2, IP 8 , OP 5). Age lock-in procedures for the economic stream were provided in operational manuals only. Additionally, procedures did not consistently address locking in the age of a child at the first formal stage of an immigration program that involves multiple steps.

2. New regulatory amendments

To enhance economic integration of immigrant dependent children in order to increase Canada’s economic potential, increase processing efficiencies, reduce the risk of fraud and promote consistency across all programs, the IRPR has been amended to introduce a new definition of “dependent child”. These amendments also include transitional provisions and new regulations describing when a dependant’s age is locked in, as well as new regulations describing the duration of undertaking for a dependent child. The new regulations come into force on August 1, 2014, and were published in Part II of the Canada Gazette on June 18, 2014.

2.1 New definition of “dependent child”

Effective August 1, 2014, the relevant section of paragraph 2 of the IRPR reads as follows:

“dependent child”, in respect of a parent, means a child who

  1. has one of the following relationships with the parent, namely,
    1. is the biological child of the parent, if the child has not been adopted by a person other than the spouse or common-law partner of the parent, or
    2. is the adopted child of the parent; and
  2. is in one of the following situations of dependency, namely,
    1. is less than 19 years of age and is not a spouse or common-law partner, or
    2. is 19 years of age or older and has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 19 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

This amendment narrows the previous definition of dependent child and involves two key changes:

  • a reduction in the basic age limit for a dependent child from under 22 to under 19 years; and
  • the elimination of eligibility for older children to be considered as dependants on the basis that they are students.

Two key provisions that have been retained in the new definition are civil status and lack of capacity to be self-supporting for certain dependent children. A child will not be considered a dependant if they are married or in a common-law relationship. Children with a physical or mental condition that prevents them from being able to financially support themselves will continue to be considered as dependants.

The new definition will apply to permanent resident applications received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014, except for those that are subject to a transitional provision.

Effective August 1, 2014, this new definition will also be applied to determine whether the accompanying child of a temporary resident applicant qualifies as a dependant, and any other references to “dependent child” in the IRPR are to be interpreted in terms of the new definition.

2.2 Continued application of pre-amendment definition to certain applications

All permanent resident applications received by IRCC before August 1, 2014, are to be assessed using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child. In addition, certain permanent resident applications received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014, under programs covered by transitional provisions will be assessed using the following pre-amendment definition of dependent child:

“dependent child”, in respect of a parent, means a child who

  1. has one of the following relationships with the parent, namely,
    1. is the biological child of the parent, if the child has not been adopted by a person other than the spouse or common-law partner of the parent, or
    2.  is the adopted child of the parent; and
  2.  is in one of the following situations of dependency, namely,
    1. is less than 22 years of age and not a spouse or common-law partner,
    2. has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22—or if the child became a spouse or common-law partner before the age of 22, since becoming a spouse or common-law partner—and, since before the age of 22 or since becoming a spouse or common-law partner, as the case may be, has been a student
      1. continuously enrolled in and attending a post-secondary institution that is accredited by the relevant government authority, and
      2.  actively pursuing a course of academic, professional or vocational training on a full-time basis, or
    3. is 22 years of age or older and has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

2.3 Transitional provisions

Transitional provisions will mitigate the impact of the amendment to the definition of dependent child on a temporary basis. Transitional provisions will apply to cases in multiple-step permanent resident immigration programs where preliminary processes are underway by August 1, 2014, but the application for permanent residence (APR) has not yet been submitted to IRCC. This will allow applicants who have already initiated their immigration process before August 1, 2014, to complete this process under the pre-amendment definition of dependent child. See New procedures for details.

In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

2.4 Lock-in regulations

New lock-in provisions will apply to all APRs received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014, except for those applications which will benefit from any of the transitional provisions.

If it meets completeness requirements, an application submitted on paper is considered to be received on the day it is date-stamped by the IRCC office designated to intake applications for the applicable program or category. For applications received electronically, the date of receipt will be the date the application is “promoted” in the Global Case Management System (GCMS). These dates equate to the date an application is made as per the Regulations.

The IRPR has been amended to more clearly and consistently define the requirements for determining the locked in age of children, which is crucial to assessing whether or not they meet the definition of dependent child. Applications that benefit from a transitional provision will be subject to the lock-in procedures that existed prior to these amendments.

Under the new lock-in regulations, the age of a dependent child will be locked in at the first formal stage of the application process under which the principal applicant is applying. Permanent residence application processes can generally be divided into single-step or multiple-step processes depending on the specific program or category. Single-step processes involve the submission of an APR, accompanied by a sponsorship application, where applicable. For these cases, the age lock-in date is the date the application is received by IRCC. Multiple-step processes require that the principal applicant first apply for and meet preliminary program requirements and/or obtain additional documents (e.g., Certificat de sélection du Québec [CSQ] or provincial nominee certificate) and subsequently submit an APR. As a result, their respective age lock-in dates will vary according to program or category.

3. New procedures

3.1 Impact of the amended definition, transitional provisions and lock-in procedures on specific permanent resident programs

Note: In all cases where a transitional provision applies, in order for a child to be eligible for processing as a dependant, they must meet the pre-amendment definition of dependent child at the time IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR.

3.1.1 Applicants selected by a province or territory under the Provincial Nominee Program

Provincial nominees must first apply to the province or territory for nomination. If they are approved, they can apply to IRCC for permanent residence, but must do so before the expiry of the nomination.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of applicants whose complete application was received by the province or territory for nomination before August 1, 2014 are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child, even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date IRCC receives the APR from the principal applicant.
  • Other APRs not covered by transitional provisions: The new definition of dependent child should be applied.
  • New lock-in date: The lock-in date for the age of a child of an applicant under the PNP is the date on which the applicable province or territory authority receives a complete application for provincial nomination from the principal applicant [R25.1 (4)].
3.1.2 Applicants selected by the province of Quebec under Quebec economic immigration programs

Quebec economic migrants must first apply to the Province of Quebec for selection. If they are approved, they can apply to IRCC for permanent residence.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of applicants who applied to Quebec for selection before August 1, 2014 are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child, even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date on which the Province of Quebec receives the complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant.
  • Other APRs not covered by transitional provisions: The new definition of dependent child should be applied.
  • New lock-in date: The lock-in date for the age of a child of an applicant under a Quebec economic immigration program is the date on which Quebec receives a complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant [R25.1(3)].
3.1.3 Persons selected by Quebec who are in distressful situations

Foreign nationals in a “particularly distressful situation” may apply to the Province of Quebec for a CSQ. Upon receipt of the CSQ, they can then apply for permanent residence to IRCC.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of applicants whose complete application for selection due to a distressful situation was received by Quebec before August 1, 2014 are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child. This applies even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date on which the Province of Quebec receives a complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant.
  • Other APRs not covered by transitional provisions: The new definition of dependent child should be applied.
  • New lock-in date: The lock-in date for the age of a child of an applicant who is under a distressful situation is the date on which Quebec receives a complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant [R25.1(2)].

Note: In these cases, the CSQ must explicitly state that the person is in a particularly distressful situation.

3.1.4 Persons being sponsored as refugees under a Quebec group sponsorship

A group of private individuals in Quebec may submit an undertaking application for a refugee, along with an APR, to the Province of Quebec.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of applicants sponsored as refugees by a group of individuals in Quebec before August 1, 2014 are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child, even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date on which the Province of Quebec receives the undertaking application from the sponsors.
  • Other APRs not covered by transitional provisions: The new definition of dependent child should be applied.
  • New lock-in date: The lock-in date for the age of a child of an applicant who is sponsored as a refugee by a group of individuals in Quebec is the date on which Quebec receives a complete undertaking application from the collective sponsorship group [R25.1(6)].

Note: Dependent children of refugees abroad who are included in the principal applicant’s APR–either at the time of initial application or added at some time before the principal applicant departs for Canada–and who meet applicable requirements are eligible to apply for a permanent resident visa. This will be possible provided they apply to the visa office within one year from the day the principal applicant becomes a permanent resident as a protected person. This is the “one-year window” provision addressed by R141(1)(b). The lock-in date for the age of a child overseas of an applicant who is a refugee abroad, but who does not accompany that applicant to Canada, is the date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant accepted as a refugee abroad [R25.1(8)].

Note: On or after August 1, 2014, children 19 or over who do not otherwise qualify to be processed under the pre-amendment definition of dependent child may be eligible to be processed as de facto dependants, if they meet the requirements.

3.1.5 Live-in caregivers

Live-in caregivers come to Canada on an initial work permit issued under the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). Generally, they arrive unaccompanied by their children, but almost all apply for permanent residence with the intention of reuniting with them by the time they qualify to apply for permanent residence. Although some live-in caregivers may be eligible to apply for permanent residence as early as two years after their arrival on work permits, it is not unusual for them to require up to four years to meet the requirements.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of applicants whose complete initial work permit application under the LCP was received before August 1, 2014 are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child, even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date on which IRCC receives the APR from the principal applicant.
  • Other APRs not covered by transitional provisions: The new definition of dependent child should be applied.
  • New lock-in date: The lock-in date for the age of a child of an applicant under the LCP is the date on which IRCC approves the application for the initial work permit as a live-in caregiver from the principal applicant [R25.1(5)].
3.1.6 Government assisted refugees applying for resettlement

Many refugees abroad have been separated from their children. As they have little control over the destination and timing of their migration, it may take years before they are granted protected person status and can submit an APR.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of applicants who are referred as government assisted refugees prior to August 1, 2014 are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child, even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date on which IRCC receives the APR from the principal applicant.
  • Other APRs not covered by transitional provisions: The new definition of dependent child should be applied.
  • New lock-in date: The lock-in date for the age of a child of a government assisted refugee applying for resettlement is the date on which IRCC receives the referral from the refugee referral organization [R25.1(7)].

Note: Dependent children of refugees abroad who are included in the principal applicant’s APR–either at the time of initial application or added at some time before the principal applicant departs for Canada–and who meet applicable requirements are eligible to apply for a permanent resident visa. This will be possible if they apply to the visa office within one year from the day the principal applicant becomes a permanent resident as a protected person. This is the “one-year window” provision addressed by R141(1)(b). The lock-in date for the age of a child overseas of an applicant who is a refugee abroad, but who does not accompany that applicant to Canada, is the date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant accepted as a refugee abroad [R25.1(8)].

Note: On or after August 1, 2014, children 19 or over who do not otherwise qualify to be processed under the pre-amendment definition of dependent child may be eligible to be processed as de facto dependants, if they meet the requirements.

3.1.7 Protected persons (in-Canada refugee claimants)

Foreign nationals submitting refugee claims inside Canada have similar experiences and face similar challenges reuniting with their children as refugees abroad.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of applicants who made an in-Canada refugee claim prior to August 1, 2014, and who acquired protected person status either before or after that date are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child. This applies even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date on which IRCC receives the APR from the principal applicant.
  • Other APRs not covered by transitional provisions: The new definition of dependent child should be applied.
  • New lock-in date: The lock-in date for the age of a child of an in-Canada refugee claimant who has acquired protected person status is the date on which IRCC or the CBSA received the principal applicant’s refugee claim [R25.1(9)].
3.1.8 Persons whose circumstances were being examined under public policy considerations [A25.2] before August 1, 2014, and who made an APR after August 1, 2014

Pursuant to section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the authority to institute a public policy allowing foreign nationals who are otherwise inadmissible or unable to meet requirements to become permanent residents. For instance, persons may be in refugee-like situations yet be ineligible to submit a refugee claim or apply for resettlement.

  • Under transitional provisions for public policies for persons whose circumstances were being examined under public policy considerations [A25.2] before August 1, 2014, and who made an APR after August 1, 2014, accompanying children are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child, even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date IRCC receives the APR from the principal applicant.
  • Other APRs: Other applications made under a public policy will use the new definition of dependent child, and the lock-in date for the age of a child will be the date on which IRCC receives the APR from the principal applicant, unless otherwise specified by the public policy.
3.1.9 Parents and grandparents cases where just a sponsorship application was submitted before November 5, 2011

Effective July 11, 2011, all applications to sponsor parents and grandparents (PGPs) are required to be submitted jointly with the APR. Prior to that date, it was necessary for two applications to be submitted: 1) a sponsorship application; and 2) a permanent resident application which was allowed to be submitted separately, at a later date. On November 5, 2011, IRCC introduced a temporary pause on the intake of family class applications under the PGP category, as an efficiency measure under IRCC’s Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification (see OB 353). These measures resulted in an inventory of PGP sponsorship applications with no accompanying APRs. IRCC will be soliciting the submission of permanent resident applications for these cases as they come up for processing.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of PGP applicants for whom a sponsorship application was received prior to August 1, 2014, are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of dependent child even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date IRCC receives the sponsorship application.

Note: The pre-amendment definition of dependent child will be applied to the following PGP applications:

  • those for which a sponsorship application was received prior to November 5, 2011;
  • those received under the cap imposed in January 2014; and
  • those received under the Temporary Public Policy to Accept for Processing Certain Family Class Sponsorship Applications for Parents and Grandparents [R25.2(1)].
  • Other APRs: All other PGP applications received on or after August 1, 2014 will use the new definition of dependent child, and the lock-in date for the age of a child will be the date on which a complete sponsorship and APR are received by IRCC.
3.1.10 Privately sponsored refugees for whom a sponsorship application was received before October 19, 2012

On October 19, 2012, regulatory changes to Canada’s refugee resettlement Program came into force (see OB 356) requiring that a permanent resident application be submitted along with a group sponsorship undertaking to the Centralized Processing Office in Winnipeg. Prior to this date, two applications were submitted: 1) a private sponsorship application; and 2) a permanent resident application, which was allowed to be submitted by the principal refugee applicant separately, at a later date.

  • Under transitional provisions, children of privately sponsored refugees for whom a sponsorship application was received prior to October 12, 2012, are to be assessed by IRCC using the pre-amendment definition of a dependent child, even if their complete APR is received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014. Pre-amendment lock-in procedures are to be applied—i.e., the age of the child is locked in on the date IRCC receives the sponsorship application.
  • For other APRs not covered by transitional provisions, except in instances where the above applies, the pre-amendment definition should be applied to children of privately sponsored refugees for whom a permanent residence application was received prior to August 1, 2014, and the new definition of a dependent child should be applied to children of privately sponsored refugees for whom a permanent residence application was received on or after August 1, 2014.
  • The new lock-in date for the age of a child of an applicant who is a privately sponsored refugee is the date on which IRCC receives the APR from the principal applicant [R25.1 (4)].

Note: Dependent children of refugees abroad who are included in the principal applicant’s APR–either at the time of initial application or added at some time before the principal applicant departs for Canada—and who meet applicable requirements are eligible to apply for a permanent resident visa provided they apply to the visa office within one year from the day the principal applicant becomes a permanent resident as a protected person. This is the “one-year window” provision addressed by R141(1)(b). The lock-in date for the age of a child overseas of an applicant who is a refugee abroad, but who does not accompany that applicant to Canada, is the date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant accepted as a refugee abroad [R25.1(8)].

Note: On or after August 1, 2014, children 19 or over who do not otherwise qualify to be processed under the pre-amendment definition of dependent child may be eligible to be processed as de facto dependants, if they meet the requirements.

3.1.11 Permanent resident cards (PR cards) and permanent resident travel documents

In order to be issued a PR card or permanent resident travel document (PRTD), an applicant who has spent time abroad must meet residency obligations. Regulatory amendments to the definition of dependent child do not include any transitional provisions for PR card or PRTD lines of business.

IRPR subsection 61(6) has been amended to reflect the new definition of dependent child. Effective August 1, 2014, R61(6) reads:

For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, a “child” means a child who is not a spouse or common-law partner and is less than 19 years of age.

Under the pre-amendment definition, the age of a child was less than 22.

For PR card and PRTD applications received on or after August 1, 2014, an officer determining whether or not an applicant meets the residency requirements assesses each day based on the regulations that were in effect on that day. For any period of time prior to August 1, 2014, residency will be assessed for any child under the age of 22 who spends time accompanying an eligible parent abroad. For any period of time on or after August 1, 2014, residency will be assessed for any child under the age of 19. Time spent accompanying a parent abroad on or after August 1, 2014, will not be included in the residency period for any child 19 or over on that date.

3.2 Impact of the amended definition on the processing of Family Class sponsorship applications

3.2.1 Duration of Family Class sponsorship undertakings

Regulatory amendments in support of the new definition of dependent child include changes to sections of paragraph 132 of the IRPR governing the duration of sponsorship obligations.

Effective August 1, 2014, the duration of undertaking for sponsorship of dependent children of the sponsor or of the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner, or of persons referred to in R117(1)(g)—children to be adopted in Canada—will change as follows:

  • If the person is less than 19 years of age when they become a permanent resident, the duration of sponsorship ends on the earlier of either a) the last day of the period of 10 years following the day on which they become a permanent resident or b) the day on which the foreign national reaches 22 years of age [R132(1)(b)(ii)]; or
  • If the dependent child is 19 years of age or older when they become a permanent resident, the duration of sponsorship ends on the last day of the period of three years following the day on which they become a permanent resident [R132(1)(b)(iii)].

These amendments involve one key change—a reduction from 25 to 22 years of age for the age limit at which the sponsorship obligation period ends for a dependent child.

These changes are included in the new version of form IMM 1344 (Application to Sponsor, Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking) available to applicants as of August 1, 2014.

3.2.2 Procedures for sponsorship applications including children received after August 1, 2014

Family class sponsorships received on or after August 1, 2014, which include dependent children—either as principal applicants or accompanying family members—that are received using old IMM 1344 forms will be returned to the sponsor with a letter of explanation which advises they will need to resubmit the application using the new IMM 1344.

Effective August 1, 2014 designated officers at the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga may refuse an application for permanent residence where the principal applicant is a child who does not meet the definition of dependant and the sponsor does not elect to have the application forwarded to a visa office if the sponsor is deemed ineligible.

All permanent residence applications where there is an indication that a dependent child 19 or over may be financially dependent on a parent due to a physical or medical condition will be forwarded to the appropriate visa office for processing.

CPC-M will continue to forward permanent residence applications to the appropriate visa office where the principal applicant includes a child.

3.3 Temporary residents

Regulatory amendments to the definition of dependent children do not include any transitional provisions for temporary resident business lines. Effective August 1, 2014, the new definition of dependent child will be applied where a determination has to be made whether a child is a dependant of a temporary resident applicant. For temporary resident applications received before August 1, 2014, but processed on or after that date, IRCC will apply the pre-amendment definition of dependent child. A temporary resident application submitted on paper is considered to be received on the day it is postmarked (in Canada) or date-stamped by the designated IRCC intake office (overseas). For applications received electronically, the date of receipt will be the date the application is submitted. These dates equate to the date, “an application is made’’, as per the Regulations. If children do not qualify to be processed as a dependant of a principal applicant, officers will determine whether children 19 years of age or over are eligible for temporary resident status because they meet applicable requirements independently.

3.4 Age lock-in dates by immigration program and category

Table 1 provides a summary of age lock-in dates by immigration program or category. These are provided for both new applications submitted on or after August 1, 2014, where a transitional provision does not apply and those where a transitional provision applies or the application was received before August 1, 2014.

Table 1 – Age lock-in dates for children by immigration program/category
1.a Single-step application processes
Program or category for principal applicant Applications received before August 1, 2014 OR subject to a transitional provision Applications received on or after August 1, 2014, AND not subject to a transitional provision
Federal Economic Class Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant. Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant.
Family Class Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant. Note: See Parents and grandparents applications submitted prior to November 5, 2011 (refer to Multiple-step application processes below). Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant.
Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant. Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant.
Refugees selected abroad: privately-sponsored refugees Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR, together with a complete sponsorship undertaking. Note: See Privately sponsored refugees for whom a sponsorship application was received on or before October 18, 2012 (refer to Multiple-step application process below). Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR, together with a complete sponsorship undertaking.
Public policy (A25.2) Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant, unless otherwise specified in the public policy (Check the specific public policy for details). Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant, unless otherwise specified in the public policy (Check the specific public policy for details).
 1.b Multiple-step application processes
Program or category for principal applicant Applications received before August 1, 2014 (transitional provision applies) Applications received on or after August 1, 2014
Provincial Nominee Program Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant.  Date on which the applicable provincial or territorial authority receives a complete application for provincial nomination from the principal applicant.
Quebec economic categories Date on which Quebec receives a complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant. Date on which Quebec receives a complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant.
Quebec distressful situations Date on which Quebec receives a complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant. Date on which Quebec receives a complete application for a CSQ from the principal applicant.
Quebec collective refugee sponsorships Date on which the province of Quebec receives a complete undertaking application from the sponsors. Date on which the province of Quebec receives a complete undertaking application from the sponsors.
Live-in Caregiver Program Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant. Date on which IRCC receives a complete initial LCP work permit application from the principal applicant abroad.
Refugees selected abroad: government-assisted refugees Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant. Date on which IRCC receives the referral of the principal applicant from the refugee referral organization.
Protected persons (in-Canada refugee claimants) Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant. Date on which IRCC or CBSA receives the refugee claim from the principal applicant.
Family members who do not accompany protected persons (“one-year window”) Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from the principal applicant accepted as a refugee abroad. (Family member may apply within one year of the date the principal applicant becomes a permanent resident as a protected person). Date on which IRCC receives a complete APR from principal applicant accepted as a refugee abroad. (Family member may apply within one year of the date the principal applicant becomes a permanent resident as a protected person).
Parents and grandparents applications submitted prior to November 5, 2011 Date on which IRCC receives a complete sponsorship application from the sponsor. (Prior to November 5, 2011, PGP sponsorship applications could be submitted in advance of the APR.)
Privately sponsored refugees for whom a sponsorship application was received on or before October 18, 2012 Date on which IRCC receives a complete sponsorship application from the sponsors. (Prior to October 18, 2012, PSR sponsorship applications could be submitted in advance of the APR.)

3.5 Implementation scenarios for transitional provisions

For each of the transitional provisions, the annexes in section Documents and tools provide a breakdown of information crucial to determining the lock-in date of the age of a child and whether to apply the pre-amendment or new definition of dependent child, based on the timing of applications or preliminary requirements for a specific program or category. They also include sample scenarios for further clarification.

4. Processing instructions

In reviewing an application which includes children identified as dependants, an officer must determine if those children are eligible to be included as dependants. If they are 19 or over, a determination must be made whether they qualify under the new definition because they are dependent due to a mental or physical condition or if a transitional provision exists that allows them to be processed under the pre-amendment definition.

If a transitional provision does not apply, children included in the application as dependants will only be eligible to be processed, if they meet the new definition of a dependent child.

If a transitional provision applies, or if the APR was received prior to August 1, 2014, a determination needs to be made if overage children included in the application as dependants are eligible to be processed because they meet the pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

In order to determine if a child is eligible to be included as a dependant, an officer needs to know if the age of that child is locked in based on the pre-amendment or new lock-in age procedure for any given program or category.

Note: New lock-in regulations only apply to applications received on or after August 1, 2014, that do not benefit from a transitional provision.

As of August 1, 2014, IRCC officers will be able to identify that a foreign national meets the requirements to be eligible as a dependent child under one of five possible dependant types.

Two new dependant types have been created to identify children who meet the new definition of dependent child. The remaining three are those that previously existed under the pre-amendment definition, and which will be applied where transitional provisions apply.

These changes and others related to processing applications when the new definition of dependent child comes into effect are supported by GCMS Release 6.0 on June 14, 2014 – Release Notes for GCMS eServices Release 6.0.

4.1 Determining Dependant Type

As of August 1, 2014, the age of a dependent child is their age at the time age is locked in for the applicable program or category.

Under the new definition of dependent child, there are two types of dependants:

TYPE 1

The child is under the age of 19, is not married and is not a spouse or common law partner.

Note: For dependant type 1, a child must also be unmarried at the time of visa issuance in order to become a permanent resident.

TYPE 2

The child is 19 or older, has depended substantially on the financial support of a parent since before the age of 19, and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

For cases where transitional provisions apply, IRCC will continue to apply the three types of dependants applicable under the pre-amendment definition of dependent child:

TYPE A

For transitional cases only, the child is under the age of 22, is not married and is not in a common-law relationship.

TYPE B

For transitional cases only, the child has been continuously enrolled in/attending full-time studies at a post-secondary institution and has depended substantially on the financial support of a parent either since:

  • before turning 22; or
  • marrying or entering into a common-law relationship before turning 22.

TYPE C

For transitional cases only, the child is 22 years of age or older, has depended substantially on the financial support of a parent since before the age of 22, and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

For clients with an existing Unique Client Identifier, there will be no automated pre-population of information in GCMS to indicate that their children are eligible to be included as a dependent child under the pre-amendment definition based on one of the transitional provisions.

Onus will be on officers to look for specific information or documents submitted with an application to confirm whether a child qualifies as a dependant based on the pre-amendment definition of a dependent child.

IRCC officers will be required to review and assess information provided in the application package and/or accessible in GCMS to:

  • identify if a transitional provision applies;
  • identify which lock-in procedure or regulation applies;
  • determine the child’s locked-in age;
  • determine if a child included in the application meets an applicable definition of dependent child; and
  • determine which fees to apply.

4.2 Indicators for transitional provisions

Table 2 (Information confirming that a transitional provision applies) below provides a summary of indicators that can be used to confirm whether or not a transitional provision applies.

Table 2 – Information confirming that a transitional provision applies for an application for permanent residence received on or after August 1, 2014
Program or category for principal applicant Applicable transitional provision for children of the principal applicant Indicator that the transitional provision applies
Provincial Nominee Program A person who made an application in a province or territory for nomination as a member of the provincial nominee class before August 1, 2014 [R13(1)(d)] Evidence of the date on which the application for nomination was received by the province or territory: the Date of Application column on the nomination spreadsheet the province or territory sends to IRCC each month
Quebec economic programs A person who made an application to Quebec for selection as a member of the economic class before August 1, 2014 [R13(1)(c)] Evidence of the date on which the CSQ application was received by Quebec: the date on principal applicant’s Form 6 (F06)
Persons in Quebec in distressful situations A person who made an application to Quebec for selection as a person in a particularly distressful situation before August 1, 2014 [R13(1)(b)]

Evidence of the date on which the CSQ application was received by Quebec: the date on principal applicant’s Form 6 (F06)
Persons being sponsored as refugees under a Quebec group sponsorship A person respecting whom an undertaking application was made to Quebec before August 1, 2014 [R13(1)(i)] Evidence of the date on which the refugee sponsorship undertaking was received by Quebec: the date stamp on the Undertaking–Collective Sponsorship Form
Live-in Caregiver Program A person who made their work permit application under Division 3 of Part 6 of IRPA and whose work permit application was approved before August 1, 2014 [R13(1)(e)] Evidence of the date on which the application for the initial LCP work permit was approved by IRCC: date is available in GCMS: “Received Date”
Government assisted refugees applying for resettlement A person respecting whom a referral set out in section 140.3 of the IRPR was submitted to the immigration office before August 1, 2014 [R13(1)(g)] Evidence of the date on which the referral from the refugee referral organization was received by IRCC: date stamp on Resettlement Registration Form (available in GCMS)
In-Canada refugee claimants who have acquired protected person status A person who made a claim for refugee protection in Canada before August 1, 2014, and who acquired protected person status before or after August 1, 2014 Note: Receipt of Protected Person status could occur either at the refugee claim or in a subsequent Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), following a rejected refugee claim or a determination that the refugee claim was ineligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) [R13(1)(f)] Evidence of the date on which IRCC or the CBSA received the refugee claim date of issue of Refugee Protection Claimant Document (available in GCMS)
Persons examined under a refugee-like public policy (A25.2) A person whose circumstances were being examined under section 25.2 of the IRPA before August 1, 2014 [R13(1)(j)] Evidence of the date on which the public policy was established: public policy document stipulating “effective from” date the public policy was signed by the Minister
Certain parents and grandparents A parent or grandparent respecting whom a sponsorship application was made before November 5, 2011 [R13(1)(k)] Evidence of the date on which the sponsorship application was received by IRCC: date stamp on IMM 1344 (available in GCMS)
Certain privately sponsored refugees A person respecting whom a sponsorship application was made under Part 8 of the IRPR on or before October 18, 2012 [R13(1)(h)] Evidence of the date on which the sponsorship application was received by IRCC: date stamp on IMM 5373 (available in GCMS)

Information will be available on the IRCC website to inform clients of the circumstances under which they are eligible to include a child as a dependant under the pre-amendment definition of dependent child. In addition, a web tool will be available to provide both existing and future applicants with practical information on the eligibility of their children to be included on their application under a specific program or category.

4.3 Entering a dependant’s lock-in date

The lock-in date in GCMS defaults to the application received date. For APRs received on or after August 1, 2014, that do not benefit from a transitional provision, and whose lock-in date should be other than the date the APR is received by IRCC, it is necessary to manually enter the applicable lock-in date. Officers must enter the lock-in date in accordance with information provided in Table 1 (Age lock-in dates for children by immigration program and category) based on information available to them as per Table 2 (Information confirming that a transitional provision applies).

For record purposes, officers must enter the following information in GCMS Case Notes:

  • that a transitional provision applies (specify which one, as per Table 2);
  • that the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies (specify type of dependant);
  • where dependants are deemed ineligible because a transitional provision does not apply and they fail to meet the new definition of dependent child; and,
  • any additional details for explanation or clarification, as appropriate (e.g., lack of evidence to support eligibility under the pre-amendment definition or to verify age lock-in date).

4.4 Entering fee information

Under the amended regulations, the permanent resident processing fee for all accompanying dependent children will be $150–applicable to both those under 19 years of age and those 19 or older who are financially dependent on their parents due to a physical or mental condition.

Annex L (Permanent Resident Fees for Dependent Children) provides the range of permanent resident fees for dependent children that will apply on or after August 1, 2014, based on the dependant type (type 1, 2, A, B or C).

Note: Other accompanying children covered by transitional provisions will be subject to the fees in effect prior to August 1, 2014.

New fee codes and descriptions in the Integrated Payment and Revenue Management System (IPRMS) by specific application business line have been created in GCMS – Release Notes for GCMS eServices Release 6.0.

4.4.1 Temporary resident fees

The only temporary resident fees that will be affected by the new definition of dependent child are the family rate for an application for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) and the family rate for the accompanying biometric fee. For TRV applications received on or after August 1, 2014, only those children who meet the new definition of dependent child will be eligible to be included in these family rates.  Children 19 or over who are not dependent on a parent due a physical or mental condition will be required to pay separate TRV and biometric fees

5. Impact of change in the definition of dependent child on family class refusal appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division

There are no transitional provisions with respect to appeals filed by sponsors to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) under subsection 63(1) of the IRPA. There is a transitional provision which specifies that the pre-amendment definition continues to apply in respect of a dependent child of a person whose application for a permanent resident visa or for permanent resident status is made before the coming into force of the new regulations. As of August 1, 2014, for all appeals pursuant to 63(1) of IRPA where the application was received by IRCC prior to August 1, 2014 and the visa officer’s decision was based on the pre-amendment definition of dependent child, the IAD should base its decision on the law that was in effect at the time the application was received by IRCC. For appeals where the application was received by IRCC on or after August 1, 2014, the new regulations with respect to the change in the definition of dependent child will apply.

6. Documents and tools


Annex A

Scenarios for applicants selected by a province or territory under the Provincial Nominee Program

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(d)].

Applicable definition

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR (OP 1 section 5.24).

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On July 2, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a provincial nominee, who includes his 20-year-old unmarried daughter as a dependant. IRCC commences processing the application after August 1, 2014. Because the principal applicant applied for a provincial nomination before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Since the daughter is under 22 (the applicable lock-in date) on the date IRCC receives a complete APR, she meets the age criteria of the applicable definition of dependent child (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, but the principal applicant applied for a nomination to a province or territory before that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(d)].

Definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR (OP 1 section 5.24).

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario B

On September 1, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a provincial nominee, who includes his 23‑year‑old son, who has been in a common-law relationship since the age of 20 and who is entering the final year of a four-year university program. Because the principal applicant applied for a provincial nomination before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre‑amendment definition of dependent child applies. Since the son has depended substantially on the financial support of his parents since becoming a common-law partner and has been continuously enrolled in and attending a post-secondary institution, he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type B).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – The province or territory receives a nomination application from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014. After the nomination is approved, the principal applicant submits an APR to IRCC.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Lock-in date

The lock-in date is the date the province or territory received the nomination application [R25.1(4)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date the province or territory receives the principal applicant’s nomination application, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

On September 2, 2014, provincial authorities receive a nomination application from a principal applicant. The province issues the nomination certificate on March 4, 2015. On June 1, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant, who includes his 15-year-old daughter and 19‑year-old unmarried son as dependants. Because the province received the nomination application after August 1, 2014, there is no transitional provision and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was under 19 on the date of the application to the province (the new lock-in date), she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type 1). Although the son is 19 at the time the APR is received, he was 18 on the date the province received the principal applicant’s nomination application, which is the date his age is locked-in. As a result, he meets the new definition so is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type 1).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex B

Scenarios for applicants selected by the Province of Quebec under Quebec economic immigration programs (Immigration Program for Skilled Workers, Immigration Investors Program, Immigration Entrepreneurs Program and Immigration Program for Self-Employed Workers)

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(c)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the application for a CSQ from the principal applicant (OP 1 section 5.24).

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date Quebec receives the principal applicant’s CSQ application, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On June 20, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a Quebec Immigration Program for Skilled Workers applicant, who includes his 23-year-old son, who is unmarried and going into the second year of a master’s program at university. The application includes a Certificat de sélection du Québec (CSQ – Quebec Selection Certificate) for both the parent and the son. IRCC commences processing the application after August 1, 2014. Because the principal applicant applied to Quebec for a CSQ before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre‑amendment definition of dependent child applies. The applicable lock-in date is the date the parent applied to Quebec for a CSQ. If the son had been 22 or over at that time, Quebec would have assessed his student status prior to issuing a CSQ. In this case, the officer needs to assess whether the son remains in full-time student status and financially dependent in order to determine if the son is eligible as a dependent child. Since the son has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 and has been continuously enrolled in and attending a post-secondary institution, he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type B).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, but the principal applicant had applied for a CSQ before that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(c)]

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the application for a CSQ (OP 1 section 5.24).

Impact

A child can be considered as a dependant if, on the date Quebec receives the principal applicant’s CSQ application, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario B

On January 8, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from a Quebec Immigration Program for Self-Employed Workers applicant, who includes his 20-year-old married daughter and 18-year-old unmarried son as dependants. CSQs are included for each person. Because the principal applicant applied for a CSQ before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. The lock-in date is the date the person applied to Quebec for a CSQ. The officer determines that the 20-year-old daughter is financially independent and not a student. Her marriage certificate says she got married after they applied to Quebec, and it appears they did not inform Quebec of the marriage. As a result of further examination it is determined she fails to meet any of the criteria laid out in the pre-amendment definition of a dependent child. Therefore, she is not eligible to be processed as a dependant. The 18-year-old son, however, is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – Quebec receives a CSQ application from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014. After the CSQ is approved, the principal applicant submits an APR to IRCC.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition [R25.1(3)].

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the application for a CSQ.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date Quebec receives the CSQ application, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

On August 1, 2014, Quebec receives a CSQ application from a Quebec Immigration Entrepreneurs Program applicant. The CSQ is approved on February 1, 2015. On April 7, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant, who includes his 19-year-old son as a dependant. CSQs are included for each person. Because the CSQ application was received by Quebec on August 1, 2014, there is no transitional provision and the new definition of dependent child applies. The son turned 19 years of age on April 1, 2015. Because he was under 19 on the date Quebec received the principal applicant’s CSQ application, which is the date his age is locked in, he meets the new definition of dependent child so is eligible to be processed as a dependant.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex C

Scenarios for persons in Quebec in distressful situations

Scenario A- IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(b)]

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the application for a CSQ from the principal applicant.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date Quebec receives the principal applicant’s CSQ application, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On June 30, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from an applicant Quebec deemed to be in a distressful situation, who includes his 21-year-old unmarried daughter as a dependant. CSQs are provided for both persons. IRCC commences processing the application after August 1, 2014. Because the principal applicant applied for a CSQ before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. The applicable lock-in date is the date the application for a CSQ was made to Quebec. Since the daughter was under 22 (the basis on which a CSQ was issued for her), and remains not married and not in a common-law relationship, she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR application from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, but the principal applicant had applied to Quebec for a CSQ before that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(b)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the application for a CSQ from the principal applicant.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s CSQ, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full definition.

Sample scenario B

On September 25, 2014, IRCC receives an APR (including CSQs) from an applicant whom Quebec deemed to be in a distressful situation, who includes his 22-year-old unmarried son as a dependant. Because the principal applicant applied for a CSQ before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. At the time Quebec received the CSQ application, the date his age is locked in, the son was 21; therefore, he meets the pre-amendment definition of dependent child so he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – Quebec receives a CSQ application from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014. After the CSQ is approved, the principal applicant submits an APR to IRCC.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the application for a CSQ [R25.1(2)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date Quebec receives the CSQ application, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

On September 1, 2014, Quebec receives a CSQ application from an applicant in a distressful situation. The CSQ is approved on January 1, 2015. On December 22, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant (including CSQs), who includes his 19-year-old daughter as a dependant. Because the APR was received after August 1, 2014, there is no transitional provision and the new definition of dependent child applies. The daughter turned 19 on July 30, 2015. Because she was under 19 on the date Quebec received the principal applicant’s CSQ application, which is the date her age is locked in, she meets the new definition of dependent child so is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type 1).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex D

Persons being sponsored as refugees under a Quebec group sponsorship

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant, along with an undertaking application to Quebec, before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(i)].

Definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the undertaking application [R142].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date Quebec receives the principal applicant’s undertaking for the principal applicant, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On June 24, 2014, the visa office receives a package from Quebec including an APR from a refugee abroad along with an approved collective undertaking. The APR includes his daughter, who, at the time Quebec received the undertaking, was 21 years old and unmarried. Because Quebec had received the undertaking application before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date Quebec received the principal undertaking application–the age lock-in date–she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Sample scenario A (with one-year window)

On June 24, 2014, the visa office receives a package from Quebec including an APR from a refugee abroad along with an approved collective undertaking. The APR includes his daughter, who, at the time IRCC received the undertaking application, was 21 years old, unmarried, and living elsewhere. The father becomes a permanent resident on August 19, 2015. On February 17, 2016, IRCC receives an APR from the daughter under the “one-year window” provision under R141(1)(b). Because Quebec received the initial undertaking application before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date Quebec received the undertaking application, the age lock-in date, she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – An APR is made to IRCC on or after August 1, 2014, and the private sponsors submitted an undertaking application to Quebec before that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(i)].

Definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the undertaking application for the principal applicant [R142].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date the province of Quebec receives the undertaking application, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario B

On August 18, 2014, the visa office receives an APR from a refugee abroad whose collective undertaking was approved by Quebec and subsequently received by IRCC for assessment on September 11, 2014. The APR includes her son, who, at the time Quebec received the undertaking application was 21 years old and unmarried. Because the undertaking application was submitted to Quebec before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre‑amendment definition of dependent child applies. The lock-in date is the date Quebec received the undertaking application. The son is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type B).

Sample scenario B (with one-year window)

On August 18, 2014, the visa office receives an APR from a refugee abroad whose collective undertaking was approved by Quebec and subsequently received by IRCC for assessment on September 11, 2014. The APR includes her son, who, at the time Quebec received the undertaking application was 21 years old, unmarried, and living elsewhere. The mother becomes a permanent resident on November 23, 2015. On October 20, 2016, IRCC receives an APR from the son under the “one-year window” provision under R141(1)(b). Because the undertaking application was submitted to Quebec before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Since the son was under 22 on the date Quebec received the principal applicant’s undertaking application–the age lock-in date–he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type B).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – An APR is made to IRCC on or after August 1, 2014, and the private sponsors submitted an undertaking application to Quebec after that date.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date Quebec received the undertaking application for the principal applicant [R25.1(6)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date Quebec receives the undertaking application, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C (with one-year-window)

On December 1, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from a refugee abroad whose collective undertaking was approved by Quebec and subsequently received by IRCC for assessment on November 3, 2014. The APR includes her daughter, who, at the time Quebec received the undertaking application on September 5, 2014, was 19 years old, unmarried, and living elsewhere. The mother becomes a permanent resident on December 11, 2015. On December 11, 2016, IRCC receives an APR from the daughter under the “one-year window” provision under R141(1)(b). Because the collective undertaking was received by Quebec after August 1, 2014, a transitional provision does not apply and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was not under 19 years of age on the date Quebec received the undertaking application–the age lock-in date–she is not eligible to be processed as a dependant. The officer can review the circumstances of the case to determine whether the daughter may be eligible to be processed under the de facto dependant policy.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex E

Scenarios for the Live-in Caregiver Program

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(e)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On July 24, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) applicant, which includes her 21-year-old unmarried daughter living abroad. Because the principal applicant was issued an initial LCP work permit before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was under 22 at the time the principal applicant submitted her APR–the age lock-in date–and is not married or in a common-law relationship, she is eligible to be processed by the visa office as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, but their initial LCP work permit application was approved before that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(e)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario B

On September 22, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from an LCP applicant, which includes her 22‑year‑old unmarried son who has been living and studying full-time at university abroad, residing with his father. The principal applicant was issued her initial work permit under the LCP in July 2009. Since the principal applicant was issued an initial LCP work permit before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the son has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 and has been a student continuously enrolled in and attending a post‑secondary institution, he is eligible to be processed by the visa office as a dependant (type B).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – IRCC receives an initial LCP WP application from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014, but it is only approved on or after that date.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child:

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the initial LCP work permit application [R25.1(5)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the initial LCP work permit application from the principal applicant, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

In December 2013, a foreign national applies for an initial work permit under the LCP. At that point in time, she has two daughters aged 14 and 19, respectively, living abroad. On September 22, 2014 IRCC issues the principal applicant an initial LCP work permit. On July 2, 2018, IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant, which includes the two daughters. Since the principal applicant’s initial LCP work permit was approved by IRCC after August 1, 2014, a transitional provision does not apply and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the older daughter was 19 on the date that the principal applicant applied for an initial work permit under the LCP–the new age lock-in date–she is not eligible to be processed as a dependant. The younger daughter, however, is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A), provided she has not married nor been in a common-law relationship since her age was locked in.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario D – IRCC receives an initial LCP work permit application from the principal applicant after August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the initial LCP work permit application.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the initial LCP work permit application from the principal applicant, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario D

On January 2, 2015, a foreign national applies for an initial work permit under the LCP. At that point in time, she has an unmarried 18-year-old son, living abroad. On August 29, 2015, IRCC issues the principal applicant an initial LCP work permit. By this time the son has turned 19. On March 15, 2019, IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant, which includes her son. Because the principal applicant was issued an initial LCP work permit after August 1, 2014, a transitional provision does not apply and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the son was under 19 on the date that the principal applicant applied for work permit under the LCP–the new age lock-in date–he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A), provided he has not married nor been in a common-law relationship since his age was locked in.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex F

Scenarios for government assisted refugees applying for resettlement

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(g)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR [R142].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On July 24, 2014 the visa office receives an APR from a refugee referred by a refugee referral organization, which includes his 20-year old unmarried son. Because the referral, which included the son, was submitted to the visa office before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the son was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Sample scenario A (with one-year-window)

On July 24, 2014 the visa office receives an APR from a refugee referred abroad, which includes his 20-year old unmarried son. The principal applicant becomes a permanent resident on September 22, 2015. On March 17, 2016, IRCC receives an APR from the son under the “one‑year window” provision for dependents of refugees abroad under R141(1)(b). At the time of processing, the son is 22. Because the referral, which included the son, was submitted to the visa office before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Since the son was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, but IRCC received the referral before that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(g)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in-date is the date IRCC received the APR [R142].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario B

On April 17, 2014, IRCC received a Resettlement Registration Form (RRF) from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) referring two foreign nationals as refugees for resettlement. The mother submits an APR, including her 21-year-old unmarried daughter, on August 2, 2014. Because the refugee referral was received before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Sample scenario B (with one-year window)

On April 17, 2014, IRCC received a RRF from the UNHCR referring two foreign nationals as refugees for resettlement. The mother submits an APR, including her 21-year-old unmarried daughter, which is received by IRCC on August 2, 2014. The mother becomes a permanent resident on February 10, 2016. On January 4, 2017, IRCC receives an APR from the daughter under the “one-year window” provision for dependents of refugees abroad under R141(1)(b). Because the refugee referral was received before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – Person makes their APR to IRCC on or after August 1, 2014, and IRCC receives the referral on or after August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the referral [R25.1(7)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives a referral, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

On October 13, 2014, IRCC receives a RRF from the UNHCR referring a family of three foreign nationals as refugees for resettlement. On March 24, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from the mother, which includes her 20-year-old son and 18-year-old daughter. Because the refugee referral and APR were both received after August 1, 2014, there is no transitional provision and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the son was 20 on the date that the refugee referral was received for the principal applicant–the age lock-in date–he is not eligible to be processed as a dependant. His sister, however, is eligible because she is under 19, not married and not in a common-law relationship. The officer can review the circumstances of the case to determine whether the daughter may be eligible to be processed under the de facto dependant policy .

Sample scenario C (with one-year window)

On October 13, 2014, IRCC receives a RRF from the UNHCR referring a family of three foreign nationals as refugees for resettlement. On March 24, 2015, IRCC receives the APR, which includes the mother’s 20-year-old son and her 18-year-old daughter. The mother becomes a permanent resident on November 10, 2016. On January 4, 2017, IRCC receives APRs from both children under the “one-year window” provision for dependents of refugees abroad under R141(1)(b). Since the refugee referral and APR were both received after August 1, 2014, there is no transitional provision and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the son was 20 on the date that the refugee referral was received for the principal applicant–the age lock-in date–he is not eligible to be processed as a dependant. His sister, however, is eligible because she is under 19, not married and not in a common-law relationship.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex G

Scenarios for in-Canada refugee claimants who are now applying for permanent residence as protected persons

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On July 21, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a foreign national who submitted a refugee claim in Canada and acquired protected person status. The application includes her 20-year-old unmarried son. Because the APR was received before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition applies. Because the son is under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship, he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, but they had made a claim for refugee protection in Canada before that date and had acquired protected person status before or after that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(f)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario B

A foreign national made a refugee claim to the local IRCC office in Calgary on May 11, 2011. At that time, he declared that he had an 18-year-old daughter residing with him in Canada. He is deemed to be a Convention refugee on December 1, 2013. He submits a PR application, including his daughter as a dependant, which is received by IRCC on August 6, 2014. On that date, the daughter is 21, unmarried and not in a common-law relationship. Because her father made a refugee claim in Canada and was found to be a Convention refugee before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter is under 22 years of age, not married and not in a common-law relationship, she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – An in-Canada refugee claim is made by the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014. They subsequently acquire protected person status and submit an APR.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date the refugee claim was made [R25.1(9)].

Impact

A child can be considered as a dependant if, on the date the principal applicant made a refugee claim, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

A foreign national arrives at a port of entry on September 2, 2014 and submits a refugee claim. She subsequently obtains protected person status and submits an APR, which includes her 19‑year‑old unmarried son. Because his mother made an in-Canada refugee claim after August 1, 2014, a transitional provision does not apply and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child does not apply. Because the son is 19 years of age, he is not eligible to be processed.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex H

Scenarios for persons whose circumstances were being examined under public policy considerations [A25.2] before August 1, 2014, and who made an application for permanent residence on or after August 1, 2014

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, but their circumstances had been examined under a public policy before that date.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(j)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR unless otherwise specified by the public policy.

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On November 10, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a foreign national applying under a public policy for persons in a refugee-like situation that was implemented in August 2011. He includes his 20-year-old unmarried son and 18-year-old unmarried daughter on his APR. Because the circumstances of the foreign national were subject to consideration under a public policy prior to August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. The age lock-in date for the children is the date on which IRCC received the application. Since both children are under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship, they are eligible to be processed as dependants (type A).

Note: This scenario is intended for persons in refugee-like situations for whose benefit the Minister has created a public policy before August 1, 2014.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, and their circumstances had been examined under a public policy on or after that date.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR unless otherwise specified by the public policy [R25.1(1)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date the IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario B

On April 14, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from a foreign national applying under a public policy for persons in a refugee-like situation that was implemented on January 2, 2015. She includes her 20-year old unmarried daughter on her APR. Because the circumstances of the foreign national and her daughter were subject to consideration under a public policy after August 1, 2014, a transitional provision does not apply but the new definition of dependent child applies. The age lock‑in date for the daughter is the date on which IRCC received the application. Since the daughter is not under 19, she is not eligible to be processed as a dependant. Depending on the terms of the public policy, the daughter may be eligible to apply as a principal applicant.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex I

Scenarios for privately sponsored refugees

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014, and a group sponsorship was submitted either before or concurrent with the APR.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(a)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR [R142].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario A

On July 24, 2014 the visa office receives a group sponsorship and APR package for a refugee abroad, which includes his 20-year old unmarried son. Because IRCC received the group sponsorship and APR before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre‑amendment definition of dependent child applies. Since the son was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Sample scenario A (with one-year window)

On January 13, 2014, IRCC receives a group sponsorship and APR package for a refugee abroad. At that time she declared a 21-year-old unmarried daughter residing elsewhere with her father. On April 10, 2015 the mother becomes a permanent resident. On March 17, 2016, IRCC receives an APR from the daughter under the “one-year window” provision for dependants of refugees abroad under R141(1)(b). At that time the daughter is 23 and a full-time university student financially dependent on her father. Because the mother’s APR was received before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was 22 years of age or older and a full-time student financially dependent on a parent on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type B).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014 and a group sponsorship had been submitted on or before October 18, 2012.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(h)].

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR [R142].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date the principal applicant made a refugee claim, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Sample scenario B

On April 17, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a refugee abroad, for whom a community group sponsorship was received on June 13, 2012. At that time, she included her 21-year-old unmarried daughter, living elsewhere. Because the group sponsorship application was received before October 18, 2012, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was under 22, not married and not in a common‑law relationship on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Sample scenario B (with one-year window)

On August 8, 2014, IRCC receives an APR from a refugee abroad, for whom a community group sponsorship was received on October 9, 2012. At that time, he declared a 19-year-old unmarried son and a 17-year-old unmarried daughter residing elsewhere. On December 15, 2015, he becomes a permanent resident. On October 14, 2016, IRCC receives APRs from the two children under the “one-year window” provision for dependants of refugees abroad under R141(1)(b). Because the group sponsorship application was received before October 18, 2012, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the son and daughter were under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date IRCC received the principal applicant’s application–the age lock-in date–they are eligible to be processed as dependants (type B).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, together with a complete sponsorship application.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Applicable definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR [R25.1(1)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date the province or territory receives the principal applicant’s nomination application, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

On October 3, 2014, IRCC receives a group sponsorship and APR package for a refugee abroad. At that time he declared a 20-year-old unmarried daughter. Because the group sponsorship and APR were both received after August 1, 2014, there is no transitional provision and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the daughter was 20 on the date that IRCC received the APR for the principal applicant–the age lock-in date–she is not eligible to be processed as a dependant. The officer can review the circumstances of the case to determine whether the daughter may be eligible to be processed under the de facto dependant policy .

Sample scenario C (with one-year window)

On December 2, 2014, IRCC receives a group sponsorship and APR package for a refugee abroad. At that time he declared an 18-year-old unmarried daughter residing elsewhere. On January 7, 2016, he becomes a permanent resident. On September 15, 2017, IRCC receives an APR from the daughter under the “one-year window” provision for dependants of refugees abroad under R141(1)(b). Because the APR and sponsorship application were submitted concurrently after August 1, 2014, a transitional provision does not apply and the new definition of dependent child applies. Since the daughter was under 19 when the principal applicant submitted the APR–the age lock-in date–she is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type 1).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex J

Scenarios for parents and grandparents

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for permanent residence (APR) from the principal applicant before August 1, 2014.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(a)].

Definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the sponsorship application [Manual chapters OP 1 section 5.24 and OP 2 section 5.13].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full pre-amendment definition of dependent child.

Note: Age lock-in applies whether the sponsorship application was submitted before or concurrent with the APR.

Sample scenario A

On October 1, 2013, IRCC receives an APR from a couple who were sponsored by their son. On their application, they include their 19-year-old unmarried son and 21-year-old unmarried daughter. Because the APR was received before August 1, 2014, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Because the children are under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship, they are eligible to be processed as a dependant (type A).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, and a sponsorship application had been received before November 5, 2011.

A transitional provision applies [R13(1)(k)].

Definition of dependent child

Use the pre-amendment definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in-date is the date IRCC received the sponsorship application [OP 1 section 5.24 and OP 2 section 5.13].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the sponsorship application for the principal applicant, they are:

  • under 22 and single;
  • 22 or over and a full-time student dependent on a parent; or
  • 22 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

See full definition.

Note: Age lock-in applies whether the sponsorship application was submitted before or concurrent with the APR.

Sample scenario B

On October 31, 2011, IRCC receives a sponsorship application from a Canadian citizen for his parents and 22-year-old unmarried brother who is in a master’s program at university. On September 18, 2014, the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga receives APRs from the sponsor’s parents and brother. On that date, the brother is 25 and still single, and is in the first year of a Ph.D. program at university. Because the sponsorship application was submitted before November 5, 2011, a transitional provision applies and the pre-amendment definition of dependent child applies. Since the son is not married, not in a common-law relationship and has depended substantially on the financial support of his parents since before the age of 22 and, since turning 22, has been an active, full-time post-secondary student, he is eligible to be processed as a dependant (type B).

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.

Scenario C – IRCC receives an APR from the principal applicant on or after August 1, 2014, together with a complete sponsorship application.

A transitional provision does not apply.

Definition of dependent child

Use the new definition.

Age lock-in date

The age lock-in date is the date IRCC received the APR [R25.1(1)].

Impact

A child can be processed as a dependant if, on the date IRCC receives the principal applicant’s APR, they are:

  • under 19 and single; or
  • 19 or over and dependent on a parent due to a physical or mental condition.

Sample scenario C

On January 7, 2015, IRCC receives an APR from a widowed mother, with a complete sponsorship application from her daughter. On her application the mother includes her two sons, aged 20 and 18, both of whom are unmarried. Because the APR and sponsorship applications were received after August 1, 2014, a transitional provision does not apply and the new definition of dependent child applies. Because the younger son is under 19, not married and not in a common-law relationship, he is eligible to be processed as a dependant. However, the older son is not eligible to be processed.

Note: In order to benefit from a transitional provision at the APR stage, dependent children must remain unmarried and not be in a common-law relationship, if that was a requirement of meeting the pre-amendment definition.


Annex K

Scenarios for applicants for permanent resident cards and permanent resident travel documents

Scenario A – IRCC receives an application for a permanent resident card (PRC) or a permanent resident travel document (PRTD) before August 1, 2014.

Applicable definition of child in R61(6)

Use the pre-amendment definition:

For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, a child means a child of a parent referred to in those subparagraphs, who is not and has never been a spouse or common‑law partner and is less than 22 years of age.

Impact

A child can be processed for a PRC or a PRTD if, on the date IRCC receives the application, they:

  • meet residency requirements based on time accompanying an eligible parent abroad; and
  • meet the pre-amendment definition of R61(6).

Sample scenario A

On June 19, 2014, IRCC receives an application for a PRC or a PRTD from an applicant who, at the time IRCC received the application, was 21 years old, unmarried and not in a common-law relationship, and was residing outside of Canada with an eligible parent for the five years before applying. Processing of the application is completed on August 2, 2014. The application is processed based on the five-year period before the date the application is received. The days before August 1, 2014, must be counted as days that meet the residency requirement. Because the applicant was under 22, not married and not in a common-law relationship on the date IRCC received the application, the time spent accompanying an eligible parent before reaching the age of 22 must be included in assessing residency. The applicant would meet the residency requirement, being credited for five years in the five years before the application.

Scenario B – IRCC receives an application for a PRC or a PRTD on or after August 1, 2014.

Applicable definition of child in R61(6)

Use the new definition:

For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, a “child” means a child who is not a spouse or common-law partner and is less than 19 years of age.

Impact

Time spent accompanying an eligible parent before August 1, 2014, must be counted if the applicant was under the age of 22 during that time. Time spent accompanying an eligible parent on or after August 1, 2014, will only be counted if the applicant was under the age of 19 during that time.

Sample Scenario B

On August 15, 2014, IRCC receives a package from an eligible parent applying for PRTDs or PRCs for herself, a son aged 18 years and a daughter aged 21 years. The son meets the residency requirements. The daughter is credited for time before August 1, 2014, spent accompanying the eligible parent because she was under 22 before August 1, 2014. The daughter does not receive credit for the days between August 1, 2014, and the date of application because she was over 19 years of age during that period. In order to meet the residency requirements, the daughter must have had at least 730 days accompanying an eligible parent accumulated before August 1, 2014.


Annex L

Permanent resident fees for dependent children

New Definition of Dependent Child
Dependant Type Scenario Fee
Type 1 Child under 19, unmarried and not in a common-law relationship, who is the principal applicant $75
Type 1 Child under 19, unmarried and not in a common-law relationship, who is accompanying a parent $150
Type 2 Child 19 or older who is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition, and who is the principal applicant $475
Type 2 Child 19 or older who is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition, who is accompanying a parent $150
Pre-Regulatory Amendment Definition of Dependent Child
(Applied before August 1, 2014 or Subject to Transitional Provisions)
Dependant Type Scenario Fee
Type A Child under 22, unmarried and not in a common-law relationship, who is the principal applicant $75
Type A Child under 22, unmarried and not in a common-law relationship, who is accompanying a parent $150
Type B Child 22 or older, full-time student, who is the principal applicant $475
Type B Child 22 or older, full-time student, who is accompanying a parent $550
Type B Child 22 or older, married or in a common-law relationship, who is accompanying a parent $550
Type C Child 22 or older, who is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition, who is the principal applicant $475
Type C Child 22 or older, who is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition, who is accompanying a parent $150

For record purposes, officers must enter any additional details for explanation or clarification, as appropriate, in GCMS Case Notes.

Operational Bulletin 633 – December 15, 2016

Operational changes to the spousal sponsorship program

Summary

This Operational Bulletin (OB) provides instructions for processing applications to sponsor a spouse, partner or dependent child received on or after December 15, 2016, the launch date of the redesigned application process for spouses, partners and dependent children. These instructions apply to sponsorship and permanent residence applications for spouses (FC1), common-law partners (FCC), conjugal partners (FCE) and dependent children (FC3) under the Family Class and spouses (FC1) and common-law partners (FCC), under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada class (SCLPC), including those processed under the spousal public policy (FCH).

Issue

The purpose of this OB is to provide information relating to changes in the application process for spouses, partners and dependent children.

Background

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is dedicated to reducing overall processing times and improving client service for spouses, partners and dependent children of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. In addition to the ongoing measures to reduce the existing spousal inventories, the Department is introducing changes to the application process which will help contribute to achieving efficiencies in processing. These changes do not affect the substantive, legislative or regulatory, requirements of the program. Applicants will still be required to satisfy an officer that they meet all of the legislative and regulatory requirements to be granted permanent residence; however, the new process will change the manner in which an applicant makes an application in order to facilitate faster processing and improve the client experience.

Summary of changes to the application process:

  • Simplified and streamlined guides, kits and forms
  • Requirement that applications be fully documented to be accepted for processing
  • Encouragement of clients to link their application to their online account to facilitate communication
  • Schedule A requested electronically, following application intake
  • Elimination of up-front medicals
  • Police Certificate Pilot

New process

1. Simplified and streamlined guides, kits and forms

Application guides, kits and forms have been simplified to improve the client experience. Spouses, common-law partners, conjugal partners, dependent children and their sponsors will now use a single application kit and consolidated guide, regardless of whether they are applying under the Family Class or under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada class.

There are four new checklists (one for each type of applicant) that take clients through what forms and documents are required in order for their application to be accepted for processing.

The 13 overseas region-specific document checklists have been consolidated into a country specific requirements tool that allows clients to select the country from a drop down list and find out if any additional forms are required or if there are special instructions regarding the documents they will submit as part of their application.

Individuals seeking to sponsor their spouse or partner (whether the sponsored spouse or partner is residing inside or outside Canada) will now be directed to one webpage on the IRCC website that will provide links to the following new forms and tools, in addition to the forms required as part of an application:

2. Fully documented applications

When clients submit the documents necessary for an officer to make a decision it allows for more efficient and timely processing. Under the redesigned process, clients will have to submit complete and fully documented applications.

The first assessment by the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga (CPC-M) will be to confirm completeness as per sections 10 and 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). To be complete, applications must include all the applicable completed and signed forms provided by the Department in the application package published on the web site of the Department at the time the application is received by the Department. This includes any country-specific forms that are required based on the applicant’s country of residence. In addition, to be complete, the application must contain proof of payment of correct fees. If any of the above information is missing, the application must be returned as incomplete.

The requirement for fully documented applications is established by Ministerial Instructions that take effect on December 15, 2016. As a condition of being accepted for processing, Ministerial Instructions require that applications be accompanied by the applicable document checklist and the documents required in Part B of the applicable document checklist. Applications that are missing the applicable document checklist or any of the documents listed in Part B of the document checklist must be returned.

When an application is received at CPC-M, staff will verify whether all application forms and supporting documents on the applicable document checklist were completed and submitted:

IRCC will not retain applications to sponsor a spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner or dependent child that are incomplete or are missing documents required by the checklist; these applications will be returned to the sponsor and no processing fees will be processed.

Despite the requirement for fully documented applications at application intake, officers continue to have the discretion to request additional documentation from the sponsor or applicant at any time during application processing to be satisfied that the applicant meets the legislative and regulatory requirements.

Transition period: The Ministerial Instructions provide for a transition period during which applications made using the old forms and kits will continue to be accepted. This period ends on January 31, 2017. For applications made using the old forms and kits received at CPC-M on or before January 31, 2017, staff receiving the application will review for completeness only. Applications made under the new process (i.e., using the new forms and checklist) must meet the conditions established by the Ministerial Instructions from the date the Instructions take effect (i.e., December 15, 2016).

3. Link My App

Complete and fully documented applications will be put into process. In addition to the acknowledgement of receipt, CPC-M will send a request for principal applicants to create an online account and link their application to their online account within seven calendar days. The applicant will be advised that if they do not create an online account, it may take longer to process their application.

Once the principal applicant creates an online account and links their application to it, all communications with the principal applicant should be done through the online account. This will facilitate communication with applicants. The applicant should no longer receive correspondence via email or mail.

If applicants choose not to link their application, the Department will continue to communicate with them or their representative by email or regular mail.

4. Schedule A

Under the redesigned spousal process, the Schedule A – Background/Declaration [IMM 5669] (PDF, 390.66 KB) is no longer required up front at the time of application submission. The Schedule A (PDF, 390.66 KB) is now a dynamic web form that can be electronically submitted and validated by the applicant.

The request for Schedule A will be queued by CPC-M to be sent automatically when the applicant links their application to their online account. Applicants will be given 30 days to upload their validated Schedule A (PDF, 390.66 KB). This will allow the information on the Schedule A to be electronically entered into the Global Case Management System (GCMS), significantly reducing manual data entry of information on the form.

If the applicant chooses not to create an online account or does not create an online account within seven calendar days, CPC-M will send correspondence (via email or mail) to the applicant requesting a paper copy of the validated Schedule A (PDF, 390.66 KB) within 30 days from the date of the letter.

If the applicant does not comply with submitting the Schedule A (electronic or paper version) within 30 days of the request, CPC-M may refuse the application due to non-compliance and a finding by an officer that they are not satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible based on the information available.

5. Assessing sponsorship eligibility

The sponsorship eligibility assessment will be conducted as per existing practices and procedures. CPC-M will assess whether the sponsor meets the sponsorship eligibility requirements under section 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).

The Sponsorship Evaluation form [IMM 5481] will no longer be used as part of the sponsorship eligibility assessment for applications to sponsor spouses and partners who apply under the Family Class or SCLPC. Section A of the new Relationship Information and Sponsorship Evaluation [IMM 5532] (PDF, 853.05 KB) form contains the information required for the sponsorship evaluation and personal information about the sponsor that can be used to support a determination of whether the sponsor meets the sponsorship eligibility requirements under section 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).

The Sponsorship Evaluation form [IMM 5481] (PDF, 742.74 KB) will only continue to be used as part of the sponsorship eligibility assessment for applications to sponsor dependent children (FC3) as principal applicants under the Family Class.

6. Assessing applicant eligibility

The eligibility assessment for spouses, partners and dependent children will be conducted as per existing practices and procedures.

All spousal sponsorship applicants and their sponsors who apply under the SCLPC or the Family Class will be required to submit a new consolidated relationship questionnaire (Relationship Information and Sponsorship Evaluation [IMM 5532] (PDF, 853.05 KB)) up front as part of the application package.

In all cases, a departmental official continues to have the discretion to request that the applicant and/or sponsor provide additional documentation, including proof of relationship, and/or to convoke them for an interview if more information is required to assess the application.

7. Workload management of SCLPC applications

As per current procedures, SCLPC applications may continue to be referred to local offices in the Domestic Network if further review or an interview is required.

8. Assessing admissibility

a. Medical screening

Spouses and common-law partners who apply under the SCLPC and spouses, partners and dependent children who apply under the Family Class will not undergo an up-front medical examination. Medical instructions will be issued during the processing of the application.

IRCC will send a request through the online account (or via mail or email for those who do not create an online account) for the principal applicant (and family members, whether accompanying or not) to complete an immigration medical examination (IME) within 30 days. These medical instructions will be issued at an appropriate point after the application is accepted for processing and applicants must comply within 30 days. Failure to comply with this request within 30 days may result in the refusal of the application on the basis that the officer is not satisfied that the applicant is not medically inadmissible.

It is possible that applicants may have undergone a medical examination prior to the publication of new procedures and application kits, or as part of an application for a visa or permit in another category. As part of the checklist, applicants who completed an IME in the 12 months prior to application submission, are asked to submit a copy of the Information Sheet from the Panel Physician up front with their application package. An IRCC officer may still require the applicant to undergo a new IME depending on the remaining validity period of the medical results.

b. Criminality assessment

Criminality assessments will be conducted using current practices and procedures.

All SCLPC applicants 18 years of age or older continue to be subject to a mandatory criminal background check by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for in-Canada criminality.

Police Certificates Pilot: Applications for permanent residence of a spouse, partner or dependent child will no longer require police certificates to be submitted up-front as part of the application package. Applicants are encouraged to start the process of obtaining police certificate(s) in advance as IRCC will send them a request to submit them shortly after we receive their application.

Once the application is accepted for processing, the principal applicant (and all family members 18 years or older) will be requested to upload into their online account an electronically validated Schedule A – Background/Declaration [IMM 5669] (PDF, 390.66 KB), accompanied by police certificate(s) from the:

  • Current country of residence if the applicant has resided there for six months or more; and
  • Country where the applicant has spent most of their adult life, since the age of 18.

Applicants will have 30 days to comply.

If an applicant is unable to obtain a police certificate due to country conditions (e.g. conflict, war zone, natural disaster), a written explanation from the applicant may be accepted.

Even after the applicant has submitted the above-mentioned police certificates, the officer may still request additional police certificates for any additional countries in which the applicant may have resided.

If the principal applicant indicates that they do not wish to create an online account or does not create one within seven calendar days, CPC-M will send correspondence (via email or mail) to the applicant requesting paper versions of the police certificates.

c. Security screening

Security screening will be conducted as per existing practices and procedures.

d. Examination of overseas family members

All accompanying and non-accompanying family members must be examined for admissibility at the time of the processing of the application for permanent residence to ensure that the principal applicant is admissible.

The procedures established in section 5 of OB 624 regarding the examination of overseas family members of in-Canada spousal applicants remain in effect. Offices in Canada (in the Centralized Network and Domestic Network) will continue to be responsible for completing certain steps that were previously completed by visa offices, as outlined in OB 624.