Conditional Permanent Residency for Some Spousal Sponsorships

On October 26, 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC“) implemented conditional permanent residency for certain people who immigrate to Canada under the spousal-sponsorship program.  The implementation of conditional permanent residency took affect on October 25, 2012, the day prior to CIC publicizing it.   The change was not retroactive, and will not affect sponsorship applications which were received by CIC prior to October 25, 2012.

CIC has stated that the goal of introducing conditional permanent residency is to reduce instances of marriages of convenience.

What Conditional Permanent Residency Is, and Who it Applies to

Conditional permanent residency applies to individuals who are the spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner of their sponsor for two years or less when they submit their sponsorship applications and who do not have children in common with their sponsor when they submit the sponsorship applications (“Conditional Permanent Residents“).  Conditional Permanent Residents are required to cohabit in a conjugal relationship with their sponsors for a continuous period of two years after the day on which they become permanent residents (the “Condition“).  If CIC determines that Conditional Permanent Residents have breached the Condition, CIC will declare them inadmissible to Canada, and removal proceedings will be initiated.  Conditional Permanent Residents are able to appeal such decisions to the Immigration Appeal Division, which can consider humanitarian & compassionate considerations.

Specifically, the Condition applies if the couple does not have any children in common and:

  • has been married for two years or less;
  • dated for four years, but has been married for two years or less;
  • has been in a conjugal relationship for two years or less;
  • has cohabited in a common-law relationship for two years or less; or
  • has been in a common-law or conjugal relationship for more than two years and has been married for less than two years, and the person submitted an application as a spouse.

The Condition does apply if the couple

  • has been married for more than two years;
  • has been in a conjugal relationship for more than two years and the person submitted an application as a conjugal partner;
  • has cohabited in a common-law relationship for more than two years and the person submitted an application as a common-law partner; or
  • has children in common.

Having the Condition Removed and Investigations

At the end of the two-year period, a Conditional Permanent Resident does not have to submit an application to CIC to have the Condition removed.  Instead, CIC automatically removes the Condition after two years if there is no ongoing investigation into whether the Conditional Permanent Resident complied with the Condition.

CIC conducts an investigation into a Conditional Permanent Resident either as a result of a random assessment, or as a result of information that CIC receives which leads it to suspect that a Conditional Permanent Resident breached the Condition.  During an investigation into whether a Conditional Permanent Resident complied with the Condition, the immigrant must provide evidence of their compliance with the Condition.  In other words, the sponsored spouse or partner must provide evidence that he or she cohabited in a conjugal relationship with their sponsor for the two-year period following the individual immigrating to Canada.

CIC may also conduct an investigation into a permanent resident after it has already removed the Condition from the permanent resident’s file if it receives information that the Conditional Permanent Resident breached the Condition.

Permanent residents who are the subject of ongoing investigations into whether they were previously Conditional Permanent Resident who breached the Condition may not be granted citizenship.

In other words, while the Condition will be automatically removed after the two-year period (which will save most individuals the need to complete extensive paperwork), CIC can still commence an investigation and depending on the results of the investigation instigate removal proceedings against a person who it believes breached the Condition even after the two-year period has elapsed.

Exemptions 

To reiterate, the Condition will not apply to people who have been the spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner of the sponsor for two years or more, or, if they have been in such a relationship for less than two years, have a child together.

The Condition will also cease to apply to Conditional Permanent Residents where there is evidence that the sponsor died during the two-year period, in instances where there is evidence of abuse or neglect from the sponsor, or in instances of a failure by the sponsor to protect the Conditional Permanent Resident from abuse or neglect by another person related to the sponsor.

CIC has provided extensive definitions of what consitutes “abuse” or “neglect” that are beyond the scope of this newsletter.  We have provided at the end of this newsletter a link to the relevant CIC Operational Bulletin which discusses the introduction of conditional permanent residency. . 

More information on conditional permanent residency can be found in Operational Bulletin 480.

We have reproduced the training material for Operational Bulletin 480 below. Please note that the reproduction did not occur with the affiliation of the Government of Canada, and should not be viewed as legal advice.

 


Guest Post: Safeguarding a Divorce Order Against Social Assistance Debt

(Note from Steven: I met John at the Canadian Bar Association British Columbia branch annual conference in San Francisco.  He is currently involved in some fascinating litigation representing an individual who sponsored a spouse only to watch her  immediately divorce him after she immigrated.  She also left him on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in social assistance payments.  I invited John to some write articles for this blog, and here is the third of what will hopefully be many into this issue.)

The issue of resolving a fraudulent marriage tied to an immigration application is completely separate from the need to get divorced. Fraudulent marriage is not grounds for a divorce and it is not necessary to prove that marriage was fraudulent in order to get a divorce. The issue of the fraudulent marriage can only be dealt with in civil court, not family, court as explained in an earlier post.

Generally speaking, it is understood that the sponsored spouse may receive social assistance or they may receive maintenance (i.e. spousal support), but they cannot receive both. Where the divorce order or separation agreement explicitly states that maintenance is not to be provided or has been provided in a lump sum payment, it can be argued that the sponsoring spouse should not be responsible for social assistance debt despite the undertaking.

It would be prudent for family law lawyers who represent a sponsoring spouse in a family matter to inquire about whether the sponsored spouse has received social assistance and determine for how long the sponsoring spouse is obligated by the undertaking to provide the necessities of life. Ideally, the divorce order should explicitly forbid the sponsored spouse from applying for social assistance during the term of the undertaking.

For sponsoring spouses who are getting divorced, it is prudent to bring the issue of social assistance debt to your lawyer’s attention and have it dealt with in the divorce order.

There may be a cause of action for professional negligence against the sponsoring spouse’s family law lawyer in a situation where a sponsoring spouse has obtained a divorce order and the order does not provide an indemnity against social assistance debt.

To successfully sue for negligence, a party must prove that:

  1. the plaintiff suffered a loss;
  2. the loss was caused by the defendant;
  3. the defendant’s conduct was a breach of the standard of care;
  4. the law recognizes that there was a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant;
  5. the defendant’s conduct caused the loss; and
  6. the plaintiff’s conduct did not contribute to the loss

In cases of professional negligence, it is necessary to prove that the lawyer failed to provide the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent lawyer. It is unclear whether such a cause of action would be successful, although an argument can be made that a family law lawyer does owe a duty to consider their client’s liability for social assistance debt in cases where the client sponsored their spouse’s immigration application. Where a sponsoring spouse does wish to sue to recover a loss caused by social assistance debt, they may wish to consider whether or not their family lawyer was negligent in providing them with advice.

– John Nelson was called to the British Columbia bar in 2011. He is a sole practitioner serving both Victoria and Vancouver in the practice areas of civil litigation, family law, and administrative law. He can be reached at nelson@johnnelsonlaw.ca.


Guest Post: Suing your Spouse for Fraudulent Marriage

(Note from Steven: I met John at the Canadian Bar Association British Columbia branch annual conference in San Francisco.  He is currently involved in some fascinating litigation representing an individual who sponsored a spouse only to watch her  immediately divorce him after she immigrated.  She also left him on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in social assistance payments.  I invited John to some write articles for this blog, and here is the first of what will hopefully be many into this issue.)

Marriage fraud happens. You meet a nice person. They live in another country. You get along. They or one of their relatives suggest that you get married. So you get married. You sponsor your spouse’s immigration to Canada and sign an undertaking that you will supply the necessities of life for three years and pay any social assistance that that person takes from the government. All of a sudden, your new spouse leaves. And doesn’t come back. No explanation. No fight. It’s just over. You realize that they never had any intention of staying married. And in the worst case scenario, you get a bill three years later from the government for social assistance that your ex-spouse received without your knowledge or consent.

Where your spouse has separated from you and you suspect that the marriage was fraudulent, there are steps you can take to protect yourself:

  1. Inform Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Under new rules effective October 25th, 2012, a sponsored spouse who does not legitimately live with their spouse for two years may be deported.
  2. File for divorce.
  3. Find out if your spouse has applied for or is receiving social assistance.
  4. Consult a lawyer to determine if you can sue your spouse for fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage.

In 1985, the BC Legislature amended the Law and Equity Act to allow one spouse to sue another for damages. The causes of action are very limited, as much of the old common law on domestic relations was extinguished by statute. You can’t sue your spouse for damages for interfering with child access,[1] failing to pay child support,[2] being a jerk,[3] or having an extramarital affair.[4]

But the courts have held there are some causes of action that can proceed. One of them is fraudulent misrepresentation (tort of deceit) of marriage. In Raju v. Kumar,[5] a plaintiff wife successfully sued her husband on the grounds that he had fraudulently misrepresented his intent to be in a permanent marriage. The court found that the husband had a lover prior to meeting his wife, entered into the marriage as a means to enter Canada under his wife’s sponsorship, and that the husband was keeping open his option of either remaining in his country of origin with his lover or bringing her to Canada.

The wife received damages for the cost of pursuing the defendant’s immigration to Canada and $10,000 in damages for “hurt feelings, humiliation, inconvenience and postponement of the opportunity to marry another man while she was still capable of bearing children.”[6]  The four elements of the tort of deceit that must be proved at trial are: a false representation, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to deceive and reliance by the plaintiff with resulting damage.[7] These are hard facts to prove, but if it can be done, there may be a remedy in tort for your fraudulent marriage.

– John Nelson was called to the British Columbia bar in 2011. He is a sole practitioner serving both Victoria and Vancouver in the practice areas of civil litigation, family law, and administrative law. He can be reached at nelson@johnnelsonlaw.ca.


[1] Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99.

[2] Louie v. Lastman (2001), 199 D.L.R. (4th) 741 (O.S.C.J.)

[3] Kaddoura v. Hammond (1998), 168 D.L.R. (4th) 503 (O.C.-G.D.).

[4] Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 128 s. 123.

[5] Raju v. Kumar, 2006 BCSC 439.

[6] Ibid. at para. 88.

[7] Ibid. at para. 69.


Withdrawing a Spousal Sponsorship

The first question on the Application to Sponsor and Undertaking form asks…1) If you are found ineligible to sponsor, indicate whether you want to withdraw your sponsorship. All processing fees less $75 will be repaid OR to proceed with the application for permanent residence.
Continue reading →



Spousal Sponsorship and Social Assistance

Photo by George Vnoucek

The Toronto Star had an editorial yesterday deploring the case of an individual who was ruled inadmissible to sponsor his wife.  The reason?  The man received a $413 cheque from the City of Toronto which was issued to 900 people who were displaced by a high-rise fire in 2008.

Section 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations“) prohibits an individual from sponsoring someone if that person is in receipt of social assistance for a reason other than a disability. Social assistance is defined as any benefit in the form of money, goods or services provided to or on behalf of a person by a province under a program of social assistance, including a program of social assistance designated by a province to provide for basic requirements including food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies, personal requirements and health care not provided by public health care, including dental care and eye care.

Other things that can disqualify an otherwise eligible sponsor from sponsoring someone include:

  • The sponsor being subject to a removal order;
  • The sponsor being detained in any penitentiary, jail, reformatory, or prison;
  • The sponsor have previously been convicted of a specified offence (such as a sexual offense);
  • The sponsor being in default of spousal or child support payments;
  • The sponsor being in default of a debt owed under the IRPA;
  • The sponsor being an undischarged bankrupt;
  • The sponsor being in receipt of social assistance other than for reasons of a disability; and
  • The sponsor being in default of a of a previous sponsorship undertaking.

If you are considering sponsoring someone and you have concerns about any of these criteria, you should talk with a lawyer to determine your eligibility, and, if you are not eligible, what other options are available to bring your family member in.


Spousal Sponsor is Pregnant with Someone Else’s Child

On May 27th the Federal Court (the “Court“) released its decision in Chen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), (2010 FC 584) (“Chen“)The decision involves a unique situation of someone who was sponsored by a wife who was pregnant with her lover’s baby.

Mr. C, a Chinese citizen, married Ms. Z, a Canadian Resident. She then sponsored him for permanent residence.  While Mr. C was awaiting his papers, a friend told him that his wife had been seen “in the company” of another man in Toronto.

When Mr. C arrived in Canada, he found his wife pregnant with another man’s child.  According to Justice Harrington,

He was willing to forgive, and asked her to get an abortion. She refused. On many occasions she made sexual overtures to him but he was both unwilling and unable to perform. She taunted his lack of manhood. (Paragraph 5)

As one would expect, the marriage shortly dissolved thereafter.

After the divorce, Mr. C married an old flame in China. He then attempted to sponsor her.  Unfortunately for him, Canadian immigration authorities not only disallowed this second application, but also declared him inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation in the first application. Essentially, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) alleged that Mr. C’s first marriage to Ms. Z was not genuine, that Mr. C lied to enter Canada, and that his permanent residency should be revoked.  Specifically, the CBSA was suspicious because Mr. C did not have a wedding reception upon arriving in Canada, he did not confront his wife about the rumours before he left China, and he did not return to China once his marriage to Ms. Z dissolved.

The Court, however, noted that in determining whether a marriage is genuine for the purposes of immigration, one has to consider whether the marriage was genuine in the first place, and whether it was still genuine when the Applicant arrives at a Canadian port of entry.

Regarding Mr. C’s failure to disclose to the interviewing officer the possibility of Ms. Z having an affair, the Court noted that at the time of the interview Ms. Z having an affair was only a rumor, and that the duty of candour did not oblige Mr. C to share mere worries.

Regarding Mr. C’s failure to go back to China after the dissolution of his marriage, Justice Harrington noted that:

As to not immediately returning to China when the marriage broke down, he said that as a cuckold he would be the laughing stock of his village. There was no evidence to contradict that statement.

Chen might not set any broad new legal precedents.  However, it is a good illustration of the parameters of the duty of candour that all applicants face in their applications to enter and/or immigrate to Canada.


Immigration Appeal Division Must Address Bona Fides Before H&C

The Federal Court has confirmed that s. 65 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that the Immigration Appeal Division determine whether an applicant is a member of the Family Class before considering humanitarian & compassionate considerations (“H&Cs“).

Accordingly, people appearing before the Immigration Appeal Division in a Family Class appeal should be prepared to prove that the applicant is a member of the family class before arguing H&Cs.  This is the case even if the visa officer did not make a determination, or made a negative determination, regarding membership in the Family Class.

For example, if a visa officer rejects a spousal-sponsorship application on the basis of criminality, then at the Immigration Appeal Division the appellant must be prepared to demonstrate bona fides of the relationship prior to analyzing the inadmissibility, and any H&Cs to overcome it.