Do’s and Don’ts of Inland Spousal Sponsorships
Spousal sponsorship applications submitted by a couple within Canada are scrutinized far more closely by immigration officials then outland spousal applications. There are far more BOGUS spousal applications submitted from within Canada then from abroad. You have extremely limited options if your application is questioned as a potential “Bad Faith” marriage. Immigration regulations do not allow you to appeal any refusal of an Inland spousal sponsorship to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
This article will highlight all the factors you need to consider when submitting an Inland spousal sponsorship application.
Which type of applicant are you?
Are you a failed refugee claimant who was told to leave and did not?
Are you a visitor that overstayed their status by years?
Are you a student that has no hope of earning sufficient Express Entry points?
Regardless of your status or lack of status you need to be in a genuine relationship!
If you decide to submit your spousal application from within Canada the need for quality representation is far more important. Submitting an Inland spousal sponsorship, yourself (DIY) is extremely risky. Which person you hire to represent you and your sponsor needs considerable due diligence. Know how to see the Red Flags and act when you see the first Red Flag!
I recommend that you stay away from any representative from your own ethnic community. Those representatives got into the immigration business to access potential clients from their own ethic community. There are bad Lawyers, there are bad Regulated Consultants. Always conduct your own due diligence before you hire anyone to submit your spousal application.
Red Flag #1
My recently retained client (former foreign student) was recommended to an immigration firm ran by a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC) from his home country. The person that referred my client to that Immigration firm never used that firm to submit anything on his/her behalf. My client speaks fluent English so there was no language issue that had to be overcome. The Immigration firms name was the consultant’s family name “_________” and Associates. During the initial consultation, the RCIC introduced the applicant to a Lawyer also from his own ethnic community. The applicant was told the Lawyer would oversee their Inland application. The Lawyer was working for the Regulated Consultant at “_________” and Associates.
Why would a “Lawyer” be working under a Regulated Immigration Consultant?
Red Flag #2
The Lawyer and the Consultant to extra time to show the applicant all University Degrees, many photos with well-known ethnic community leaders including a certificate claiming the Lawyer was a Member of the Law Society of Ontario on their office walls. They informed the applicant because the Lawyer was so skilled is the reason, they had to charge him one third more than the going rate.
Why was it necessary to thoroughly convince that applicant the Lawyer was qualified?
Red Flag #3
The Lawyer requested proof of a trip they took to the same country years before they ever became a couple. The couple were asked by the Lawyer to submit evidence that they resided at the same residence with three other foreign students while attending college. Proof of birthday gifts exchanged before they became a couple. The list of documents the Lawyer requested seemed to be endless but finally the application was submitted to Mississauga Case Processing Centre.
Why would the Lawyer request document that predated the couple even dating?
Red Flag #4
After the Inland Spousal Application was submitted the sponsor received two letters from Mississauga CPC dated on November 27th, 2019. The first letter stated the sponsor was approved as a sponsor. The second letter informed the sponsor that the (LAWYER) was NOT an authorized representative in Ontario! The letter stated that immigration will not communicate with that representative and in future will send all correspondence directly to the sponsor.
When is a “Lawyer” not a Lawyer? If the applicant or the sponsor had looked up on the Law Society of Ontario website, they would have seen the “Lawyer” was listed as Not Practising Law - Employed
IS CHARGING AN IMMIGRATION FEE WHEN NOT AUTHORIZED FRAUD?????
Red Flag #5
When the sponsor and the applicant contacted “_________” and associates the Regulated Consultant claimed it was only a clerical error with the Law Society of Ontario and not to worry just sign a new Use of Representative form and the RCIC will take over the file. Month after month then a year went by and the applicant kept contacting “_________” and Associates asking what is happening with their file? COVID do not worry! The applicant and the sponsor had been informed that the Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant had submitted a new IMM 5476 so Mississauga CPC should be communicating with the Consultant. Finally, the applicant requested their GSMS notes and when they arrived, they noticed that in December of 2019 the Use of Representative form submitted by the Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant stated, “Received incomplete (IMM 5476) (form unreadable) by (email). Emailed (rep) at (sh******)@*******.ca”
Why did not the RCIC after being informed by IRCC that their Use of Representative form in 2019 was unacceptable resubmit a new IMM 5476?
· What is worse is that in the GSMS notes someone reviewing the file thinks that the sponsor may have indirectly misrepresented a material fact. Which could lead to an admissibility hearing and deportation order of the permanent resident sponsor.
Always conduct your own due diligence of anyone you hire. When things go wrong do not wait to act. If your representative is so sweet and nice beware. It is better if your representative is sometimes terse, blunt, to the point than phony!
