Thinking I'm going to need lots of direction & assistance in the coming weeks .. this whole immigration process is enough to give one a meltdown!!
Background .. I'm a Canadian Citizen living in Canada, married to an American Citizen who resides in the US. We've been married for only afew months but have been in an exclusive relationship since 2001. We are filing an "outside application"
The first question and most important would be one that I've been researching for weeks ..
Spouse has 3 children, 2 which fall into the "dependent" category by definition (16 & 20). They are in custody of the ex-spouse and have no intention whatsoever of moving to Canada. Is there any way at all to get around the medicals for both and background check for the 20 year old? I've read so much .. some say yes .. some say no ... I've read that notarized declarations indicating you realize the ramifications of your decision not to include are acceptable .. then next forum says they are not. I'd greatly appreciated hearing about others experiences.
Second question
Schedule 1 Background (Form IMM0008) Q#6 personal details of mother
Both parents of spouse are deceased. Mother was born somewhere in pre-war Europe unfortunately no one seems to have any idea exactly where. Father was US Citizen .. they married in Europe in the 1950's and came back to the United States. We have exhausted every avenue .. there is no information available .. would it be acceptable to write "UNKNOWN" in that field?
Third question .. more just for my interest .. husband and I live relatively close to each other about 250 miles apart .. hence the reason we've maintained a relationship over the years visiting back and forth pretty well on a bi-monthly basis ... my question would be .. what if we decided to continue on this path .. forgo the immigration thing for lets say another five years and continue as we have always done .. would this effect an application in the future .. seriously we probably spend more quality time together then alot of married couples living under the same roof...
Long winded and wow .. just the beginning .. thanks to all in advance for any assistance that can be provided.
Thanks :)
Working backwards:
Now versus later:
While immigration laws are always subject to change, and the detailed requirements will change from time to time (recent change, for example, was that Americans must now provide, up front, a police clearance from each state in which they have lived in addition to the FBI clearance -- I did not need to do that last year), it is most likely that Canada will facilitate immigration for the unification of spouses well into the future, so there is probably no risk in delaying on that account.
Depending on lifestyle and personal behavior, if there is, for example, any risk of getting nabbed for an impaired driving offense or even a minor assault (I have an American acquaintance with a bit of a temper who came close to having the door to Canada closed on him due to an altercation in a grocery store parking lot with a person who rammed a grocery cart into his car), obtaining PR sooner rather than later can greatly reduce that risk (a PR will not be excluded from Canada for minor ciminal offenses, but a FN, including an American, can be excluded as criminally inadmissible -- a PR can have PR status revoked for serious criminality, but that requires something far more serious than a mere driving while impaired or misdemeanor assault).
Finally, so long as you maintain the relationship, even at a distance, and it remains a genuine relationship (which you would document with evidence of the time spent together combined with evidence of communication during times apart, along with evidence of merging of other affairs in your lives), that should not adversely affect the PR application, although of course you would want to explain things some (no need to go into too much detail, just enough to indicate the reason for the continued separation). This is of course relative. The more time together, the more of your lives you have merged, the stronger your case remains; less time, less merger of affairs, may lead to questions that weaken your case.
All that said, there are probably many advantages to getting the immigration process done sooner rather than later, including insurance in the peace of mind category -- and that would give him the option to find future employment in Canada without hassle. Only caveat here: he would need to live in Canada at least two out of the following five years to keep his PR status, though time you and he lived together in the States could count toward that two years.
Re information of additional family/parental vital statistics:
Your question is a bit confusing (why would a US citizen and foreign spouse come "back to Canada?" and there isn't any information available about the mother's place of birth or the place of marriage even though she had to immigrate to . . . the US or Canada?) but speaking generally: provide as much info as you can . . . which can be less than country specific, such as "Europe," or a rough date, which may be handwritten on the form instead of electronically entered, stating "approx 1938" or whatever is appropriate, and then including, on a supplemental page, some explanation and/or clarification about the extent to which the information available is limited and why.
Kicker: non-accompanying dependents:
This one is more complicated. Robsluv knows this terrain very well and will probably be of far more help to you than I can be.
There is, you should be aware, apparently a great deal of reluctance on the part of CIC to allow applicants to deliberately not have dependents examined, even though the rules and regs specifically provide for instances in which they are not examined.
Best approach is, in most cases, to simply do what it takes to get them examined, that is to fully comply with application process, even though they will be non-accompanying (recognizing that sometimes it is difficult, if not impossible, to get the other parent to cooperate . . . in which case hopefully Robsluv will offer you more information and insight).
Disclosure: Robsluv and I do not totally agree on some aspects of immigration law, policy, and practice relative to American dependents over 18. However, I think we do agree that if you are aware or believe that his 20 year old dependent has a criminal record, you need to beware of the potential problems this may cause his PR application even though the 20 year old is not in his custody and will not be accompanying him. (To some extent, it may depend on the precise nature, legally, of the terms of "custody," since not having custody does not necessarily mean not having legal responsibility . . . but that leads to more involved issues for which one really should be talking to a lawyer, if applicable.)
If the 20 year old has (or you think may have) a criminal record (my personal view):
If you can (as you suggest you might be inclined to do) delay the application until this child reaches the age of 22, that is one way to totally circumvent potential problems. If you are inclined to go ahead with the immigration process prior to that, make a very deliberate effort to not include the 20 year old as a dependent to be examined . . . again, apparently CIC resists this, beyond merely discouraging it even, it seems, but if you list the 20 year in the "additional family info" form but not where dependents are listed, and include an explanation on a supplemental page stating that the 20 year refuses to cooperate and is not available for examination, it may very well get through the process -- you probably, however, want to at least consult with legal counsel about this, even have legal counsel prepare an affidavit/sworn statement as to acknowledging the consequences of not having that child examined.
Back to the same subject 4 months later regarding the "non accompanying" kids. After some research and input from other members we decided to avoid the potential "hassles and/or delays" and move forward with the examination of hubby's two "dependant" children (age 17 & 20). We are close to being ready to submit with only the fingerprints and medicals being left to finalize.
Surprise of surprises my husbands 20 year old son (he will be 21 by the time we file)..refuses to participate in any of it. Outside the immigration world he is considered an adult and there is little we can do except ask .. which we have. He has stated he has no desire to ever come to Canada and although he loves his Dad is taking a pretty firm stand on the whole thing.
I read the following and am looking for thoughts and opinions ... will statements from Dad and son help out or are we looking at a world of delays .. delays and more delays ... ??? I would say that at age 21 he would definitely fall into the overage category?
Thanks :)
Quote from:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf - page 12 - article 5.12
Under both the previous legislation and under IRPA, both the applicant and the applicant's family
members, whether accompanying or not, must meet the requirements of the legislation.
There are
no exceptions to the requirement that all family members must be declared. With few exceptions,
this also means that all family members must be examined as part of the process for achieving
permanent residence.
Officers should be open to the possibility that a client may not be able to make a family member
available for examination. If an applicant has done everything in their power to have their family
member examined but has failed to do so, and the officer is satisfied that they are aware of the
consequences of this (i.e., no future sponsorship possible), then a refusal of their application for
non-compliance would not be appropriate.
Officers must decide on a case-by-case basis using common sense and good judgment whether
to proceed with an application even if all family members have not been examined. Some
scenarios where this may likely occur include where an ex-spouse refuses to allow a child to be
examined
or an overage dependant refuses to be examined. Proceeding in this way should be a
last resort and only after the officer is convinced that the applicant cannot make the family
member available for examination. The applicant themselves cannot choose not to have a family
member examined.
All you can do is either:
1. Wait a year until he's 22 and doesn't have to be examined.
2. Include a statement from dad (and the son if you can get it) that he's unable to convince his overage son to be examined, because he has no intention of moving to Canada, etc, and he is aware that not having him examined now will mean he cannot be sponsored in future.
Likely they will want dad to sign a statutory declaration, and it could mean some delays, but probably not as much of a delay as waiting for the son to turn 22 would be.
I'm going to send you a private message.
Thanks Matthew, and Dpenabill for his insights last October. Robsluv I look forward to your message.
We will keep pushing the issue with the son but again there is only so much we can do. My biggest fear would be that now the 17 year old will jump on the same bandwagon. For no other reason than the whole examination thing becomes a hassle in their minds, and giving up an entire day in there oh so busy little worlds to take care of pictures, medicals and tests is something that doesn't seem important to them. Ahhh the careful joys of youth.
Thanks again!!
I'd be much more careful with the 17 year old, since he's not legally an adult yet, and there are (theoretically) 5 more years in which he could be sponsored, it's going to be much harder to convince CIC he doesn't need to be examined.
Part of the reason CIC is so strict on this, is to preserve future sponsorship rights. CIC knows that people's situations change - especially custody situations - parents (tragically) die in accidents and children have to live with the other parent. It happens, and the rules are set up so that even if everyone in a situation is adamant that the dependent child won't ever move to Canada, if for whatever reason that changes, they're not excluded from sponsorship.
If nothing else, hopefully you can convince his ex-wife to get the 17 year old examined, on those grounds.