Who can Sponsor - Changes to the Regulations

[rjessome]

Posted in the Canada Gazette Part I, April 2, 2011 (I know Baloo! I'm a week late! )

The first one is an introduction of a 5 year bar on spousal sponsorship for someone who became a PR of Canada by way of spousal sponsorship. Proposed text:

Five-year requirement
(3) A sponsor who became a permanent resident after being sponsored as a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner under subsection 13(1) of the Act may not sponsor a foreign national referred to in subsection (1) as a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner, unless the sponsor became a permanent resident not less than five years immediately preceding the day on which the application referred to in subsection (1) is filed by the foreign national.

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-04-02/html/reg3-eng.html

The second one is in response to the Brar case http://tinyurl.com/brarfc1285

It now expands the definition of who cannot be a sponsor if they've committed an act of violence. Current Regs state that a person cannot be a sponsor in the Family Class if they've been convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada of an offence (or threat on an offence) of a sexual nature OR an act of violence against a family member. Proposed Regs would now include conviction of an act of violence (or threat) against ANY person (by way of indictment and punishable by max of 10 years). In response to Brar, it also expands on the definition of who is a family member for the purpose of this regulation. Sorry for my paraphrasing. Proposed text:

1. (1) Paragraph 133(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (see footnote 1) is amended by striking out “or” at the end of subparagraph (i) and by adding the following after that subparagraph:

(i.1) an indictable offence involving the use of violence and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or an attempt to commit such an offence, against any person, or

(2) Subparagraph 133(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
1. (ii) an offence that results in bodily harm, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, to any of the following persons or an attempt or a threat to commit such an offence against any of the following persons:
(A) a current or former family member of the sponsor,
(B) a relative of the sponsor, as well as a current or former family member of that relative,
(C) a relative of the family member of the sponsor, or a current or former family member of that relative,
(D) a current or former conjugal partner of the sponsor,
(E) a current or former family member of a family member or conjugal partner of the sponsor,
(F) a relative of the conjugal partner of the sponsor, or a current or former family member of that relative,
(G) a child under the current or former care and control of the sponsor, their current or former family member or conjugal partner,
(H) a child under the current or former care and control of a relative of the sponsor or a current or former family member of that relative, or
(I) someone the sponsor is dating or has dated, whether or not they have lived together, or a family member of that person.

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-04-02/html/reg2-eng.html#1

 

[Baloo]

Even though you are late, I am happy that you watch it and keep us informed.

Can you clear something up - Part 1 is the proposal and discussion phase, when it arrives in part 2 it is going to legislation?

 

[rjessome]

Even though you are late, I am happy that you watch it and keep us informed.

Can you clear something up - Part 1 is the proposal and discussion phase, when it arrives in part 2 it is going to legislation?

Yep, Part 1 is after the consultation phase which takes months. So now they put out the proposed re-wording of the legislation and it's time (usually 30 days) for the public to comment. They DO read all of the comments from the public and sometimes it doesn't get to the next step or they may change the wording or they may leave it as is. When it gets published in Part II, it's the law.

I've posted my personal views about the first change (which I agree with but think it should be a little shorter) but I got to thinking about the second change. Here's the scenario I imagined:

23 year old Canadian guy in university goes out, gets drunk, gets into a nasty bar fight and gets convicted of assault. 8 years later, he's 31, hopefully much more mature and let's say he's a dentist and never been in trouble again, not even a speeding ticket. He meets the love of his life while she's on vacation here from another country. They fall in love, get married and he tries to sponsor her. NOPE! Sorry, you don't qualify as a sponsor. You must wait two more years to get a pardon MAYBE although that's not in the proposed legislation so I don't know! What do you think now? At first it sounded good to me but I think that they should at least allow a pardon to come into play or put some sort of timeframe on it.

 

[missmini]

aaaah that's tough for that poor dentist guy :-X

rjesomme can i ask u once these changes are law, will they change the forms also and i need to write them again? i was planning to submit but now with the conditional PR i want to wait a little more, we r very close on being 3 years in common-law (it's a good milestone ) plus i'm still gathering documents here and there ???

r more changes to come? i'm loosing my sleep thinking abt what new stuff i'll read in the morning :'(

 

[missmini]

aaah also, the sponsorship ban - it's very good!! it was about time, but yeah 5 years seem a little too long...on the other hand maybe it's reasonable: with the conditional PR Bob will still stay with the sponsor Jane for 2 more years, if the relationship genuinely breaks, it would take maybe 1 more year to meet another person, Alice, and 2 more years to have the relationship serious and be sure that if he would sponsor Alice and the relationship with her won't end like the one with Jane :-X

but the other one, it's too harsh i find....do they take account of crimes committed by the sponsor outside Canada too, if that crime is not actually a crime under Canadian laws? (like kissing in public for example :-\)

 

[ariannecat]

does this apply even the sponsorship was already approve and just waiting for the sponsored person to be approved?

 

[rjessome]

aaaah that's tough for that poor dentist guy :-X

rjesomme can i ask u once these changes are law, will they change the forms also and i need to write them again? i was planning to submit but now with the conditional PR i want to wait a little more, we r very close on being 3 years in common-law (it's a good milestone ) plus i'm still gathering documents here and there ???

r more changes to come? i'm loosing my sleep thinking abt what new stuff i'll read in the morning :'(

There will probably be some small changes to the forms and if you have not submitted them by the time the law is enacted, if new forms are ready you would have to use the new forms. But I doubt that the changes would be really big and they would not affect all of the forms as many are generic and used for several application classes. And when CIC has new forms, they put them up on the website and will say something like "All applications submitted after XXXX date must use the new forms". Don't worry about it as they do give notice.

I doubt that there are more changes planned for this section of the Regulations at the moment but only the government really knows. These are pretty sweeping and I think they accomplish everything the consultation processes were trying to do back in the fall. However, if there is new stuff it will be announced.

BTW, you and your partner would NOT be subject to the conditional visas given that you have been in a common-law relationship for over 2 years. However, the sponsorship bar will apply to everyone (who was sponsored as a spouse) when and if it is enacted.

 

[rjessome]

does this apply even the sponsorship was already approve and just waiting for the sponsored person to be approved?

Now THAT is a really good question that I've thought of myself! I don't know the answer. I would assume that the new Regulations would apply to those applying after the date the new law is enacted. Those who became a PR through a spousal sponsorship program and have already applied to sponsor a new spouse within 5 years from the date they became a PR and before the new law would probably continue processing under the old Regulations. However, I can't say for sure.

 

[ariannecat]

how about the violence thing...is it imposed now, i wonder how are they gona check that, example is if the sponsor is already approve to sponsor, and now they impost new law, will it affect that since the visa is not issued yet to the sponsored person?
i think the 2nd one is really harsh, like the example you gave, i think they are judging people too much.

 

[rjessome]

how about the violence thing...is it imposed now, i wonder how are they gona check that, example is if the sponsor is already approve to sponsor, and now they impost new law, will it affect that since the visa is not issued yet to the sponsored person?
i think the 2nd one is really harsh, like the example you gave, i think they are judging people too much.

Again, another good question. I think THAT one "might" apply to sponsorship currently in process but I really don't know. Read the link I gave to the Gazette notice for that one and you will understand their rationale. It is based around a decision where a sponsor was convicted of killing his sister-in-law and yet, was able to sponsor his own wife. Pretty crazy, eh? The Canadian public was enraged. Here's the way the government views sponsorship:

"It is a privilege to sponsor a family member, and someone who has committed such a serious crime, regardless of who it was against, should not benefit from the privilege and responsibility of sponsorship." [emphasis added]

There will always be extremes at both ends of the spectrum. I don't think this is a bad change to the law but I think it needs to be more well rounded. I gave the example above as the other end of the spectrum. You could take it further and say a person was convicted of assault 30 years ago and would NOT be eligible to sponsor EVER the way it reads right now. I think they will get a lot of commentary from the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants and other stakeholders that will address this end of the spectrum and CIC will make changes to cover that potential eventuality.

CIC already checks out sponsors to ensure that they have been convicted of a crime in accordance with the current legislation. They will just expand on that. Remember, the conviction must have occurred IN Canada and they run their own RCMP name checks.

 

[ariannecat]

it says in canada, but theres also parts says outside canada? was the law already imposed?

 

[rjessome]

it says in canada, but theres also parts says outside canada? was the law already imposed?

No, the law has not already been imposed. However, thanks for making me go back and re-read this thing yet again. Just saw this (although it's ALWAYS been there - duh!):

"Exceptions under subsections 133(2) and 133(3) will still apply. Subsection 133(2) allows sponsorship to proceed when the conviction occurred in Canada and the individual has received a pardon, has been acquitted, or where 5 years have elapsed since the completion of the imposed sentence. Subsection 133(3) allows sponsorship to proceed when the conviction occurred outside Canada and the individual has been acquitted, or where 5 years have elapsed since the completion of the imposed sentence."

Forget my previous worries! :

 

[ariannecat]

one more question rjessome to make it clear so for now these is still law proposal? and still waiting for the approval? meaning is not imposed yet? ( sorry english is not my first language so reading it over and over it wont still be clear to me heheheh)just curious though

 

[ariannecat]

so are those 3 laws / regulations already being apply in present applications??tnx rjessome

 

[rjessome]

No. These are PROPOSED changes to the current laws. The changes are NOT the law yet.