Reason why dependant is non accompanying

Search Advanced…. Forums New posts Search Forums. Members Registered members Current visitors Recent Activity. Free Assessment. Reason for Non accompanying family members. Thread starter Andinu Start date Aug 18, JavaScript is disabled.

For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. Andinu Full Member. Aug 10, 28 0 Category Visa Office I'm applying as a principal applicant and i have filled out all the info about my family members. My family are not accompanying me to Canada right away. I have clients in a similar situation and I advised them to have the kids undergo the medicals.

Why eliminate options? Unless the mother with the custody does not allow the kids to be a part of the process, retain the right to sponsor in the future. Amir www. Also neither holds a US passport so yet another hurdle to cross. We have not decided as of yet on our course of action just exploring the what ifs.. I want to know if we provide a "statutory declaration" indictating that we understand the consequences of not having them examined will that decision have negative consequences with regards to our application.

If we list them as non accompanying dependants.. He should know the following. All dependents have to be medically admissible even if they are non-accompanying.

Your kids have to have a medical done. What exactly is a "non-accompanying family member declaration"? What does it say? As far as the refusal of a dependent child to undergo medical examination - the reaction of the assessing officer will vary.

It stands to reason that an overaged dependent - beyond the age of consent in their home country - should have the right to refuse to undergo examination and make their own decision about not immigrating to Canada. According to Section 5. 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.

Officers must decide on a case-by-case basis using common sense and good judgment this is where the problem is created 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. So, it still happens. I think the key is whether or not the assessing officer believes the applicant is refusing to or interfering with the child's examination, rather than that the "child" is opting out of immigrating and signing a declaration to that effect.

I think this is the result of a misinterpretation of the Act and Regs in regards to family members making a principle applicant inadmissible - and usually happens when an officer makes the assumption that the applicant is trying to keep the dependent from being examined in order to hide something that will make the applicant themself inadmissible Refer to paragraph 42 a of the IRPA and Section 23 of the Regulations for more info.

Anyway - so, if this "non-accompanying family member declaration" is some sort of document that can be signed and notarized by an overaged dependent, then it might work - IF the child is beyond the age of consent and you provide proof of such with the declaration.

We finally had my sons sign a "Separation Statement" saying that they did not wish to immigrate - but we asked about them signing such a form when we very first submitted the application and the processing officer refused to acknowledge or discuss the option with us. I think, if it is going to work at all, a notarized declaration would have to be submitted with your application, along with proof as I mentioned of the dependent's legal right and competence to make such a decision for themselves, and then it's just basically a cr p shoot as to how things end up.

Immigration Canada extended the age under which an applicant's children are allowed to be included as "dependents" when certain conditions are met. But instead, applicants are being forced under threat of being reportable for misrepresentation to include, as "dependents", grown children who sometimes have no intention of immigrating to Canada and who see no point in spending their time and money to undergo a medical examination and submit to criminal clearance when they want nothing to do with Canada in the first place.

There's something really wrong with a system that forces people to apply for status they don't want when, very simply, if they don't undergo examination the consequences are clear - they are forever excluded from future consideration as a member of the family class and cannot be sponsored.

And, judging from the number of failed appeals of refusals under R, this is something that Immigration Canada has no problem enforcing. So, to my mind, if an overaged "dependent" does not want to immigrate, CIC should allow them to exclude themselves from application without it affecting the chances of the priniciple applicant to immigrate to Canada.

In my case, my overaged "dependent" had a criminal record. He did not want to come to Canada, would have been very willing to sign a declaration saying so, but the assessing officer would have none of it and refused my application because of his arrest. I was punished for four years for something I didn't do! Had he been allowed to exclude himself from consideration - knowing he was inadmissible - he would have been forever banned from my sponsoring him in the future.

There was NO WAY on earth my son was ever coming to Canada - so the only justification I can come up with for them denying him the right to be excluded and then refusing my permanent status because of him was that they wanted to punish me for having a son who got into trouble!

Anyway, excuse my rant - it's still a contentious issue for me even though we won on appeal and I'm now a PR. But they put us through hell - so I caution you that this is not a simple thing and you really should go into it covering your arse to the best of your ability because there are no guarantees about which way it will go in the end. Edited by RobsLuv - 05 Apr at pm. Hello RobsLuv, Thank you for posting such an in depth answer to the question posted. I've read this with much interest.

I find myself in the scary situation of waiting for the answer to my application, and, to be honest, I'm scared to death. I too have 4 children, who were, for many years and until becoming adults, in the sole custody of their father in the U.

I found them over a social networking site 2 years ago and promptly provided Immigration Canada with their information. However, they all have their lives in the U. I live in Canada with my 4 Canadian Citizen children and my Canadian husband, who is sponsoring me. I am not an American Citizen, but from Austria.

What the questioner might be referring to is, what I experienced: I was told, when I made my application in , which Immigration Canada began processing near the beginning of , that I should put the children in the category of non-accompanying dependents and should then make a declaration, that I was not going to sponsor them to immigrate to Canada at any point.

At the time, although I had been searching for them for years, I didn't even know, where they were and couldn't provide an adress for them too long and painful a story to tell here I also provided Immigration Canada with the custody order, which showed, that my ex had sole custody of them. As already stated, as soon as I had the children's address, I provided it to Immigration Canada, who promptly contacted them through the Buffalo office.

However, I was told from the very beginning and ever thereafter, if I entered the children as non-accompanying dependents and made a declaration, that I would at no time sponsor them to immigrate into Canada, that my application would proceed without any problems, and that the children would not be required to undergo the examinations and background checks.

Further, the applicant may be considered to have been misrepresenting and therefore face other serious consequence. In addition, all family members, whether accompanying the applicant to Canada or not, must be examined unless an officer previously finds them exempt from this.

Family members who were not declared and examined are excluded from the family class and may not be sponsored at a later date as mentioned above. This is a very serious circumstance, one that an applicant should avoid by being open, honest and truthful in all aspects of their application. Non-accompanying family members must undergo medical examinations. They must also establish that they are not inadmissible for criminal or security reasons. Further, a sponsor must demonstrate that they can support all family members, including non-accompanying family members.

This is per the Low Income Cut Off versus their household income and potentially other finances. Normally, an inadmissible family member , whether accompanying or not, would render the applicant inadmissible.