Jie “Ellen” Lin, RCIC

为什么真实婚姻仍会面临被拒风险？

在配偶团聚申请中，申请人大多都会有一个很自然的想法：只要婚姻是真实的，只要两个人真的相爱、共同生活、互相扶持，申请就应该被批准。

但在加拿大移民法下，事情并不总是这么简单。

配偶团聚申请的核心当然包括关系是否真实、是否不是以移民为主要目的而建立。但这并不是唯一的审查重点。即使婚姻本身真实，申请仍可能因为其他法律或程序问题而面临拒签风险。

一、真实婚姻，不等于自动符合移民法要求

根据加拿大移民法规，婚姻、同居伴侣或事实婚姻关系如果不真实，或者主要目的是为了取得移民身份，可能被认定为关系不真实。也就是说，移民官会审查关系的真实性以及建立关系的主要目的。

但是，这并不代表只要关系真实，其他问题就都可以被忽略。

在实际案件中，移民官可能同时审查：

• 申请人与担保人的关系是否真实；
• 担保人是否符合担保资格；
• 申请人是否属于可以被担保的类别；
• 过去的移民申请中是否如实披露家庭成员；
• 申请人或担保人过去是否存在 misrepresentation 或未披露问题；
• 是否存在法律上被排除担保的情形。

因此，配偶团聚不是单纯证明“我们是真夫妻”这么简单，而是要证明：这段关系真实，同时这份申请在法律上也符合担保类别的要求。

二、一个常见但严重的问题：过去没有申报事实婚姻

最近我们遇到的一类案件，就是申请人和担保人的关系本身是真实的，双方甚至后来已经结婚，但案件仍然收到 Procedural Fairness Letter，原因并不是移民官简单怀疑“婚姻是假的”，而是担心申请人可能属于法律上被排除担保的家庭成员。

加拿大移民法规中有一个非常重要的规则：如果担保人在自己成为永久居民时，已经有配偶、同居伴侣或其他应申报的家庭成员，但当时没有申报，且该家庭成员没有接受移民体检或背景审查，那么该家庭成员将来可能不能再通过家庭团聚类别被担保。

对于境外家庭团聚类别，相关规定通常涉及 IRPR 117(9)(d)；对于加拿大境内配偶或同居伴侣类别，则可能涉及 IRPR 125(1)(d)。这两条规定的核心逻辑都是：如果某人曾经是担保人在其永久居民申请时的家庭成员，但没有被申报或没有被审查，将来可能不能因为与担保人的关系而被视为可担保的家庭成员。

这就是为什么有些申请人会觉得非常委屈：“我们现在是真的结婚了。”“我们真的一起生活。”“我们有很多照片、聊天记录、共同地址和家人支持。”“为什么还会被拒？”

原因在于，移民官关注的不只是现在的婚姻真实性，也会回头追溯在担保人当年成为永久居民的时候，这段关系是否已经达到需要申报的程度。

三、后来结婚，未必能解决过去未申报的问题

很多人会误以为，如果以前是事实婚姻关系没有申报，后来正式结婚了，问题就自然消失了。

但在移民法下，后来结婚并不一定能“校正”过去的问题。

如果移民官认为，在担保人当年申请永久居民时，双方已经构成事实婚姻关系，或者至少属于应当申报和接受审查的家庭成员，那么后来婚姻关系的成立，未必能改变当时未申报、未审查的法律后果。

换句话说，案件争议的重点不是：“你们现在是不是夫妻？”

而是：“在担保人当年成为永久居民之前，你们是否已经是事实婚姻？”“如果是，为什么当时没有申报？”“当时没有接受体检和背景审查，是否导致现在被排除在可担保类别之外？”

这类问题非常技术性，也往往是最需要认真回应的部分。

四、程序公平信不是普通补件，而是拒签前的重要机会

当移民局发出程序公平信时，通常意味着移民官已经发现了一个可能导致拒签的问题，并在作出最终决定之前给申请人一个解释和回应的机会。这绝对不是普通的“请补交文件”。

程序公平信的重点通常是：移民官已经形成某种疑虑，而申请人需要用事实、法律解释和证据去回应。如果回应不足，案件可能会被拒。

在这类涉及未申报家庭成员的问题中，回应不能只提交更多照片、聊天记录或亲友证明。那些证据可以证明关系真实，但未必能回答真正的问题。

真正需要回应的可能包括：

• 双方关系在担保人申请永久居民时是否已经达到 common-law 标准；
• 双方是否有共同生活、经济互助、社会公开关系等证据；
• 担保人当时是否被要求申报该家庭成员；
• 是否存在误解、客观障碍或法律上可以解释的原因；
• 是否可能适用当前关于未申报家庭成员的公共政策。

五、公共政策可能提供机会，但不是所有案件都适用

移民局目前有关于未曾申报的家庭成员的公共政策，该政策适用于 2019 年 5 月 31 日至 2026 年 9 月 10 日期间收到的申请，并可能帮助某些曾经未被申报或未被审查的配偶、伴侣或子女获得担保机会。

但这项政策并不是自动适用于所有案件。譬如，移民局明确指出，如果该未申报家庭成员在当时被申报和审查后，会导致担保人本人的永久居民申请不符合资格，那么这类案件可能不符合该公共政策。

譬如，担保人当年是以配偶身份移民加拿大，但当时实际上已经与另一名未申报人士存在婚姻或事实婚姻，这也会导致非常严重的问题。

六、这类案件最需要避免的错误

• 不要只强调感情真实。 感情真实当然重要，但如果程序公平信的核心是未申报和排除在被担保范围之外，回应重点必须对准法律问题。
• 不要简单说“我们当时不知道要申报”。 “不知道”有时可以作为背景解释，但通常不足以单独解决法律问题。
• 不要以为结婚证可以覆盖所有问题。 结婚证证明的是现在的婚姻关系，不一定能解决过去是否应申报事实婚姻关系的问题。
• 不要忽视时间线。 这类案件的核心往往就是时间线：什么时候认识、什么时候恋爱、什么时候同居、同居是否连续满一年、担保人什么时候递交 PR、什么时候获批、当时表格如何填写、是否披露过对方。
• 不要用大量无关证据淹没重点。 回应需要证据，但更需要清晰的法律逻辑。照片、聊天、旅行记录、亲友信都可以辅助，但必须服务于核心解释。

七、结语：真实婚姻关系也需要正确呈现

配偶团聚申请最让人遗憾的情况之一，就是两个人的关系可能确实真实，却因为过去申请中的披露问题、类别选择问题或法律排除条款，导致现在的申请陷入困难。

这类案件并不是简单地“多交一点材料”就能解决，而是需要重新梳理完整时间线，准确判断移民官真正担心的问题，并用有针对性的证据和法律解释进行回应。

真实婚姻值得被看见，但在移民申请中，真实还需要被正确证明，也需要放在正确的法律框架中解释。

如果已经收到程序公平信，尤其是涉及事实婚姻、未申报家庭成员、被排除在担保范围之外等问题，建议尽快进行专业分析，抓住申请被拒前最关键的一次回应机会。

Why a Genuine Marriage Can Still Be Refused

In spousal sponsorship applications, many applicants naturally believe that if the marriage is genuine, the application should be approved.

After all, if the couple truly loves each other, lives together, supports each other, and has built a real life together, why would immigration still refuse the case?

Unfortunately, under Canadian immigration law, a genuine relationship does not always mean the application automatically meets all legal requirements.

A spousal sponsorship application is not only about proving that the marriage is real. IRCC may also examine whether the sponsor is eligible, whether the application falls within the correct immigration class, whether all family members were properly declared in past immigration applications, and whether any exclusion rules apply.

A Genuine Relationship Is Only One Part of the Test

In a spousal or common-law sponsorship application, IRCC will usually assess whether the relationship is genuine and whether it was entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

However, this is not the only issue. Even where the couple’s current marriage is genuine, the application may still face serious problems if there were unresolved issues in the sponsor’s previous immigration history.

For example, IRCC may ask: “Was the applicant properly declared when the sponsor previously applied for permanent residence?” “Was the applicant already the sponsor’s spouse or common-law partner at that time?” “If so, was the applicant medically examined and assessed for admissibility?”

If the answer creates concern, the case may no longer be only about whether the current marriage is real. It may become a legal issue about whether the applicant is excluded from being sponsored.

The Problem of an Undeclared Common-Law Partner

One of the most difficult situations arises when a sponsor became a permanent resident in the past but did not declare a spouse, common-law partner, or other family member who should have been disclosed.

Under Canadian immigration regulations, a foreign national may be excluded from being sponsored if they were a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor at the time the sponsor applied for and became a permanent resident, but were not declared and examined.

For Family Class applications, this issue is commonly associated with IRPR 117(9)(d). For in-Canada spouse or common-law partner applications, a similar exclusion may arise under IRPR 125(1)(d). These provisions focus on whether the foreign national was a family member at the time of the sponsor’s own permanent residence application and whether they were examined.

This can be extremely frustrating for couples because they may feel that IRCC is ignoring the reality of their present relationship.

They may say: “We are legally married now.” “We live together.” “Our families support the relationship.” “We have photos, messages, joint documents, and a real life together.”

All of that may be true. But if IRCC’s concern is about a past undeclared common-law relationship, then the central issue may not be the genuineness of the present marriage. The key question may be whether the couple was already in a common-law relationship when the sponsor previously became a permanent resident.

Getting Married Later Does Not Always Fix the Past Problem

A common misunderstanding is that if the couple was previously in a common-law relationship and later got married, the marriage certificate will solve the problem.

That is not always the case.

If IRCC believes that the couple had already become common-law partners before the sponsor obtained permanent residence, and the applicant was not declared or examined at that time, the later marriage may not erase the earlier legal issue.

In other words, the officer may not be asking only: “Is this marriage genuine now?”

The officer may also be asking: “Were they already common-law partners at the time of the sponsor’s own PR application?” “If yes, why was the applicant not declared?” “Was the applicant required to be examined at that time?” “Does an exclusion rule now prevent this person from being sponsored?”

This is why these cases are highly fact-specific and often depend on a careful timeline.

A Procedural Fairness Letter Is a Serious Warning

When IRCC issues a Procedural Fairness Letter, it usually means that the officer has identified a concern that may lead to refusal and is giving the applicant an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made.

A PFL is not a routine request for more photos or updated forms.

It requires a focused response.

In cases involving a potentially undeclared spouse or common-law partner, simply submitting more photos, chat records, or support letters may not be enough. Those documents may help prove that the relationship is genuine, but they may not answer the legal concern.

The response may need to address questions such as: When did the relationship begin? When did the couple start living together? Was there at least one continuous year of cohabitation before the sponsor became a permanent resident? How was the relationship presented socially, financially, and practically at that time? What did the sponsor disclose in the previous PR application? Was the applicant required to be examined? Is there any public policy or legal exception that may apply?

A strong PFL response should not only provide evidence. It should also explain why the evidence matters.

The Public Policy for Undeclared Family Members May Help — But Not Always

IRCC has a public policy for certain previously undeclared family members. IRCC explains that when a person applies for permanent residence, they must declare all family members, even if those family members are not coming to Canada. Those family members may include a spouse, common-law partner, dependent children, and certain grandchildren, and they must complete medical exams and pass background and security checks.

This public policy may allow some previously undeclared family members to be sponsored despite the usual exclusion rules. According to IRCC’s current public-facing information, the policy applies to certain applications received from May 31, 2019, to September 10, 2026.

However, the policy is not automatic and does not cover every case.

A key issue is whether the sponsor’s own permanent residence application would have been negatively affected if the family member had been declared and examined at the time. If declaring the relationship would have made the sponsor ineligible for permanent residence, the case may fall outside the intended protection of the public policy.

Common Mistakes in These Cases

• Focusing only on the genuineness of the current marriage. Relationship evidence is important, but if the officer’s concern is an undeclared family member issue, the response must directly address that concern.
• Assuming that “we did not know” is enough. Lack of knowledge may provide context, but it usually cannot replace a legal and factual analysis of what should have been declared at the time.
• Relying too heavily on the marriage certificate. A marriage certificate proves that the couple is legally married now. It does not necessarily resolve the question of whether they were common-law partners in the past.
• Failing to build a clear timeline. In these cases, dates matter. The officer may need to understand when the couple met, when the relationship became committed, when cohabitation started, whether cohabitation was continuous, when the sponsor submitted the PR application, and when the sponsor became a permanent resident.
• Submitting a large volume of documents without explaining their relevance. Evidence should not overwhelm the officer. It should guide the officer through the key facts and legal issues.

Conclusion

One of the most difficult realities in spousal sponsorship cases is that a marriage can be genuine, and the application can still face refusal.

This does not mean IRCC believes the couple is not real. It may mean the officer is concerned about a separate legal issue, such as a previously undeclared spouse or common-law partner, an excluded family member rule, or the sponsor’s past immigration history.

A genuine relationship deserves to be recognized. But in an immigration application, it must also be presented within the correct legal framework.

If a spousal sponsorship application receives a Procedural Fairness Letter involving an undeclared family member, common-law relationship, IRPR 117(9)(d), IRPR 125(1)(d), or excluded family member concerns, the response should be prepared carefully. In many cases, the PFL response may be the most important opportunity to prevent a refusal.