Category: Immigration

Couples usually ask whether to apply “inland” or “outland”. Those are not the legal names of the two routes, and they are not the test. The choice is between two classes with different requirements and different consequences, and where the sponsored partner happens to be is only part of what decides which ones are open.

The two classes

A spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner can be a member of the family class under the immigration regulations. This is the route people call outland, because a family class application is processed by a visa office abroad.

The spouse or common-law partner in Canada class is a separate class created by the regulations. This is the route people call inland. A person belongs to it only if all three of the following are true: they are the spouse or common-law partner of the sponsor and are living with that sponsor in Canada; they have temporary resident status in Canada; and they are the subject of a sponsorship application. All three, not one or two.

Note what the second class leaves out. It is confined to spouses and common-law partners. A conjugal partner cannot use it, because the regulations define a conjugal partner as a foreign national “residing outside Canada” — so a conjugal partner is sponsored under the family class.

Where the applicant lives does not settle it

This is the part most often misunderstood. Being in Canada does not place an application in the in-Canada class, and it does not close off the family class.

The regulations say who belongs to each class. IRCC’s application guide goes a step further and tells applicants which application to submit — and only one of the situations it gives for using the family class is that the person lives abroad. The others are that the person lives with the sponsor in Canada but does not plan to stay during processing; that the application concerns a conjugal partner or a dependent child; and, the one that surprises people, “you plan to appeal if the application is refused”.

That is guidance on choosing which application to file, not a separate legal test. But it shows two things clearly. IRCC treats the family class as available to a couple living together in Canada. And it treats wanting to keep an appeal open as a legitimate reason to use it.

Temporary status, and what happens when it lapses

Temporary resident status is a requirement of the in-Canada class. It is not a requirement of the family class.

IRCC treats the requirement as met by a valid temporary resident permit, a valid visitor record, work permit or study permit, maintained status, or having applied for and being eligible for restoration. Restoration is neither automatic nor open indefinitely: the application has to be made within 90 days of losing status, and an officer restores it only where the person still meets the requirements of their stay and has complied with the conditions imposed on them.

Losing status does not automatically end the possibility of sponsorship. A public policy exempts some applicants in this position from the in-Canada class’s status requirement and from the related inadmissibility for lack of status. But it is narrow. Other grounds of inadmissibility continue to apply; criminal and security prohibitions are not waived by it, nor is the public health risk assessment; and it still requires a valid sponsorship undertaking, cohabitation with the sponsor and a genuine relationship.

Nor does it produce a work permit. An applicant relying on it becomes eligible to apply for work and study permits only once IRCC has determined that the criteria are met.

The open work permit: the class is not the test

The class does not by itself decide whether a sponsored partner can get an open work permit. IRCC lists both routes as qualifying — the in-Canada class as a spouse or common-law partner, and the family class as a spouse, common-law or conjugal partner.

What governs it is the applicant’s actual situation: a genuine relationship with the sponsor, living in Canada with the sponsor, inclusion in a permanent residence application, and holding the acknowledgement of receipt confirming that application is being processed. There is one exception to the acknowledgement requirement, where the applicant’s work permit, study permit or temporary resident status will expire in two weeks or less. The status conditions are the same list set out above, and an applicant with no valid status has to wait for the approval in principle letter before applying.

Two things rule the permit out entirely: a permanent residence application that has been refused, withdrawn or returned, and any plan to apply for the permit at a port of entry. An accompanying dependent child of the principal applicant may also qualify.

The right of appeal

This is the most consequential difference between the classes, and the reason the choice can matter even to a couple comfortably settled in Canada.

Section 63(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gives a sponsor who applied to sponsor someone as a member of the family class a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision not to issue that person a permanent resident visa. An applicant in the in-Canada class is not issued a permanent resident visa, so that appeal does not arise there.

The right is not unconditional. Section 64 removes it where the person has been found inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, sanctions, serious criminality or organised criminality. It also removes the appeal where a refusal rested on a finding of misrepresentation — except where the person is the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or child, which in a spousal sponsorship is usually the case. So a refused family class application generally carries an appeal, but not in every case, and whether it does turns on the facts.

Travel and re-entry

A sponsorship application in progress creates no right to enter Canada and no guarantee that anyone will be let back in. That is true of both classes.

The exposure differs, though. For the in-Canada class the risk is structural, because the class itself depends on the applicant living with the sponsor in Canada and holding temporary resident status. IRCC warns that a spouse or partner who leaves Canada before becoming a permanent resident may not be allowed to return, particularly where a temporary resident visa or an eTA is needed, and that leaving Canada can automatically cancel temporary resident status as a visitor, student or worker. If it goes wrong, IRCC’s guidance is that where the spouse or partner cannot return to Canada a new overseas sponsorship application must be submitted — in other words, starting again under the family class.

A family class application is not built on the applicant living in Canada, so leaving does not undermine it in the same way. That does not make travel risk-free. Entry still depends on holding whatever document is required and on the officer at the port of entry, and holding that document is not the same as being admitted.

The two classes side by side

	Family class	Spouse or common-law partner in Canada class
Who can be sponsored	Spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner	Spouse or common-law partner only
Must the applicant be in Canada?	No — and being in Canada does not rule this class out	Yes: the applicant must be living with the sponsor in Canada
Living with the sponsor	Not a requirement of the class	Required, and the class depends on it continuing
Temporary resident status	Not a requirement of the class	Required, unless the public policy applies
Open work permit	Possible, if the applicant meets the requirements — including living in Canada with the sponsor	Possible, on the same requirements
Sponsorship appeal	Generally available, subject to the statutory exceptions	No — no permanent resident visa is issued, so no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division
Travel and re-entry	Leaving does not undermine the application, but re-entry is never guaranteed	Leaving risks both status and the class; a new family class application may be required
Main limitation	Processed by a visa office abroad	Depends on cohabitation in Canada, and on status continuing

What tends to drive the decision

Nothing in this section is an IRCC rule. These are the considerations that in practice make one class fit a couple better than the other.

Whether the couple can realistically keep living together in Canada for the whole of processing is usually the first question, because the in-Canada class depends on that remaining true. Whether the applicant has status, or a credible route back to it, is the second.

Weigh the appeal right against the actual file rather than in the abstract. Where a relationship is straightforward and well documented, the prospect of an appeal may matter little. Where it is likely to attract scrutiny — a short courtship, a large difference in circumstances, an earlier refusal — the ability to put the case to the Immigration Appeal Division is worth a great deal, and it is available only in the family class.

Think about travel honestly rather than optimistically. A real likelihood of needing to leave Canada during processing, for a family illness or for work, sits badly with the in-Canada class.

And allow for circumstances changing. The question is not only what suits the couple today, but what happens if a job ends, a permit expires, or someone has to travel.

The spousal and partner sponsorship page sets out who can be sponsored, what the relationship evidence has to show, and how an application is prepared.

Last reviewed: 26 September 2026 against Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada guidance, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Requirements change. This page is general information, not legal advice about any particular application.

A procedural fairness letter arrives before a decision rather than after one, and answering it is usually the best opportunity an applicant gets. This page is about the response itself: what IRCC’s own guidance says the officer has to do, and how to build an answer around that.

What the officer is required to do

Procedural fairness is an obligation on the decision-maker, not a courtesy extended to the applicant. IRCC’s operational guidance on procedural fairness states that decision-makers must follow its rules throughout the decision-making process, and that the requirement applies to all types of immigration and citizenship application and to all aspects of decision-making.

Three entitlements follow from that guidance. An applicant is entitled to a fair and unbiased assessment of the application. An applicant is entitled to be informed of the decision-maker’s concerns, and to be advised of the significant facts likely to affect the outcome. And an applicant is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to respond to those concerns, which the guidance describes as including a reasonable opportunity to bring evidence or make arguments.

The guidance puts the principle in a single phrase: a person affected by a decision has “the right to know the case to be met”. That is worth reading before drafting anything, because it describes what the letter is meant to do. It is meant to tell you what the concern is.

Information that did not come from you

One part of the guidance is easy to miss and matters a great deal.

Where an officer relies on extrinsic evidence — which the guidance defines as “evidence received from sources other than the applicant” — the guidance states that the officer must advise the applicant of it and must give an opportunity to respond to it. The duty is triggered by the officer relying on that material; once triggered, the guidance expresses it as a requirement rather than something left to discretion.

In practice, a letter that refers to something you never supplied — a verification made with an employer or an institution, or information obtained from a third party — is putting that material to you, and it forms part of what you are answering. Where the letter refers to information of that kind without describing it, say so in the response and answer it as far as the description allows.

Work out precisely what is being put to you

Fairness letters are short, and the substance is often a single sentence. Setting that sentence out in your own words, before writing anything else, is worth the few minutes it takes.

The type of concern decides the evidence. A concern that a document appears altered is answered differently from a concern that an employment history does not match a reference letter, which is different again from a concern about the source of funds or the purpose of a visit. Where more than one concern is raised, each is a separate question, and a response that answers one of them well and the others not at all is a partial response.

The time you have

Treat the deadline in the letter seriously. IRCC’s general procedural fairness guidance does not set a universal response period for fairness letters, so a period someone else was given is not a guide to yours.

Where a period has been given, the guidance recognises the principle of legitimate expectation: a person who has been assured that a particular procedure will be followed is entitled to that procedure. Applied to a fairness letter, the point is that time already granted is time you are entitled to use, and a negative decision should not be taken before the period stated in your letter has run. The guidance illustrates the principle using a thirty-day period, but that is an illustration of the principle and not a standard response time. Fairness letters set their own periods, and yours will state what it is.

On asking for more time, the honest position is this. IRCC’s general procedural fairness guidance does not establish an entitlement to an extension, and it does not deal with requests for more time at all. Whether additional time can be sought, and how, depends on the particular communication and on the channel IRCC provides for that application. As a matter of prudence rather than any rule, do not assume additional time has been granted unless IRCC confirms it.

Building the response

What follows is not drawn from IRCC guidance. It is a way of organising a response.

Answer each concern separately, and identify for each the evidence that addresses it. Assurance is weaker than documentation. Where authenticity is doubted, confirmation from the body that issued the document does more than a statement that the document is genuine. Where employment is doubted, records that exist independently of the applicant — payroll records, tax filings, statutory deductions — do more than a further letter. Where funds are doubted, the source of the money and the entitlement to it are what is in question.

Where something looks inconsistent, explain it rather than leaving the officer to work it out. An inconsistency with an ordinary explanation stays damaging for exactly as long as it is unexplained.

Where a document genuinely cannot be obtained, say so, say why, and provide the best available alternative together with an account of what was attempted.

Then read the draft against the application itself. The officer has the forms and everything submitted previously, and a response that contradicts the file creates a second problem on top of the first. Where something in the earlier material was wrong, deal with it directly.

Where the letter raises misrepresentation

Most fairness letters raise nothing of the kind, and a discrepancy is not the same thing as a misrepresentation. Where a letter does raise it, however, the stakes change, because the consequence reaches past the application in front of you.

Section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act makes a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible for misrepresentation for “directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act”.

Where such a finding is made, section 40(2)(a) provides that the person continues to be inadmissible for five years. That period does not run from the refusal. Where the determination is made outside Canada it runs from the final determination of inadmissibility; where the determination is made in Canada it runs from the date the removal order is enforced. Section 40(3) provides that a foreign national who is inadmissible under section 40 may not apply for permanent resident status during that period.

Advice before responding is worth obtaining where that concern is raised. An explanation of a genuine error, supported by evidence, is a different document from a defensive reply.

If a refusal follows

A fairness letter does not mean the application will be refused. Where a refusal does follow, the guidance states that the provision of the Act or Regulations relied on must be cited in the record of the refusal, and that the reasons given to the applicant should reflect the assessment of the facts and the evidence relied upon.

That makes the reasons the first thing to read, because they generally show whether the response was engaged with, and that bears on what is worth doing next. The refused applications page sets out the routes available after a refusal, and which of them are appeals.

Last reviewed: 26 September 2026 against Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada procedural fairness guidance and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Requirements and guidance change. This page is general information, not legal advice about any particular application.