{"id":2109,"date":"2026-11-10T23:51:37","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T23:51:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/online-proxy-marriage-spousal-sponsorship-refused\/"},"modified":"2026-11-10T23:51:37","modified_gmt":"2026-11-10T23:51:37","slug":"online-proxy-marriage-spousal-sponsorship-refused","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/online-proxy-marriage-spousal-sponsorship-refused\/","title":{"rendered":"Married online or by proxy and the sponsorship was refused: why, and the routes that still work"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed November 10, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2019, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Updated November 10, 2026: section 5 of the Regulations checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The fix:<\/strong> in our practice, a new sponsorship under the conjugal partner category, built on the same relationship. An appeal rarely changes a section 5 refusal, because the rule is not discretionary.<\/p>\n

The deadline:<\/strong> 30 days from the refusal decision if you want to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division. For a section 5 refusal, we usually apply again instead.<\/p>\n

Why a lawyer:<\/strong> choosing the next route, and the evidence for it, decides whether the second application works. Why a lawyer<\/a><\/p>\n

Book a consultation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The lawyers who review these refusals<\/p>\n

\"SundeepSundeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PrabhpreetPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PardeepPardeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\nAbout our lawyers<\/summary>\n
\n

Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.<\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a><\/strong> focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

If you married by video call, by telephone, or with someone standing in for one of you, IRCC will not treat you as spouses for sponsorship, even if the marriage is legal where it took place. Section 5 of the Regulations excludes a marriage where either spouse was not physically present at the ceremony. The relationship can still be real. The way forward we usually take is to apply again under the conjugal partner category, using the evidence of the relationship. Other routes are a common-law partnership after a year living together, or a new ceremony with both of you present.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, prepares spousal sponsorships and appeals refused sponsorships to the Immigration Appeal Division; this guide is by Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha.<\/p>\n

What does section 5 say?<\/h2>\n

Section 5 of the Regulations<\/a> says a foreign national is not considered a spouse if, “at the time the marriage ceremony was conducted”, “either one or both of the spouses were not physically present”. The only exception is a person absent because of service in the Canadian Forces. Separately, a marriage must be valid both where it took place and under Canadian law.<\/p>\n

So the problem is not whether the marriage is genuine. It is that the rules do not count it.<\/p>\n

Why this needs a lawyer<\/h2>\n

One lawyer, one file, every step:<\/strong><\/p>\n