{"id":2496,"date":"2026-11-12T20:55:40","date_gmt":"2026-11-12T20:55:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/spouse-visitor-visa-refused-sponsorship-pending\/"},"modified":"2026-11-12T20:55:40","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T20:55:40","slug":"spouse-visitor-visa-refused-sponsorship-pending","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/spouse-visitor-visa-refused-sponsorship-pending\/","title":{"rendered":"Spouse’s visitor visa refused while sponsorship is pending: your options"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed November 12, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2024, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Updated November 12, 2026: IRPA s. 22(2) and the Federal Court decisions cited checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The issue:<\/strong> the officer didn’t believe your spouse would leave because a sponsorship is pending.<\/p>\n

The law:<\/strong> wanting PR later doesn’t by itself bar a visitor visa (IRPA s. 22(2)).<\/p>\n

The deadline:<\/strong> 60 days from notice of the refusal if you’re outside Canada, 15 days if you’re in Canada (IRPA s. 72). Reconsideration doesn’t stop the clock.<\/p>\n

Why a lawyer:<\/strong> some of these refusals misapply section 22(2), and only a lawyer can challenge them in court. 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

Couples separated by a spousal sponsorship often want to see each other while it’s processed, and many visitor visa applications are refused because the officer doubts the spouse will leave. The law says an intention to become a permanent resident doesn’t, on its own, stop someone from being a visitor: the officer must still be satisfied they’ll leave at the end of the visit. The Federal Court has set aside a decision that treated a candid mention of future PR plans as proof of intent to overstay. Whether your refusal can be challenged depends on whether the officer weighed your spouse’s ties at home or simply relied on the sponsorship.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, challenges spousal visitor visa refusals in the Federal Court and handles spousal sponsorship; this guide is by Pardeep S. Grewal.<\/p>\n

The law<\/h2>\n

IRPA s. 22(2) allows dual intent. In Lee v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)<\/em>, 2026 FC 32, treating an intention to seek PR as proof of intent to overstay was found contrary to section 22(2). See dual intent<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Showing your spouse will leave<\/h2>\n