A PR visa holder at PoE informed an officer that they recently had a child whom they had not previously disclosed. They refused the options to either leave Canada or confirm their PR after signing a declaration acknowledging that they would never be able to sponsor the child. The matter was referred to the ID. The client wants to know the reason for the referral. What should the RCIC advise?

While the PR visa holder's failure to disclose their child may involve a violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the specific reason for the referral pertains more directly to misrepresentation. Not all contraventions of IRPA result in a referral to the ID; thus, this choice lacks the precise focus on the act of misrepresentation itself.

This choice suggests that the child is inadmissible as a non-accompanying family member, but the primary issue here is the failure to disclose the child's existence. Inadmissibility is not the main reason for the referral; instead, it's the lack of transparency regarding the child's status that is critical.

While the inability to support a dependent child may arise as a concern, it is secondary to the act of misrepresentation itself. The referral is based on the failure to disclose, not solely on financial capability. Thus, it does not encapsulate the primary reason for the ID's involvement.