The undeclared family member window has closed. Here is what is left.

For seven years there was a door in the family class that should, on the face of the Regulations, have been shut. Section 117(9)(d) says that a spouse, partner or child who was not declared and examined when the sponsor immigrated is not a member of the family class at all. No sponsorship, no matter how genuine the relationship. In 2019 IRCC opened a public policy to soften that rule for the people it fell on hardest. On 10 September 2026 the policy expired, and IRCC did not issue a fourth one.

What the policy did

The public policy for undeclared family members began on 31 May 2019 as a two-year pilot. It was renewed in 2021 and again from 10 September 2023, each time for a fixed term. It allowed a sponsor to apply for a spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner or dependent child, and the dependent child of a dependent child, who had not been declared or examined when the sponsor became a permanent resident.

It never covered everyone. It was written for sponsors who had themselves arrived through a protected or sponsored route:

• resettled refugees, whether Convention refugees abroad or persons in similar circumstances;
• people recognised in Canada as protected persons;
• people who were sponsored as a spouse, partner or dependent child in the family class; and
• people who were sponsored in the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class.

A sponsor who immigrated through Express Entry, a provincial nomination or any other economic program was never inside the policy. For them, the exclusion has applied throughout, and nothing has changed.

One limit applied even inside the policy: it did not help where the undeclared family member would have made the sponsor inadmissible or ineligible at the time of the original application. The policy forgave non-disclosure; it did not forgive what the disclosure would have revealed.

What changed on 10 September 2026

The policy’s terms ran out and no successor was announced. IRCC’s page now carries the word Expired in its title, and states that it will continue to apply the policy to eligible applications received between 31 May 2019 and 10 September 2026. That sentence matters: the date is a receipt deadline. A sponsorship that reached IRCC on or before 10 September, and that fits the policy, will still be assessed under it however long the decision takes.

For anyone who did not file by that date, section 117(9)(d) applies as written. The family member is excluded from the family class. A sponsorship application filed on its own will be refused on that ground, and the genuineness of the relationship will not rescue it.

Why the rule is so unforgiving

Section 117(9)(d) is not a penalty provision that an officer weighs. It is a definition: it says who is, and is not, a member of the family class. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld it in De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 436, and the courts have applied it since to sponsors who acted innocently, who were badly advised, or who were told by a representative that a child from an earlier relationship did not need to be listed. Good faith does not take an applicant outside the section. It is relevant, if at all, to the humanitarian request discussed below.

The Regulations contain one true exception. Under section 117(10), the exclusion does not apply where the family member was not examined because an officer determined, at the time, that the person was not required by the Act to be examined. That is a finding on the original file. It cannot be created afterwards by a sponsor explaining that they thought examination was unnecessary.

The route that remains

What is left is section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: a request that the Minister exempt the applicant from the exclusion on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The request is made inside the sponsorship application, and an officer decides it before deciding anything else. If it is granted, the application is assessed as an ordinary family class sponsorship. If it is refused, the application is refused with it.

Three things distinguish a request that succeeds from one that does not.

It answers the non-disclosure directly. The officer will ask why the family member was not declared. A request that avoids the question, or that describes the omission as a technicality, reads as an attempt to route around the rule. A request that explains what happened, with the evidence that exists, gives the officer something to weigh.

It is built around the best interests of any child affected. Where the undeclared family member is a child, or the sponsor has children in Canada who would be affected, the officer is required to be alert, alive and sensitive to those interests. That analysis needs evidence: schooling, care arrangements, the child’s circumstances in the country where they are, and what separation has already meant.

It shows hardship that is specific, not generic. The fact that a family is apart is the starting point of every one of these files, so it carries little weight on its own. What carries weight is what separation is doing to these people, documented.

A request of this kind takes time to prepare properly. It should be the centrepiece of the application from the first page, not a covering letter added to a standard sponsorship kit.

If you filed before the deadline

Keep your proof of receipt. If IRCC raises the exclusion in a procedural fairness letter, the answer is the policy itself and the date the application was received. If your application was returned as incomplete before 10 September and re-filed after it, that is a harder case: the policy attaches to applications received in the window, and a returned application was not received in the sense that matters. That situation calls for advice before anything else is sent.

If you did not

Do not file a plain sponsorship in the hope that the policy will be revived. It will be refused, and a refusal on the record does not help a later humanitarian request. If a humanitarian request is realistic on your facts, build it. If it is not, the honest answer may be that there is no route at present, and it is better to know that before paying fees.

The rules above are taken from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and from IRCC’s published public policy, which IRCC marked expired on 11 September 2026. This is general information, not legal advice. Whether a humanitarian request is worth making depends on facts we would need to see.