Why more families are applying separately—and what the risks are
Immigrating to Canada in 2025 is not just a dream—it’s a tough competition for points in the Express Entry system.
Every point counts. That’s why many candidates are now using a strategy that may seem logical at first, but can lead to serious consequences:
one spouse applies for permanent residency alone, without the other.
The goal is to maximize CRS points. But this is not a shortcut or a lifehack—it’s a tactical move that comes with potential consequences. This article is not advice on how to game the system, but a warning: think ahead before leaving your spouse out of your application.
How does it work—and why is it becoming so common?
Canada uses the CRS (Comprehensive Ranking System) to assess candidates, awarding points for age, education, language proficiency, work experience, and more.
If both spouses score well, their points combine.
But if one partner lacks language skills, a degree, or Canadian experience, the total CRS score drops.
The solution?
One spouse declares the other as “non-accompanying” and applies solo.
This can increase the CRS score by up to 40 points, which can be a decisive advantage—especially with rising score cutoffs:
- 2021: CRS cutoff – 368
- 2025: CRS cutoff – 529
- And it may go even higher.
At the same time, Canada’s immigration targets are shrinking:
- 2025: 395,000 new immigrants
- 2026: 380,000
This has led more people to accept temporary family separation for the sake of reaching the required score.
What do experts say?
“Married couples often face systemic disadvantages in Express Entry. Using the ‘non-accompanying spouse’ status has become a common—legal and system-supported—practice,”
says immigration consultant Mandeep Leader from Calgary.
Where’s the risk?
Problems arise when reality doesn’t match the application.
IRCC (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) is carefully reviewing cases where the “non-accompanying” status appears to be used solely to boost CRS scores.
Here’s a real excerpt from an IRCC “Letter of Concern” sent to an applicant:
“It appears you designated your spouse as non-accompanying solely to increase your CRS score. However, you reside together in Canada, and your actual goal seems to be immigrating as a couple.”
Such letters became widespread in 2025.
What are the possible consequences?
If IRCC suspects the “non-accompanying spouse” status was used to manipulate the system, not reflecting true intentions, it may lead to:
- Refusal of the PR application
- Cancellation of already approved status
- Ban on reapplying
- A mark of “false declaration” in your immigration file
- Permanent loss of trust from IRCC
An IRCC representative emphasizes:
“If an applicant provides false information or intentionally omits facts (such as plans to immigrate with a spouse), this is considered fraud.”
What should couples do?
Before making a decision, evaluate all the risks. Here are some step-by-step recommendations:
- Compare both scenarios: applying with or without your spouse. Sometimes the score difference is minimal.
- Consult a licensed specialist—it’s better to plan the strategy upfront than to explain it later to IRCC.
- Be honest. Even if the spouse isn’t arriving immediately, this should be correctly stated in the application.
- Consider phased immigration: one spouse applies first, the other follows through sponsorship.
- Don’t treat the system as a temporary fiction. IRCC increasingly reviews profiles for inconsistencies.
Conclusion
Being in a relationship should not be a disadvantage.
But trying to “beat” the system for the sake of 30–40 points is a risk that may cost you your future in Canada.
This strategy only works if it reflects your real intentions. If you genuinely don’t plan to immigrate together, it’s fine. But if you’re doing it just for the points—think twice.
Choosing a strategy is not just about math.
It’s about building trust—with the country you hope to call home.
If you’re unsure, feel free to reach out. I can help you compare scenarios, calculate your CRS score, and choose a path that won’t result in a refusal a year from now.