Master prompt
Spouse contribution vs sole-applicant CRS scenario (Canada Express Entry)
Side-by-side CRS arithmetic: including spouse vs filing as sole applicant. Tests whether the spouse-factor gain outweighs the with-spouse grid reduction.
CanadaExpress EntryCRSSpouseSole applicantIRPR R8Common-law
Compute and compare two CRS scenarios for [PRINCIPAL_NAME] under the Comprehensive Ranking System:
SCENARIO A — Filing WITH spouse [SPOUSE_NAME] (spouse accompanying)
SCENARIO B — Filing as a SOLE applicant (spouse not accompanying)
The legal pre-question must be answered first: is the spouse able to be excluded?
§1 — IRPR R8 / IRPR R1(1) preliminary check (can spouse be excluded?)
Under Canadian immigration law:
(a) Spouse means a person who is legally married to the applicant (IRPR R1(1)).
(b) Common-law partner means a person who has cohabitated in a conjugal relationship for at least 1 year (IRPR R1(1)).
(c) If [RELATIONSHIP_TYPE] is "married" or "common-law", the spouse is in the family class whether or not accompanying.
(d) A non-accompanying spouse who is otherwise admissible MUST still be examined (IRPR R30) unless one of the R117(9)(d) carve-outs applies.
(e) If [SPOUSE_CITIZENSHIP] = "Canadian PR" or "Canadian citizen" — the spouse is EXCLUDED from the CRS calculation entirely; principal is scored on the single-applicant grid. State this and stop the scenario comparison; only single-grid arithmetic applies.
State explicitly which rule applies to [PRINCIPAL_NAME] and [SPOUSE_NAME].
§2 — SCENARIO A: With-spouse grid (use REDUCED ceilings on principal's factors PLUS spouse factors)
A1. Principal core (with-spouse maxes):
- Age: max 100 — [PRINCIPAL_AGE] points
- Education: max 140 — [PRINCIPAL_EDUCATION] points
- First lang: max 150 — [PRINCIPAL_LANGUAGE] points (per-ability max 32)
- Second lang: max 22
- Cdn work: max 70 — 0 points
A2. Spouse factors:
- Spouse education (max 10):
None/secondary: 0/2 | 1-yr post-sec: 6 | 2-yr: 7 | Bachelor's: 8 | Two credentials/Master's: 9 | PhD: 10
- Spouse first language (max 20 — 5 per ability):
CLB 4 or less: 0 | CLB 5-6: 1 | CLB 7-8: 3 | CLB 9+: 5
- Spouse Canadian work (max 10):
None: 0 | 1 yr: 5 | 2 yrs: 7 | 3 yrs: 8 | 4 yrs: 9 | 5+ yrs: 10
A3. Skill transferability (sub-cap 100) — compute as normal.
A4. Additional points — compute as normal (PNP, sibling, French, Cdn study, job offer).
A5. SCENARIO A total CRS.
§3 — SCENARIO B: Sole-applicant grid (full ceilings; no spouse factors)
B1. Principal core (single-applicant maxes):
- Age: max 110 — [PRINCIPAL_AGE] points (single grid)
- Education: max 150 — [PRINCIPAL_EDUCATION] points
- First lang: max 160 (per-ability max 34)
- Second lang: max 30
- Cdn work: max 80
B2. No spouse factors (skip §A2).
B3. Skill transferability (sub-cap 100).
B4. Additional points.
B5. SCENARIO B total CRS.
§4 — SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON
Print a clean two-column table:
Factor | Scenario A (with spouse) | Scenario B (sole)
--------------------------- | ------------------------ | -----------------
Age | __ | __
Education | __ | __
First language | __ | __
Second language | __ | __
Cdn work | __ | __
Spouse education | __ | (not applicable)
Spouse first language | __ | (not applicable)
Spouse Cdn work | __ | (not applicable)
Skill transferability | __ | __
Additional (PNP/etc) | __ | __
--------------------------- | ------------------------ | -----------------
TOTAL CRS | __ | __
State the delta: "Scenario [A or B] yields X more CRS points."
§5 — DECISION FRAMEWORK
The CRS delta is necessary but not sufficient. Even if the math favours one scenario, the family-law, future-PR, and admissibility considerations matter:
(a) Excluding a spouse from the APR carries IRPR R117(9)(d) consequences — that spouse may NEVER be sponsored under family class later. This is a permanent bar except in narrow exceptions. Critical to disclose to [PRINCIPAL_NAME].
(b) If [RELATIONSHIP_TYPE] is "engaged" or "conjugal" but not legally married / common-law, there is no spouse to include — principal files solo and there is no R117(9)(d) risk. Future sponsorship still works.
(c) If spouse is in Canada (visitor / study / work permit), accompanying spouse can convert to PR immediately on landing — strong argument for Scenario A.
(d) If spouse has a serious medical inadmissibility (excessive demand on health/social services per IRPA s.38), Scenario A risks the whole APR refusal. Consider medicals first.
(e) Spouse criminality (IRPA s.36) — Scenario A risks file refusal.
(f) Common-law cohabitation evidence is required at APR (lease, joint accounts, photos over 12+ months). If thin evidence, Scenario A may face procedural fairness letter.
§6 — RECOMMENDATION
One of:
(a) FILE WITH SPOUSE (Scenario A) — math favours, no R117(9)(d) risk worth, family unity priority. Add: optimisation steps for [SPOUSE_NAME] (e.g. IELTS retake, complete ECA) to push Scenario A higher.
(b) FILE SOLO (Scenario B) — math favours significantly (>30 CRS gap), and either (i) relationship is not yet a "spouse" under IRPR R1(1) so no R117(9)(d) bar OR (ii) spouse has serious admissibility concerns. WARNING: if (i), confirm with documents before filing; if (ii), document the rationale meticulously.
(c) WAIT — neither scenario hits target; pursue improvements for both (recommend prompt ca-points-crs-maximisation-strategy first).
§7 — R117(9)(d) WARNING — must state explicitly
"Under IRPR R117(9)(d), a foreign national is NOT a member of the family class if the sponsor failed to declare and have them examined as a non-accompanying family member at the time the sponsor became a PR. Excluding an existing spouse or common-law partner from your APR may permanently prevent you from sponsoring them later. There are limited exceptions; this is a load-bearing decision."
Hand-off: DRAFT — for RCIC review. Verify against current IRCC Express Entry draw history + category-based eligibility before submission.Unlock the vault to see the full prompt