Need Advice - Unreasonable Visitor Visa Refusal
- Thread starter pepega
- Start date
Single(I just turned 27). Yes mentioned remote nature. Also stated that I don't need to be in a certain country to access a high paying job market.
As for property. I don't own property because it's a bad investment compared to stocks and index funds. I showed them all my stock investments that I have (US, India and EU).
Staying in Canada would be literal downgrade for me lol, somehow the officer doesn't understand that.
The last time I got the visa I had just graduated out of college and was making 20x less money compared to now. Had only 10k CAD in my account. If I was going to overstay I was most likely to do it then.
Had gone to visit aunt , uncle and cousin.
This time it was to visit them and attend a wedding
see from what you have mentioned till now, the refusal reason should be weak ties to home country since you are not leaving behind any dependants, dont have a job/ business which requires you to come back to India, and also no property that you need to manage. you can access all your savings, investments, and your job/ business from canada. this def. raises a red flag in the eyes of the immigration officer. Even though you dont intend to stay back in canada, in the eyes of the immigration officer/ visa officer, there are high chances that you could.
They look at all applications as potential immigrants and it is our duty to convince them that we are going to return back to our home country and not stay in canada.
Last time may be you had a job which meant you need to be in india for it, now you are working remotely & independtly, so u can work from canada also.
you also dont stay in your home country i.e, India on a regular basis, only 2 months out of a year.
You aren't married or have kids which would make you return to india, neither any property.
I can understand it can be very frustrating to get a refusal, but unfortunately this is how it works.
They look at all applications as potential immigrants and it is our duty to convince them that we are going to return back to our home country and not stay in canada.
Last time may be you had a job which meant you need to be in india for it, now you are working remotely & independtly, so u can work from canada also.
you also dont stay in your home country i.e, India on a regular basis, only 2 months out of a year.
You aren't married or have kids which would make you return to india, neither any property.
I can understand it can be very frustrating to get a refusal, but unfortunately this is how it works.
I stay in India 6 months of the year not 2.
I go back to India every 2 months when I'm abroad to visit family. In last 5 months I went to India 4 times.
Ties to home country was not mentioned as a reason since all my immediate family is there.
The main reason people stay in Canada is for higher income.
I don't need to do that. I explicitly told them that by living in a low cost of living country I will retire very early and so have no reason to be in Canada
As for dependants, my Mom is retired and dad is no more so obviously I have to be in India frequently.
i misunderstood the 6 months/ 2 months.
regarding the reasons for refusal, there are generic reasons which canada visa officers mention in ur refusal letter like inadequate funds, strong ties to canada, weak ties to india.
For family ties to india, your spouse and children are taken into consideration. if you are above 22 years, parents are not significant family ties.
Let's wait for ur GCMS notes, i think that should provide more clarity. if you can request them through a canadian MP, it will be delivered to you within 7 days. that can speed up the entire further process.
I've instructed my lawyer to file an ALJR, notes should come through the court faster.
Even if certain factors are weak, the officer is required to do a balance of probabilities test which looks at weak factors and balances them with strong ones and then a decision is made. This is a procedure from their training handbook.
In my case the only weak factor was that I was mobile without dependants.
While the strong ones were my financial situation, very strong and recent travel history and prior stay in Canada (was older than 22 then so again no dependants and a low paying job).
best of luck buddy, keep us updated. all these decisions are subjective, the visa officer probably found no strong reason for you to come back, good financial condition is no guarantee that you will come back, many rich people are also migrating to countries abroad from india.
the visa officer might have wanted to err on the side of caution. I really wish these guys had interviews for such cases so that applicant could explain their case easily. not everything can be communicated via documents.
Agreed.
Or maybe if the VO just asked himself what the applicant has to gain from staying in Canada.
For me it would have been:
Higher taxes
Lower wages
Higher cost of living
An artificially inflated housing market that pretty much ensures that new migrants are slaves to their employer
Cold for 8 months of the year
Other restrictions that come with being an illegal migrant
Does your employer have offices in Canada? What about customers/clients? Agree that your lack of ties to India is the major reason for denial. As already mentioned a parent is not considered a strong tie. The fact that you don’t live in India for the majority of the year also reinforces that your parent isn’t a very strong tie. Declaring that you work remotely and your goal is to spend long periods of time in various countries raises concerns that you aren’t a true visitor. You could try to move to Canada without applying for PR or a WP which wouldn’t be considered a true visitor. The fact that the wedding date has passed means attending a wedding is no longer a reason for travel. How long did you state that you wished to remain in Canada? You may find things like the weather a negative while others consider Canadian weather ideal. The majority like to do outdoor activities like ski and snowboard or can’t deal with the heat and humidity. Although your arguments are reasonable the fact that you have minimal ties to India would raise concern about potentially remaining in Canada. If you have confirmation of where you will be living in the fall for example that would provide additional proof that you don’t intend to stay in Canada and are only planning on visiting family in Canada briefly. Proof of flights for your next remote work destination would also be additional proof.
Last edited:
I have no clients or customers in Canada. All in the US or EU.
The fact that after travelling to so many countries I still return to India should be enough proof that I don't have any immigrant intent. Especially since I was in the US just last month for 4 weeks which is a place with superior opportunities.
My work involves meeting clients which is why I travel for half the year. I can't change the facts but there is enough proof that I have no immigrant intent. The officer should have applied the balance of probabilities test. The law only states that the officer should be satisfied that the TR will leave Canada.
In my case there are enough factors to offset my mobility.
If I had no travel history then the denial would make sense.
Regarding ties to India, The officer never even stated that as a reason.
I never declared I would spend a long time in different countries. My trip to Canada was only going to be for 2 weeks. My longest time spent in a country was about 3 months at a time and that too because I was on a sailboat going to different islands in the middle of nowhere( Rodrigues, Agalega)
The reason for travel was to meet family AND attend a wedding. I explicitly stated I would still want to visit my family there if processing took longer.
Additionally I've been there before to visit the same family members.
If the officer truly thinks that I would try to move there without applying for a PR or WP then they need to have a rational chain of analysis to support that decision while taking into account all the other info presented in the application. The FC has repeatedly stated that all factors in the application must be accounted for, an officer cannot only pick certain factors and render a decision.
Besides, the number one factor for someone to overstay is economic and work opportunities in a country.
While the second one would be having immediate family there and none in their home country.
Quick update:
I got my GCMS notes through the court.
It's clear that they didn't even read all my documents.
Notes essentially say:
"Documents do not show applicant is financially established and that the proposed visit would be a reasonable expense. "
Additionally, I was in the US on a business trip when I applied and notes say "no evidence of purpose or status in the USA which raises concerns on establishment in the US." (I'm a visitor here, why tf do you care about establishment in the US)
I had clearly mentioned I'm here for a business trip and uploaded a copy of my Visa. Additionally, I had informed them after I departed the US and went to Turkey for a vacation and the refusal decision was made after they already knew I had departed.
I had attached 3 months of detailed invoices showing consistent income.
Additionally, I had shown 80k CAD as liquid funds along with lots more money in stock investments.
Also attached was a certificate of earnings for the last one year showing I made 100k+ USD.
Travel history was quite extensive as well. 6-7 countries visited in the last 2 years.
And yet the officer came to the conclusion that the proposed visit would not be a reasonable expense? What kind of braindead person would think that? Especially when I've done shorter trips to destinations that are even harder to reach.
Makes me wonder what kind of people IRCC is hiring.
I got my GCMS notes through the court.
It's clear that they didn't even read all my documents.
Notes essentially say:
"Documents do not show applicant is financially established and that the proposed visit would be a reasonable expense. "
Additionally, I was in the US on a business trip when I applied and notes say "no evidence of purpose or status in the USA which raises concerns on establishment in the US." (I'm a visitor here, why tf do you care about establishment in the US)
I had clearly mentioned I'm here for a business trip and uploaded a copy of my Visa. Additionally, I had informed them after I departed the US and went to Turkey for a vacation and the refusal decision was made after they already knew I had departed.
I had attached 3 months of detailed invoices showing consistent income.
Additionally, I had shown 80k CAD as liquid funds along with lots more money in stock investments.
Also attached was a certificate of earnings for the last one year showing I made 100k+ USD.
Travel history was quite extensive as well. 6-7 countries visited in the last 2 years.
And yet the officer came to the conclusion that the proposed visit would not be a reasonable expense? What kind of braindead person would think that? Especially when I've done shorter trips to destinations that are even harder to reach.
Makes me wonder what kind of people IRCC is hiring.
Agree that expense does not make sense if the 80k is cash and nit in fixed deposits. Applying from a third country and not having solid ties to your home country is the major issue with your application. You can certainly apply for reconsideration especially when it comes to proof of funds. Reconsideration is applicable in cases where evidence submitted has been missed. Is the 80k in fixed deposits or liquid cash?
80K CAD was in Liquid cash just sitting in the bank. I'm 27 years old and having 80K in liquid cash easily proves enough financial establishment. Especially when most of this money has been sitting around for a few months.
Besides the liquid cash, I also showed 50k CAD in the American Stock Market and 120k CAD invested in the Indian stock market. The dividends(3-4%) I receive from these investments alone are enough to pay for multiple trips to Canada.
And when talking about if a trip would be a reasonable expense, My travel history shows trips I took just to go to remote islands far out in the middle of nowhere just for a few days and yet visiting family in Canada would be an unreasonable expense?
Notes say nothing about not having solid ties to home country because I provided enough evidence to ties to home country.
The only two points of argument they had was finances and status in the USA.