That's fine, we disagree. We cannot all agree on everything. I see taking the time trouble and expense of including the affidavit of which you speak, as largely a wasted effort. The IRCC is smart enough to know that the affidavit is a thing writ in water. But, if it makes you feel good including it, by all means do so. In my assessment, what the IRCC looks at is what the TRV application sets out. They look at the applicant's finances, employment, income and assets, travel history to countries like U.S., U.K. etc. You pledging your oath that the applicant will go home when required really adds nothing. It's just words. They cannot enforce it and neither can you, for that matter.
As for the mechanism of swearing the affidavit, you suggest:
What makes you think the RCMP will step up and depose you? Even if they are willing, are all or most RCMP officers qualified as notaries public or commissioners for taking affidavits? I don't think so. There may be a few who hold office as commissioners, but limited to swearing affidavits related to their work and not generally. So their jurisdiction as commissioners would not extend to immigration matters.
Finally, you suggest JR if the application is denied. Do you think a reviewing judge will set aside the decision to deny because the IRCC was not persuaded by the affidavit? I see no prospect of that result.
Sorry if I sound overly critical here. I recognize that you are casting about for ways to reinforce an application and floating ideas. I would not want to put a prophylactic on that salutary process. That's one of the strengths of this forum. People generating ideas, comparing notes, working through issues as a community. So, while I find your affidavit idea as carrying some superficial appeal, I just don't see it as likely to turn an otherwise unsuccessful application into a winner.
Last edited:
