TRV refused for my mother - Huge stress during pregnancy

[edinera]

My mother is a single parent living in India and she is working for a private organisation for past 20 years. Her salary is around 15K per month. I am a permanent resident in Canada and my husband is in his work permit. I had invited my mother to visit me in Canada during my pregnancy for 6 months.

Her visitor visa is rejected for the following reasons:
1) Travel History
> Yes, that is true as my mother hasn't traveled.

2)i am not satisfied that you have sufficient funds including income or assets, to carry out your stated purpose in going to Canada or to maintain yourself while in Canada and to effect your departure.
> We showed her Net worth document assessed by a CA worth 37 lakhs including her salary per annum, bank balance of 2.75 lakhs which is around 5500 CAD, jewels and a plot in my mother's name.
> Me and my husband showed our bank statements having around 14K CAD.

In my invitation letter, i had mentioned that i am pregnant and it would be really helpful if my mother could stay with me for 6 months and help me during my pregnancy and few months after the baby is to be born as both me and my husband are working. I had also stated that she would leave after her visa expires as she will have to resume office after 6 months.

My mother had also submitted no-objection letter from her employer stating that she was granted leave for 6 months.

It would be really helpful if someone can help me with the following questions.
1) In my first invitation letter i had failed to mention that my mother takes care of my Grandmother who is 80 years old and she definitely has to return to India to look after my Grandma who would be staying alone during my mothers absence.

>Will it be helpful if i add this information to show that she would definitely return back?

2) In terms of funds, i have a property in India that is worth 85 lakhs for which i have appointed my mother as the power of attorney. She also gets a rent of 10K per month from it

>Will it be helpful if we also mention this as both the owner (myself) and the power of attorney (my mother) can't stay in Canada as there has to be someone to manage that property. So my mother has to eventually return to look after this property?
>Can we add this property in her net worth document as she is my power of attorney

3) There is also a discrepancy in my marriage certificate. It states that my mother is a house wife but she is actually working. Since neither mine nor my husband's passport had spousal name, we had submitted our marriage certificate.

> Could this have been an issue?
> Now my husband's passport has my name as his spouse. Yet my passport doesn't have this information. Is it ok to submit my husband's passport copy to show that we are married instead of our marriage certificate that has this discrepancy?

4) Also please let me know if any other documents could be required?

Any help on this regards is highly appreciated as this has been a huge stress on me during my pregnancy.

 

[scylla]

Six months is far too long for someone with no travel history. I would ask for a three week trip when you reapply.

 

[edinera]

Hi scylla,

Thank you for the reply.

Sure i would apply for three weeks this time. Apart from this do you have any other suggestions for my queries?

 

[mikeymyke]

3 weeks is better, however you mentioned that you want your mom to help watch your baby while you and your husband go work, that's a big no-no, as your mother would be considered working illegally, as silly as it sounds.

They refused your mom despite having large amount of assets. I'm guessing this must be because you showed a net worth document wasn't considered good enough or didn't seem legitimate. Try showing a document from a bank or government office about the property. Get a bank statement for the accounts. etc

 

[Bryanna]

Hi,

I agree with mikeymyke.... stating your mom is visiting to take care of you/your baby pretty much guarantees a TRV refusal in most cases.

When was your mom refused and when do you plan to reapply?

> We showed her Net worth document assessed by a CA worth 37 lakhs including her salary per annum, bank balance of 2.75 lakhs which is around 5500 CAD, jewels and a plot in my mother's name.

What documents did you submit for each of these assets?
Hope the bank balance does not have any last-minute borrowings.

My mother had also submitted no-objection letter from her employer stating that she was granted leave for 6 months.

I'm assuming her salary of 15K is INR15,000.... this along with a NOC from the employer for 6 months shows extremely weak employment ties.

You could consider a leave approval letter for 3-4 weeks stating she will have her job.... with evidence that she must return for some professional commitment/collect pension (something along these lines, if possible)

1) In my first invitation letter i had failed to mention that my mother takes care of my Grandmother who is 80 years old and she definitely has to return to India to look after my Grandma who would be staying alone during my mothers absence.

Proofs that your grandmom and your mom live at the same address + any other evidence (and I hope your grandmom is in the best of health) such as any scheduled visits to a doctor/medical check-up/minor surgery

Also, you could mention that another relative will stay temporarily with your grandmom while your mom is away..... instead of stating that your grandmom will take care of herself/live alone.

2) In terms of funds, i have a property in India that is worth 85 lakhs for which i have appointed my mother as the power of attorney. She also gets a rent of 10K per month from it

Copy of the PoA + property ownership papers translated into English (if required) + self-valuation based on current market rates + supporting documents for market rates (property reports, property realty sites).

Is the rent credited into a joint bank account with yourself?
Does your mom pay for utility bills, property tax, society maintenance, etc on your behalf?
If your property is in a registered housing society.... does your mom attend AGMs on your behalf? If yes, what evidence do you have for this?

>Will it be helpful if we also mention this as both the owner (myself) and the power of attorney (my mother) can't stay in Canada as there has to be someone to manage that property.

This depends on the POA clauses.... does the POA state your mom can pay your utility bills, represent you for legal/government/etc matters, carry out repairs and maintenance, etc?

>Can we add this property in her net worth document as she is my power of attorney

No, it is legally on your name.... it cannot be added to her net worth.

However, you can show the rent as the available funds for her visit if the rent is deposited in a joint bank account with your mom.... or if you have any documents that state your mom can access and utilize this rent for her expenses.

3) There is also a discrepancy in my marriage certificate. It states that my mother is a house wife but she is actually working. Since neither mine nor my husband's passport had spousal name, we had submitted our marriage certificate.

> Could this have been an issue?

No, this will not be an issue

> Now my husband's passport has my name as his spouse. Yet my passport doesn't have this information. Is it ok to submit my husband's passport copy to show that we are married instead of our marriage certificate that has this discrepancy?

Yes, you can


Cheers

 

[edinera]

When was your mom refused and when do you plan to reapply?

We applied on April 4th and got the refusal letter on April 14th. Planning to apply on May 1st, 2016. (15 days after the refussal) Does the reapplying date makes sense or do you think i have to give it more time ?

What documents did you submit for each of these assets?

The document that i submitted for each of the assets was a Net Worth document. It is a document where we submit proofs to an auditor and he assesses the value of these assets and issues a letter stating the worth of each asset.

Hope the bank balance does not have any last-minute borrowings.

We submitted a bank statement for 6 months. For the past 6 months, there has been constant money flow with credits and debits equaling Rs. 2,00,000 - 3,00,000 (4000 - 6000 CAD). The month of February had not much activity with balance being less than Rs. 15,000 (300 CAD). From March 15th there has been a gradual increase and the statement was taken on March 23 with Rs 2,75,000 (5500 CAD)
Will this be considered a last minute deposit ?

Is the rent credited into a joint bank account with yourself?

The rent is not deposited in any bank account. It is given as cash to my mother for which a receipt is given to the tenant. My mother issues this receipt as she has the power. Can i use this as her income showing copy of these receipts ?

Does your mom pay for utility bills, property tax, society maintenance, etc on your behalf?

The electricity connection is in her name and property tax is paid on her name.

If your property is in a registered housing society.... does your mom attend AGMs on your behalf? If yes, what evidence do you have for this?

She is also the joint secretary for the housing society. But i may have to verify if she has any proof for the position she holds.

does the POA state your mom can pay your utility bills, represent you for legal/government/etc matters, carry out repairs and maintenance, etc?

The POA does state that she can maintain all my properties and affairs in India. It also states that she can represent me for legal/government/etc matters as well.

On these basis will it be helpful to mention that she has to return to India to maintain this property ?

 

[BrianDell]

My mother is a single parent from India

Believe me when I say I feel your pain because we're in the same situation and in Chinese culture it is imperative to have a family member carer for a month after birth. My mother-in-law got rejected anyway. One thing that particularly annoyed me was the visa application centre sending an email saying the "processed passport" was being returned. I promptly assumed approval because in the case of refusal there is no processing of the passport in any ordinary sense of the term, it's just returned without doing anything to it like pasting a visa foil into it. Apparently "processed passport" meant passport following processed (and refused!) application.

If her monthly income is less than 300 Canadian which is what it sounds like, it would almost be better if she was simply retired in terms of the application because if she were retired at least she'd apparently have no need to continue working. Having a job does create a tie that would compel her return, but it's so weak by Canadian income standards that it may well be outweighed by the increased risk, relative to her being retired and supported by pension or asset income that she could only collect in India, that she'd work illegally in Canada. That prospect might bother them more than an overstay risk (I cannot understand the obsession with overstay risk, to be frank, what really is the harm to society when they can't access taxpayer funded benefits etc; this is no apology for overstays who ruin it for everyone else but rather to ask whether the grief created by refusals in circumstances like ours is fully warranted by the need to avoid even the mere possibility of the "grief" to society caused by an overstay).

If you were to apply again and be successful, please let us know. You might want to change things up somehow though by, say, applying for a supervisa this time if that hasn't been done yet.

I'm not as convinced as other posters that saying the parent will care for family members is perceived as an attempt to bring in a live-in caregiver without doing a Labour Market Impact Assessment, or what have you. Someone bringing in a spouse as a permanent resident who adds that the spouse would care for the family children would not normally be suspected of trying to evade regulations. A loved one and an employee are not interchangeable, even if the loved one works in the home for the family's benefit. I don't live with my wife because she's the family maid and the same "non-interchangeable" logic would apply if living with my mother-in-law.

 

[mikeymyke]

That prospect might bother them more than an overstay risk (I cannot understand the obsession with overstay risk, to be frank, what really is the harm to society when they can't access taxpayer funded benefits etc)

I'm not as convinced as other posters that saying the parent will care for family members is perceived as an attempt to bring in a live-in caregiver without doing a Labour Market Impact Assessment, or what have you. Someone bringing in a spouse as a permanent resident who adds that the spouse would care for the family children would not normally be suspected of trying to evade regulations. A loved one and an employee are not interchangeable, even if the loved one works in the home for the family's benefit. I don't live with my wife because she's the family maid and the same "non-interchangeable" logic would apply if living with my mother-in-law.

Overstayers might not have access to taxpayer benefits, but the harm could include not knowing their full backgrounds or criminal histories and what they could do here, taking potential jobs from Canadians/PRs, if they need medical attention, they would be taking the resources from Canadian taxpayers (no hospital would refuse to treat an illegal), etc, bottom line is they're supposed to obey the immigration laws by leaving when they're supposed to, but you know, there are reasons certain countries require visas to enter, and it's usually because people from these countries have a history of overstaying.

You will also find that if you pick any random country that Canada requires a visa to enter, the US, Europe, Australia will likely have done the same, so it's not like Canada is being solely "discriminatory" to certain countries, it's because these countries have too many potential overstayers that other nations have to impose the same visa restrictions o n them as well.

As for inviting her mother over to babysit her child, CIC would perceive it as had she not invite her mother-in-law, a Canadian or PR could've taken the job of watching her child instead. I'm not just speculating on this, I've personally read the stories and refusal notes of others here, and they all mention the same thing. I know it sounds silly as having the mom-in-law watch her grandchild seems a natural familial thing to do and it would at least give her something to do here instead of being bored out of her mind, but that's how it is. I've seen more people be refused due to "Purpose of Visit" than anything else.

 

[BrianDell]

not knowing their full backgrounds or criminal histories

They know a lot more about the million people who applied for a visa than about the other 30 million plus who entered the country and weren't required to apply for a visa. Criminal history is irrelevant to visa refusal when looked at strictly since one can be visa exempt yet still can't enter Canada without a special permit if one has a criminal history. We are talking here about visa applicants who claim in their applications to have had no criminal convictions.

taking potential jobs from Canadians/PRs

The 800 thousand who got their visit visa approved could also take potential jobs away because they are on visit visas not work visas. As could the 30 million plus referred to earlier. I have my doubts about how many desirable jobs a 60 year old woman with no English or French could take away from Canadians/PRs anyway when the Canadian or PR would be a legal hire for the employer and the visitor would be illegal. If illegals were truly stealing jobs in a serious way the US would have built that wall Donald Trump is calling for long ago.

if they need medical attention, they would be taking the resources from Canadian taxpayers (no hospital would refuse to treat an illegal)

The visa officer could demand that a medical be done instead of refusing. The supervisa requirements already require both a medical and medical insurance, and I don't agree hospitals will treat anyone anytime. Someone brought in unconscious after a traffic accident, yes, but someone showing up at a clinic complaining of an ailment, no, I don't think so. People are asked to show their healthcare cards.

bottom line is they're supposed to obey the immigration laws by leaving when they're supposed to, but you know, there are reasons certain countries require visas to enter, and it's usually because people from these countries have a history of overstaying.

I talked to a US immigration officer in Hong Kong who worked out of the US embassy in Beijing. They refuse less than 10% and have fewer overstays and violations than Canada which refuses 25%. Most European countries refuse even less than the Americans (with respect to Chinese applicants, at least). Nobody would be objecting to a 5% refusal rate because I would think you'd get at least that much based just on obviously fraudulent documents or other issues that raise PARTICULAR suspicions as opposed to general suspicions based solely on marital status, age, and having family in Canada that one could stay with. If the police profiled people like immigration officers do the outrage would be enormous. The issue here is that tens of thousands are refused who have fully obeyed immigration law and would fully obey immigration laws. Surely you'd admit that innocents are being caught up in the dragnet here. The issue is whether punishing 10 innocents to avoid 1 guilty going free constitutes justice. Just how much damage is that one guilty offender going to do? We evidently differ on that point.

At a minimum, they could start telling people the real reason for the refusal by admitting to them that it's their demographic profile. But if they did that, people would lie more about those things, so visa officers pretend it's the financial documents that matter. Did you know that the Americans could hardly care less about documents?

 

[BrianDell]

a Canadian or PR could've taken the job of watching her child instead

If she's busy with her grandchild to a level equivalent to denying a hypothetical Canadian caregiver a job where would grandma find the time to work illegally? Wasn't it contended that the threat of working illegally was a prime reason for refusal? I would think claiming that the applicant would be idle (thereby nipping in the bud the stealing a job from a hired caregiver argument) would increase that threat instead of defusing it.

Like I said, as with the case of spousal relationships, people leave their kids in the care of grandpa and grandma a lot more often than the neighbours and that's because convenience/cost side of the equation is not the only issue.

Why is there a live-in caregiver program to bring people in if there's already enough people who are already "in" to do the job?

I've seen more people be refused due to "Purpose of Visit" than anything else.

As have I. But I think saying there's a very commonsense time limited rationale for the applicant to be here helps with "Purpose of Visit" instead of hurting. I think you're just speculating to be frank unless you've got more specific evidence that applicants are being refused because if they join their children they'd be taking live-in caregiver jobs away from Canadians/PRs. Of course, one can go too far here and say something approaching "if grandma didn't come we'd be hiring a Canadian who needs a job" but the issue here is simply saying grandma is needed (but not indefinitely) and only grandma will do ("it would be really helpful if my mother could stay with me for 6 month" - original poster).

 

[mikeymyke]

They know a lot more about the million people who applied for a visa than about the other 30 million plus who entered the country and weren't required to apply for a visa. Criminal history is irrelevant to visa refusal when looked at strictly since one can be visa exempt yet still can't enter Canada without a special permit if one has a criminal history. We are talking here about visa applicants who claim in their applications to have had no criminal convictions.

An overstayer can be from either a visa exempt country or a non-exempt one. Criminal records in certain countries may or may not be reliable depending on that country's criminal system. I'm sure criminal records from the US are far more reliable than ones coming from Pakistan.

The 800 thousand who got their visit visa approved could also take potential jobs away because they are on visit visas not work visas. As could the 30 million plus referred to earlier. I have my doubts about how many desirable jobs a 60 year old woman with no English or French could take away from Canadians/PRs anyway when the Canadian or PR would be a legal hire for the employer and the visitor would be illegal. If illegals were truly stealing jobs in a serious way the US would have built that wall Donald Trump is calling for long ago.

It doesn't matter if a job is desirable or not, or requires English. A job is a job, for any potential Canadian, and even if a job is "undesirable", that job does not belong to an illegal. Another issue that occurs is when there are enough illegals here, more smaller companies might choose to hire illegals for smaller wages rather than take on Canadians on a fair wage. More illegals just compound that problem. For example, you have a 60 year old woman who can't speak English from Hong Kong. She could be working at a mom-and-pop Chinese restaurant that's willing to take her in rather than hiring a 60 year old Canadian. And don't compare us to what's going on with the US, they have over 11 million illegals, and they've been so lax with illegal immigration for decades, that now it's going to become more costly to kick them out.

The visa officer could demand that a medical be done instead of refusing. The supervisa requirements already require both a medical and medical insurance, and I don't agree hospitals will treat anyone anytime. Someone brought in unconscious after a traffic accident, yes, but someone showing up at a clinic complaining of an ailment, no, I don't think so. People are asked to show their healthcare cards.

Even if someone who is an illegal, shows up at a clinic, and pays out of pocket with their own money, why is that still a good thing? The fact is, that person is taking up a doctor's time, taking someone else's spot in line, when that spot should've belonged to a Canadian or PR. The same logic applies even when they're in a serious accident. They're still taking up a hospital bed, a doctor/nurse's time, medication, etc when all that stuff should be going to a taxpaying Canadian/PR. Our medical clinics and hospitals are already strained from handling our own citizens, why should we still keep treating people who aren't even supposed to be here in the first place?

I talked to a US immigration officer in Hong Kong who worked out of the US embassy in Beijing. They refuse less than 10% and have fewer overstays and violations than Canada which refuses 25%. Most European countries refuse even less than the Americans (with respect to Chinese applicants, at least). Nobody would be objecting to a 5% refusal rate because I would think you'd get at least that much based just on obviously fraudulent documents or other issues that raise PARTICULAR suspicions as opposed to general suspicions based solely on marital status, age, and having family in Canada that one could stay with. If the police profiled people like immigration officers do the outrage would be enormous. The issue here is that tens of thousands are refused who have fully obeyed immigration law and would fully obey immigration laws. Surely you'd admit that innocents are being caught up in the dragnet here. The issue is whether punishing 10 innocents to avoid 1 guilty going free constitutes justice. Just how much damage is that one guilty offender going to do? We evidently differ on that point.

I agree with you that its outrageous that for example, out of 10 people, 1 of them would be an overstayer, 9 of them would absolutely obey the laws, but 9 of them have to face scrutiny just because of the 1 guy. But honestly what do you expect CIC to do? The 2 easiest things they could do is either allow everyone in from a country, or ban everyone from entering, both would be totally outrageous. Even people who come from visa exempt countries still aren't guaranteed entry here when they find out they dont intend to return home, work illegally, or violate their rules. Just that people from non exempt countries have to show a greater burden of proof since they are far greater numbers of them breaking the rules than the visa exempt ones. CIC's visa policies is just simply based on statistics, not country profiling. All other wealthy countries do the same thing. For the non visa exempt countries, you maybe have 1 out of every 20 guys who would overstay or work illegally, but with some of these non exempt countries, maybe it's closer to 1 out of 10 guys, and that's enough to impose a visa restriction. Again, they go off STATS, not country profiling.

If we take for example, China, why is it that not only Canada has a visa restriction, but also USA, Australia, UK, and most of Europe? Is everyone just profiling China? Or is it because a lot of Chinese citizens are breaking the visa rules? I could say this about Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and so on.

Honestly the easiest thing for both sides would be if only more people in these countries would just simply follow the rules, then Canada would remove visa restrictions, and more of them would be allowed to come. Canada would benefit from $ due to tourism, the visitors would benefit from seeing their families and visiting Canada, both sides win. Instead, more of one side wants to break the rules, so we have what we have now.

At a minimum, they could start telling people the real reason for the refusal by admitting to them that it's their demographic profile. But if they did that, people would lie more about those things, so visa officers pretend it's the financial documents that matter.

This is not true at all. They don't refuse because of their demographic profile. They impose visa restrictions because of their demographic profile yes, but never refuse just because someone's from a certain country. They refuse because they don't show sufficient proof they will leave. And yes not to worry, I know that there are many cases that even when the applicant sends in tons of proof, they'll still refuse. It's unfair sure, but again, blame that on the bad people from these countries that cause them to have to impose visa restrictions.

Did you know that the Americans could hardly care less about documents?

Hence, probably why they have 11 million illegals

 

[mikeymyke]

If she's busy with her grandchild to a level equivalent to denying a hypothetical Canadian caregiver a job where would grandma find the time to work illegally? Wasn't it contended that the threat of working illegally was a prime reason for refusal? I would think claiming that the applicant would be idle (thereby nipping in the bud the stealing a job from a hired caregiver argument) would increase that threat instead of defusing it.

If she's busy with her grandchild, then in CIC's eyes, she's already working illegally. I totally agree with you, I think it's silly to refuse a family member for that reason, as almost every family would have a relative watch their kids. It's normal in Canadian society. However, that's not how CIC sees it.

Why is there a live-in caregiver program to bring people in if there's already enough people who are already "in" to do the job?

Honestly I don't have a clear answer for you. I don't know if we have a caregiver shortage in Canada due to not many people liking the job, or if there is an abuse of the live-in caregiver program.

As have I. But I think saying there's a very commonsense time limited rationale for the applicant to be here helps with "Purpose of Visit" instead of hurting. I think you're just speculating to be frank unless you've got more specific evidence that applicants are being refused because if they join their children they'd be taking live-in caregiver jobs away from Canadians/PRs. Of course, one can go too far here and say something approaching "if grandma didn't come we'd be hiring a Canadian who needs a job" but the issue here is simply saying grandma is needed (but not indefinitely) and only grandma will do ("it would be really helpful if my mother could stay with me for 6 month" - original poster).

Again, I'm definitely not speculating about this. I've personally seen on this forum, with ACTUAL people going through this experience, and what they've told me, both through private messages and publicly. I've even seen their GCMS notes sometimes. I'm not a super expert, but I have definitely gone through this experience myself.

My wife is a citizen of Vietnam (a country which is difficult to get a visitor visa from), she was married to me at the time she applied for the visitor visa, also had her spousal PR application pending (by the way, you frequently mentioned in your old posts that the chances of getting a visitor visa are slim when a spouse is in Canada). And guess what? She not only got the visitor visa, she got one that's valid for the life of her passport and when she landed, they allowed her 6 month entry. Basically, she got the best possible result, despite the odds stacked against her, and the frequent comments by other forum users here saying it's impossible to get a visitor visa. Although part of the reason for the visa might have been luck, both of us spent 3 days compiling our documents and constantly exceeded the 4MB file limit, that we had to compress our font, remove some pics, to make the file fit. We absolutely did all our power to show she will not overstay, and my wife was then granted this TRV.

And another thing that might surprise you as well. My mother-in-law, who is also from Vietnam, is applying for a supervisa to come here. And just this morning, she got approved for a 10 year visa, which is the maximum allowed for a super visa. And once again, I helped prepare her application, and did everything I can to show she will not overstay or work illegally. My wife's due to give birth in June, and we stated on the purpose of visit that my mom in law will NOT be taking care of our child, but rather she will simply spend time with us and our family. To further drive home that point, I mentioned on the application that my mom in law won't be working illegally taking care of our child since my wife will also be staying at home with the baby, my mom in law is just simply there for support and being with us.

I don't consider myself an expert in visitor visas, but I've not only witnessed what other forum users have gone through, but I've also gone through the process myself. As you can see, my wife and mom in law, both Vietnamese, both requiring biometrics to enter Canada (you know how hard it is to get a visitor visa when you're one of few countries that require biometrics to enter, and Hong Kong doesn't even require biometrics), and yet both got the best results for their visitor visas. I always get a new message every couple days from someone asking for help with their visas, and I'm always happy when I help someone avoid an interview, or get approved. I don't know how much you yourself have experienced doing the visas, and you seem like an intelligent man, but it makes me a bit upset when you say that I'm "speculating" when I'm simply going off first hand experience.

So let's see, I got both women maximum length of stay for their visitor visas, my wife's only PR visa took only 6 months compared to 30 month posted time for Singapore visa office, maybe I'm just lucky right? Or maybe I just knew how to compile their applications to the best of my ability and prove to CIC that both women are not overstay risks? Yes that's right, I have first hand experience with this. I might not know every single thing, and I even sometimes post incorrect info, but this subject, I definitely feel I got it down.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think maybe you're just bitter because your own mother in law was refused or you guys didn't do a good enough job to convince CIC your mother will leave Canada. That happens, sometimes you can have the best documents in the world and still be refused.

 

[Bryanna]

Mikeymyke,

Hearty congratulations to you.... best wishes, happiness and good health for your wife and baby

 

[Bryanna]

@edinera

Planning to apply on May 1st, 2016. (15 days after the refussal) Does the reapplying date makes sense or do you think i have to give it more time ?

May 1 is a holiday unless you're applying online.

Your mom has a pretty good chance if you present her strong ties properly.... my advice is for you to prepare the paperwork well. Do not rush

It is a document where we submit proofs to an auditor and he assesses the value of these assets and issues a letter stating the worth of each asset.

You must also include proofs for every asset.... not just the CA's report + any supporting reports/information/market rates from third party sources/websites to back the CA's valuation.

For the past 6 months, there has been constant money flow with credits and debits equaling Rs. 2,00,000 - 3,00,000 (4000 - 6000 CAD).

This is one of the reasons why your mom was refused.... as these are last-minute borrowings which do not match her income.

Does your mom have FDs, RDs, mutual funds, shares, etc.... which can be liquidated if required?

It is given as cash to my mother for which a receipt is given to the tenant.

Your mom can include this rental income as funds available for her visit.

Do include a copy of the rent agreement + 3-4 months rent receipts issued by your mom

The electricity connection is in her name and property tax is paid on her name.

Do include a copy of the latest electricity bill + proof of payment for it (preferably by cheque from your mom's bank account).

Are you sure the Property Tax receipt is issued on your mom's name + the Property Tax bill has your mom's name?

She is also the joint secretary for the housing society. But i may have to verify if she has any proof for the position she holds.

Hon.Chairman/ Hon.Secretary/ Members of a Managing Committee of a registered society are elected through a well-documented process at an AGM.

Technically, your mom is not an owner of your property.... hence, she is not a member.... she is probably an associate member.

If your mom is a joint Hon.Secretary, she was probably co-opted to this position.... and there will be evidence in the Society records to confirm this.

You can include a letter from the Hon.Chairman stating your mom's hon.position as the office bearer + her tenure + her responsibilities + copies of recent Managing Committee meetings that mom has attended.

If the next AGM is scheduled (normally until August/September each year, depending on which city your property is located).... then do include the Agenda and Minutes as a reason for your mom to return to India.

The POA does state that she can maintain all my properties and affairs in India.

Yes, please include the POA and other relevant documents which I have mentioned in my previous message.


Apart from this, you could also purchase an overseas travel medical insurance policy for the dates your mom will visit.... refundable, can be cancelled for a fee. This is not mandatory but it shows that you have taken care of any medical eventuality


Cheers

 

[edinera]

Thanks Bryanna..

This is one of the reasons why your mom was refused.... as these are last-minute borrowings which do not match her income.
Does your mom have FDs, RDs, mutual funds, shares, etc.... which can be liquidated if required?

In order to mitigate the effects of last minute deposits in to my mother's account that does not match her income, her employer has come forward to do the following to prove that the money in my Mother's account is totally hers and not a last minute borrowing.

"In order to carry out her travel plans, and the fact that she has been associated with us for the past 19 years, out of good will we have decided to pay her a part of the amount that she would receive when she resigns/retires, upfront.
Also we have agreed upon, that she will have to work for us for a minimum of 2 more years after she returns in order to be eligible to collect the remaining gratuity money that she is entitled to."

This payment would be around 4000 CAD.

Will it be a good idea if her employer issues such a certificate stating the following?