Spousal Sponsorship in-land Applications 2016 timeline and updates

[carolbb23]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/undercover-investigation-unmasks-cash-for-jobs-chinese-immigration-scheme-1.4159137

:/

Can anyone count the number of fraud charges? We don't need to look at tax evasion -- despite the open admission to it, we can let CRA look into that one...

Nothing surprises me there and sometimes this fruad goes on in the other communities

 

[carolbb23]

Well, I have a slightly prejudiced view, of course. Personally, not only would I think it would be worth it, but maybe even more.

That said, yes, they probably wouldn't want to pay $200k if they were not going to make any of that money back by working.

There is "advantages" to calling Canada home (even becoming a citizen). Part of the reason they brought in the RPRF, is to "offset" the cost of running the immigration program, and as a means to pay for the increase in "market value". If you live in the Commonwealth, or you live in the USA, then there likely isn't a value increase sufficient. But, if you want to work in industries where Canada is considered a leader, then you want to pay the money to be here.

However, I think consultants are slimy, greasy "human beings" ("so-called judges"). Not all of them, of course, but many...

People do anything to come to canada at all cost

 

[dominicantiguan]

From your board breaking fingers to IRCC's DM granting Officers list.

BTW, I sent a follow up e-mail to Sahid's office and just got a response:
______________________________________________________
Good afternoon,

Thank you for contacting the constituency office for MP Salma Zahid.

We can provide you with the following details about the status of your Application to sponsor a spouse living inside Canada:

• The application was received at the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga (CPC-M), Ontario on March 30, 2016.
• The initial assessment to ensure you meet the eligibility criteria and that the application is complete, has been finalized on May 4, 2017.
• The responsible office reviewed the application and documents submitted to determine if your spouse meets the eligibility requirements.

o the eligibility requirements assessment has been finalized on May 4, 2017.

• The medical examination results are on file and valid until July 26, 2017.
• The criminality verifications have been in process since May 3, 2017.
• The security verifications have been in process since October 11, 2016.
• As per our current processing times, it may take up to 26 months to finalize the application. However, processing times indicated on our website are approximate, and can vary with each individual case.
• If the application is approved:
  • the officer will send an approval letter to your spouse to advise that they will be contacted by the local office with an appointment for the final determination interview (to grant permanent resident status).
• If the application is refused:
  • the officer will send your spouse a refusal letter, and
  • a copy of the refusal letter will also be sent to you including instructions to obtain a refund of the Right of Permanent Residence Fee, if it was already paid.

You may also consult the online Help Centre or our website to find answers to other questions you may have.


We hope this information is helpful. If you require more information, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Sincerely,

Adlan Taramov


Constituency Assistant
Office of Salma Zahid, MP
E-mail | Courriel: salma.zahid.c1b@parl.gc.ca

P Before printing this e-mail, think about the Environment
________________________

Is there a reason they don't mention the "Procedural fairness letter" if refused?

 

[profiler]

Is there a reason they don't mention the "Procedural fairness letter" if refused?

At the stage that Browning911's hub is at, they don't need more information. It's the same as trying to cross the border.

 

[profiler]

@Gloria217 @sylvain1 @carolbb23 @browning911:
From CIC IP-8 regarding post-refusal:
"
17.4 Response to enquiries after refusal
Applicants or their representatives often submit information after a refusal and request that an officer reconsider the decision. If an office receives a request to reconsider a decision, an officer must consider the request and decide whether or not to exercise their discretion to reconsider the previous decision. The legal doctrine of functus officio does not automatically bar reconsideration of final decisions (MCI v. Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230).

The decision maker may exercise discretion to reconsider, or refuse to reconsider the applicant’s request for reopening a previous decision. However, a decision to reopen and reassess an application should only be undertaken where warranted, on an exceptional basis. An applicant’s dissatisfaction or disagreement with the decision does not by itself qualify as an exceptional case.

The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the officer that reconsideration is warranted. The decision maker should consider all relevant factors and circumstances to determine whether an application merits reconsideration. The decision whether or not to reconsider the application must be recorded in GCMS and communicated to the applicant. The applicant’s correspondence requesting reconsideration and any supporting documents should be retained on file.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be relevant to consider:

• whether the decision-maker failed to comply with the principles of procedural fairness when the decision was made.
• whether the applicant has requested correction of a clerical or other error (e.g. a decision was made by an officer who did not have the delegated authority).
• if new evidence is submitted by an applicant, is the evidence based on new facts (i.e. facts that arose after the original decision was made and communicated to the applicant) and is it material and reliable. Decide whether that evidence would be more appropriately considered in the context of a new application.
• when additional evidence is presented that was available at the time of the original decision, why it was not submitted at the time of the original application – determine whether that evidence is material and reliable.
• the passage of time between the date of the original decision and the date of the reconsideration.
• whether there were any concerns regarding fraud or misrepresentation relating to a material fact, in the original decision or with the new submissions.

It is preferable that the initial decision-maker review any request for reconsideration. However, where that is not possible, a request for reconsideration can be reviewed by a different decision maker as long as that person has authority to make decisions of the type under review.

Officers rendering a decision on whether or not to reconsider should ensure that the following information is entered in GCMS notes:

• the name of the officer rendering a decision on the reconsideration request;
• the reconsideration decision;
• the date of the reconsideration decision;
• the reasons for the reconsideration decision
• the date the reconsideration decision was communicated to the applicant

Note: The decision whether or not to reconsider is subject to the possibility of judicial review. Taking the above measures will ensure that, in the event a refused applicant submits a leave to appeal to the Federal Court, there is an official record and supporting information on file to reflect that CIC received, assessed and rendered a decision on a reconsideration request.
"

CIC IP-8 (Pg 62-63): http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip08-eng.pdf

 

[dominicantiguan]

At the stage that Browning911's hub is at, they don't need more information. It's the same as trying to cross the border.

oh okay, well then. I think If I don't hear anything by Friday.. I will finally contact or ask my wife to contact the MP.

 

[profiler]

oh okay, well then. I think If I don't hear anything by Friday.. I will finally contact or ask my wife to contact the MP.

Didn't you just submit an updated form like...2 weeks ago? It will take them 30 days from the day you send that in until it's attached to your file. Then likely another 30 before they come around to the file again. That's a guess. You can try the MP route, but apparently that's been really hit-and-miss

 

[profiler]

@Gloria217 @sylvain1 @carolbb23 @browning911:
From CIC IP-8 regarding post-refusal:
"
17.4 Response to enquiries after refusal
Applicants or their representatives often submit information after a refusal and request that an officer reconsider the decision. If an office receives a request to reconsider a decision, an officer must consider the request and decide whether or not to exercise their discretion to reconsider the previous decision. The legal doctrine of functus officio does not automatically bar reconsideration of final decisions (MCI v. Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230).

The decision maker may exercise discretion to reconsider, or refuse to reconsider the applicant’s request for reopening a previous decision. However, a decision to reopen and reassess an application should only be undertaken where warranted, on an exceptional basis. An applicant’s dissatisfaction or disagreement with the decision does not by itself qualify as an exceptional case.

The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the officer that reconsideration is warranted. The decision maker should consider all relevant factors and circumstances to determine whether an application merits reconsideration. The decision whether or not to reconsider the application must be recorded in GCMS and communicated to the applicant. The applicant’s correspondence requesting reconsideration and any supporting documents should be retained on file.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be relevant to consider:

• whether the decision-maker failed to comply with the principles of procedural fairness when the decision was made.
• whether the applicant has requested correction of a clerical or other error (e.g. a decision was made by an officer who did not have the delegated authority).
• if new evidence is submitted by an applicant, is the evidence based on new facts (i.e. facts that arose after the original decision was made and communicated to the applicant) and is it material and reliable. Decide whether that evidence would be more appropriately considered in the context of a new application.
• when additional evidence is presented that was available at the time of the original decision, why it was not submitted at the time of the original application – determine whether that evidence is material and reliable.
• the passage of time between the date of the original decision and the date of the reconsideration.
• whether there were any concerns regarding fraud or misrepresentation relating to a material fact, in the original decision or with the new submissions.

It is preferable that the initial decision-maker review any request for reconsideration. However, where that is not possible, a request for reconsideration can be reviewed by a different decision maker as long as that person has authority to make decisions of the type under review.

Officers rendering a decision on whether or not to reconsider should ensure that the following information is entered in GCMS notes:

• the name of the officer rendering a decision on the reconsideration request;
• the reconsideration decision;
• the date of the reconsideration decision;
• the reasons for the reconsideration decision
• the date the reconsideration decision was communicated to the applicant

Note: The decision whether or not to reconsider is subject to the possibility of judicial review. Taking the above measures will ensure that, in the event a refused applicant submits a leave to appeal to the Federal Court, there is an official record and supporting information on file to reflect that CIC received, assessed and rendered a decision on a reconsideration request.
"

CIC IP-8 (Pg 62-63): http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip08-eng.pdf

So, what I read from this is, you most certainly can request they reconsider, and supply as much info as you can. You need to do this like ASAP. When you do, take copies, as they won't return them to you when you make this request.

And, for the love of god, never vote for that MP again!

EDIT: In your letter requesting reconsideration (CC the lazy MP), and make note that you did not receive a request for documents. You had believed that you supplied enough proof when you applied. You also did not receive a Procedural Fairness letter outlining the demand for more relationship proof. In light of this, you would formally request that they reconsider your application. You have attached the additional proofs.

At that point, you literally cannot do any more with this file. If they choose to reopen and reassess, then ok. They may still want an interview. Who knows. But this is the last-ditch, take-it-or-leave-it, hail-mary-pass on this file.

If you want help to write the letter, let me know.

 

[ripper44]

Good afternoon gang! Profiler, thanks for helping the group through this process, its greatly appreciated! I want to follow up on a question I asked earlier. We were asked for PCCs in April through email (nothing in Ecas or mycic) and sent them in. Due to how slow Mexico does them, we filled out the web form for an extension. Nothing shows up in mycic, the request or the extension. Is that something to be worried about?

 

[profiler]

Good afternoon gang! Profiler, thanks for helping the group through this process, its greatly appreciated! I want to follow up on a question I asked earlier. We were asked for PCCs in April through email (nothing in Ecas or mycic) and sent them in. Due to how slow Mexico does them, we filled out the web form for an extension. Nothing shows up in mycic, the request or the extension. Is that something to be worried about?

Not really. Did you send them in, or ask for an extension? You used IRCC webform, right?

 

[browning911]

The car-fixin's was eventful too.

So, the bolded bit is the best part. That's telling me, quite literally, any day. They typically are 3-6 mos to complete. So, ANY DAY NOW MY FRIEND!

Thanks my brother from another mother.

Editted: So does that mean I should not get the notarized letter from my parents?

 

[profiler]

Thanks my brother from another mother.

:|

EH?!

 

[ripper44]

Not really. Did you send them in, or ask for an extension? You used IRCC webform, right?

Yes, I used the IRCC webform. I am just concerned that since it is past the 60 day limit and no one has acknowledged my extension request I could have problems down the road. I did request the extension before the 60 days expired and sent in the proof you mentioned, including an email from the Canadian Embassy saying they they received the fingerprints and will send the PCC to CIC in about 30 to 60 days.

 

[profiler]

Yes, I used the IRCC webform. I am just concerned that since it is past the 60 day limit and no one has acknowledged my extension request I could have problems down the road. I did request the extension before the 60 days expired and sent in the proof you mentioned, including an email from the Canadian Embassy saying they they received the fingerprints and will send the PCC to CIC in about 30 to 60 days.

They have a date stamp on when you submitted that. You can safely assume that they will allow you to submit it when you get it. They generally take 30 days or more lately to get back to people submitting via webform.

 

[Tyara]

Sooooo......I got landing letter today, just few minutes ago!!! Still in shock....My landing will be on June 29. Wow, I'll really have good celebration that day and for Canada day! I'm soooo happy and relieved, finally after 4.5 years that I'm in Canada, I got my PR

I wanna give thanks to all forum members, that helped all of us with their comments and advice's. I was following this thread for 15 months and I red all of 898 pages (yes, all of it!). So even though I didnt post anything at that time, I didnt have to, because all of my questions where answered in this forum. Please, dont stop answering, because there are so many other forum members who are just looking and not posting anything, but you still help them a lot. If anyone has any question, I'll be here to answer!

See you all guys at citizenship forum in next 2 years