Thread for Acrra Ghana applicants
- Thread starter palomadiego
- Start date
As a law student in immigration and refugee law at Parkdale Community Legal Services, also known as PCLS, I have seen that many families have already waited far too long. PCLS has worked for nearly 40 years in the low-income community of Parkdale in Toronto, providing legal services and carrying out community-driven law reform, education, and outreach. Historically, many residents of Parkdale are new immigrants and refugees, making immigration and refugee law a major area of work. Our goal is to ensure the voices of new immigrants and refugees are heard and that the issues affecting this vulnerable sector of our community are understood.
(0915)
She applied to sponsor her husband earlier this year. They celebrated their wedding in India, with family members providing pictures of their ceremony, which show both bride and groom receiving beautiful kata scarves from family members, symbolic of blessings wished for the future. However, during their interview with the New Delhi visa office, Ms. X's husband was questioned by the officer about why his wife had waited until “such a late age of 36 to get married”. The officer further states:
You and your sponsor are incompatible in terms of age. Whereas an age difference of 5 - 7 years in favour of the male is considered an acceptable norm in your community, your sponsor (female) is 9 years older than you.
Is this reliance on compatibility appropriate to determine the bona fides of a relationship? We at PCLS feel that it's rife for a misapplication by visa officers especially where essentialized cultural norms such as these are used to establish that a spousal sponsorship is not genuine. Who determines the cultural values of a diverse community? Where else in Canadian society would we accept the determination that a relationship must be fraudulent because a wife is older than her husband? Luckily, Ms. X has access to the immigration appeal division, where the visa officer's decision may be overturned.
In a 2002 report, Leslie Macleod determined that approximately 40% of spousal sponsorship ADR mediations resulted in the appeal being allowed. This does not cover the appeals that were successful at the immigration appeal division. This means that of the thousands of spousal sponsorship applications that were denied, many based on the bona fides of the relationship, nearly 40% of these should have been resolved at the visa office abroad.
The cost of these unnecessary appeals is financially burdensome to the Canadian taxpayer, but the hardship felt by Canadian families amounts to a human tragedy. Where else would we tolerate waiting such a long time for decisions to be rendered that are incorrect 40% of the time? Increasing the accountability of visa officers abroad for overturned decisions would save Canadian taxpayers money and bring families together sooner.
Therefore, our two recommendations to the standing committee are: first, rectify the uneven processing times and rejection rates for family-class sponsorships at visa offices by investing resources where required and ensuring consistency among these offices; secondly, ensure visa office accountability for overturned decisions by making sure that no other family must face the hardship of delayed reunification because of inappropriate and discriminatory compatibility criteria.
While Canadians seeking to sponsor family members from abroad do have a right to an appeal, this is simply not true for refugees and persons in need of protection. After seeking refuge in Canada and often fleeing very precarious situations, successful refugee claimants and persons in need of protection cannot appeal to the immigration appeal division if their application to be reunited with a family member is denied.
The only way to challenge a visa officer's decision is to apply for leave to the Federal Court. However, the Federal Court rejects nearly 80% of these applications. This time-consuming process is costly and emotionally exhausting for refugee families. Even where leave is granted and where the court finds that the visa officer made an error of law, the matter will simply be returned to the visa office.
I would like to thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I would like to hope that when you are confronted with the question on so many Canadian's minds--how long is too long?--you will stand with us in saying that Canadian families have simply waited far too long already.
Thank you.
(0915)
She applied to sponsor her husband earlier this year. They celebrated their wedding in India, with family members providing pictures of their ceremony, which show both bride and groom receiving beautiful kata scarves from family members, symbolic of blessings wished for the future. However, during their interview with the New Delhi visa office, Ms. X's husband was questioned by the officer about why his wife had waited until “such a late age of 36 to get married”. The officer further states:
You and your sponsor are incompatible in terms of age. Whereas an age difference of 5 - 7 years in favour of the male is considered an acceptable norm in your community, your sponsor (female) is 9 years older than you.
Is this reliance on compatibility appropriate to determine the bona fides of a relationship? We at PCLS feel that it's rife for a misapplication by visa officers especially where essentialized cultural norms such as these are used to establish that a spousal sponsorship is not genuine. Who determines the cultural values of a diverse community? Where else in Canadian society would we accept the determination that a relationship must be fraudulent because a wife is older than her husband? Luckily, Ms. X has access to the immigration appeal division, where the visa officer's decision may be overturned.
In a 2002 report, Leslie Macleod determined that approximately 40% of spousal sponsorship ADR mediations resulted in the appeal being allowed. This does not cover the appeals that were successful at the immigration appeal division. This means that of the thousands of spousal sponsorship applications that were denied, many based on the bona fides of the relationship, nearly 40% of these should have been resolved at the visa office abroad.
The cost of these unnecessary appeals is financially burdensome to the Canadian taxpayer, but the hardship felt by Canadian families amounts to a human tragedy. Where else would we tolerate waiting such a long time for decisions to be rendered that are incorrect 40% of the time? Increasing the accountability of visa officers abroad for overturned decisions would save Canadian taxpayers money and bring families together sooner.
Therefore, our two recommendations to the standing committee are: first, rectify the uneven processing times and rejection rates for family-class sponsorships at visa offices by investing resources where required and ensuring consistency among these offices; secondly, ensure visa office accountability for overturned decisions by making sure that no other family must face the hardship of delayed reunification because of inappropriate and discriminatory compatibility criteria.
While Canadians seeking to sponsor family members from abroad do have a right to an appeal, this is simply not true for refugees and persons in need of protection. After seeking refuge in Canada and often fleeing very precarious situations, successful refugee claimants and persons in need of protection cannot appeal to the immigration appeal division if their application to be reunited with a family member is denied.
The only way to challenge a visa officer's decision is to apply for leave to the Federal Court. However, the Federal Court rejects nearly 80% of these applications. This time-consuming process is costly and emotionally exhausting for refugee families. Even where leave is granted and where the court finds that the visa officer made an error of law, the matter will simply be returned to the visa office.
I would like to thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I would like to hope that when you are confronted with the question on so many Canadian's minds--how long is too long?--you will stand with us in saying that Canadian families have simply waited far too long already.
Thank you.
Quick question to all. Has any PA who lives in the following countries that would normally fall under AVO had their application randomly selected by mississauga to processed by CPC-M under the new pilot program called OB570 ? I just noticed on the jan 2018 outland thread that a PA living in india was randomly selected for the pilot program so was wondering if any of the following countries under AVO have ever had the same experience? The countries are as follows: Ascension, Benin, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guinea (refugees), Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome e Principe, Sierra Leone, St. Helena, Togo, Tristan da Cunha
Bill Gates posted this on Twitter and Facebook:
Check out @BillGates’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/976861821423575044?s=09
Check out @BillGates’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/976861821423575044?s=09
some are still waiting apparently. we sent additional info and still waiting too. sucks!
I think this is to do with federal skilled worker program:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/atlantic-immigration-pilot.html
This link came up first but no one seems to know for sure.
Last edited:
I am so sorry to hear that and being that you are pregnant is worrisome.
1. Did they issue you a procedural fairness letter before denying your husband ?
2. Are they aware you are pregnant?
3. What was the basis for the refusal?
What’s your timeline?
1. Did they issue you a procedural fairness letter before denying your husband ?
2. Are they aware you are pregnant?
3. What was the basis for the refusal?
What’s your timeline?
Agi2009
Hero Member
- Nov 29, 2015
- 94
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Accra.
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 4th September 2015
- Doc's Request.
- 20th may 2016 additional proofs was requested...may 26 2016, everything was sent
- AOR Received.
- November 2015
- File Transfer...
- 24th Nov 2015
- Med's Request
- upfront
- Med's Done....
- July 4th 2015
- Interview........
- probably not
- Passport Req..
- by his light
- VISA ISSUED...
- very soon
- LANDED..........
- the door will open soon
Hello Johnny, I really feel ur pains because I have gone through that before and I have come out successfully just last year. I applied for my husband 2015 Sept 4th and got refused November 22rd 2016. I then filed an appeal on Dec 14th 2016. After filing the appeal, I went back home to visit my husband. I was home with my husband when they sent in the blue book which contains all the application records. I also gathered lots of evidence which includes joint account, land property, insurance coverage, documents showing him as my beneficiary and vice versa. And others. We sent those ahead of time to the appeal board that was how I was selected fo ADR which stand for ALternative Dispute Resolution. So on 22nd November, I met with the minister counsel. And after several questions from the minister counsel, she agreed to my appeal and the appeal was allowed. From there, his application was forwarded to ottawa for processing. So on January 19th 2018, my husband received a request for medical request and other updated forms to be send to ottawa within 60 days. But we sent in everything within 4days after the request. Then on 13th February 2018, we received PPR from canadian high commission in Accra Ghana. As am writing this, my husband is sitting right here with me. He landed on the 18th march 2018 in Alberta. So dear, this is my story. Take heart and be patient. The appeal is all about preparation. Best of luck and am always available if u need help.