Question regarding applicant history for Visitor Visa application and Spousal sponsorship under Family class program

[Kanwal Gupta]

Hi,
There is a mismatch in previous 10 years history for my wife's visitor visa application(got rejected) and now she has applied for Spousal sponsorship under family class but she has mentioned some part of history which doesn't match with history in visitor visa application. There is a discrepancy because I filled her visitor visa application and wasn't very sure about her history. Will this impact her application ? The recent history matches for last two years and the period we were together.
Thanks

 

[Phalos]

Hi,
There is a mismatch in previous 10 years history for my wife's visitor visa application(got rejected) and now she has applied for Spousal sponsorship under family class but she has mentioned some part of history which doesn't match with history in visitor visa application. There is a discrepancy because I filled her visitor visa application and wasn't very sure about her history. Will this impact her application ? The recent history matches for last two years and the period we were together.
Thanks

This will be a HUGE problem. This is exactly what Visa Office is SCRUTINIZING.
They LOVE cross-checking different Visa Applications and finding misrepresentations which would mean potential REFUSAL and 5 year BAN from Canada.

 

[armoured]

Hi,
There is a mismatch in previous 10 years history for my wife's visitor visa application(got rejected) and now she has applied for Spousal sponsorship under family class but she has mentioned some part of history which doesn't match with history in visitor visa application. There is a discrepancy because I filled her visitor visa application and wasn't very sure about her history. Will this impact her application ? The recent history matches for last two years and the period we were together.
Thanks

First, it IS a problem that they are inconsistent - it will make them look more carefully at the file and possibly suspect there are other issues.

I would suggest what you should do is submit a revised, exact history - with a letter of explanation of why the differences occurred.

How big a problem is not clear - you don't say what the differences were. And when you say 'history', what do you mean? Employment history, travel history, educational history?

The nature of the discrepancies will matter - primarily whether it was an 'honest mistake' or just some dates that were wrong or something substantive.

An example of minor mistakes: forgot to mention a vacation trip somewhere for a few weeks, employment history was off by some months, didn't have the exact month of graduation, etc. Leaving a short period unaccounted for. If there are a few discrepancies like this that don't change the substance of the application, they may just accept as a mistake, unintentional. (Obivously if there are a LOT of them it still looks bad even if relatively minor individually - your credibility is impaired).

What might be 'substantive' or material? Any errors or omissions that (if properly disclosed) would have meant a different level of attention, that might have influenced either the decision or how the application (first one or this one) is examined. Leaving out a year of study in North Korea, or military service, for example. Not disclosing having been refused visas to different countries. Substantially different educational or employment history (both employer and larger time periods of difference).

So again: tell the truth, submit an explanation, and if these are minor errors, probably will be fine - forgetting a weeklong holiday at a resort somewhere is likely not a serious issue. Getting dates a bit off - if the rest is in the main accurate - probably not a big issue. Even if the errors (in either) seem minor or major to you, your best bet is to simply tell the truth.

[I wont' speculate on how they would treat potential misrepresentation of something more serious, but if you come clean about it, your chances of dealing with it later are still better than hiding it.]

 

[Kanwal Gupta]

First, it IS a problem that they are inconsistent - it will make them look more carefully at the file and possibly suspect there are other issues.

I would suggest what you should do is submit a revised, exact history - with a letter of explanation of why the differences occurred.

How big a problem is not clear - you don't say what the differences were. And when you say 'history', what do you mean? Employment history, travel history, educational history?

The nature of the discrepancies will matter - primarily whether it was an 'honest mistake' or just some dates that were wrong or something substantive.

An example of minor mistakes: forgot to mention a vacation trip somewhere for a few weeks, employment history was off by some months, didn't have the exact month of graduation, etc. Leaving a short period unaccounted for. If there are a few discrepancies like this that don't change the substance of the application, they may just accept as a mistake, unintentional. (Obivously if there are a LOT of them it still looks bad even if relatively minor individually - your credibility is impaired).

What might be 'substantive' or material? Any errors or omissions that (if properly disclosed) would have meant a different level of attention, that might have influenced either the decision or how the application (first one or this one) is examined. Leaving out a year of study in North Korea, or military service, for example. Not disclosing having been refused visas to different countries. Substantially different educational or employment history (both employer and larger time periods of difference).

So again: tell the truth, submit an explanation, and if these are minor errors, probably will be fine - forgetting a weeklong holiday at a resort somewhere is likely not a serious issue. Getting dates a bit off - if the rest is in the main accurate - probably not a big issue. Even if the errors (in either) seem minor or major to you, your best bet is to simply tell the truth.

[I wont' speculate on how they would treat potential misrepresentation of something more serious, but if you come clean about it, your chances of dealing with it later are still better than hiding it.]

First, I really appreciate your immaculate analysis of the situation and second very thankful to you for genuine and truthful advice.This turned out to be a relief for me. As you aptly mentioned, I haven’t concealed something but yes dates are off in the 10 year history which dates from years 2010-2020. The last 2 years are totally matching and so are years 2010-2014 in which she did her education which also totally match. The problem lies in years 2014-2018 in which again the place and occupation matches totally but the dates are a bit/tangibly off. So as you mentioned, Best bet is to explain it but I haven’t received AOR yet. Should I do it when I receive it or send another package to them? Very thankful for the good work you are doing here. Not only for me but the way you understand a situation. Kudos !

 

[armoured]

First, I really appreciate your immaculate analysis of the situation and second very thankful to you for genuine and truthful advice.This turned out to be a relief for me. As you aptly mentioned, I haven’t concealed something but yes dates are off in the 10 year history which dates from years 2010-2020. The last 2 years are totally matching and so are years 2010-2014 in which she did her education which also totally match. The problem lies in years 2014-2018 in which again the place and occupation matches totally but the dates are a bit/tangibly off. So as you mentioned, Best bet is to explain it but I haven’t received AOR yet. Should I do it when I receive it or send another package to them? Very thankful for the good work you are doing here. Not only for me but the way you understand a situation. Kudos !

You can attempt to submit a webform using your identification info - since your spouse applied for TRV before, UCI should be the same.

They do not always 'attach' webforms before AOR to the file but worth a try. If in doubt later, you can resubmit after AOR. (I believe they are supposed to send a confirmation)

From the sounds of it - just from your description - I doubt they would consider this a material issue. People do make mistakes and unless the employment history was particularly important, hopefully not a factor. (It would likely be more important for PR under the economic programs, but probably not for TRV and spousal sponsorship)

For your letter of explanation, keep it brief and simple: they don't want to read long explanations or effusive apologies. We have noticed an error in previous app, regrets at the inadvertent error and discrepancy between the submissions, confirm this version attached is correct, sorry for any inconvenience, etc.

 

[Kanwal Gupta]

You can attempt to submit a webform using your identification info - since your spouse applied for TRV before, UCI should be the same.

They do not always 'attach' webforms before AOR to the file but worth a try. If in doubt later, you can resubmit after AOR. (I believe they are supposed to send a confirmation)

From the sounds of it - just from your description - I doubt they would consider this a material issue. People do make mistakes and unless the employment history was particularly important, hopefully not a factor. (It would likely be more important for PR under the economic programs, but probably not for TRV and spousal sponsorship)

For your letter of explanation, keep it brief and simple: they don't want to read long explanations or effusive apologies. We have noticed an error in previous app, regrets at the inadvertent error and discrepancy between the submissions, confirm this version attached is correct, sorry for any inconvenience, etc.

Thanks a lot. I have requested for GCMS notes and documents submitted for the TRV application for my wife. I am thinking about mentioning the same history in explanation letter/new forms which was mentioned in TRV application if I receive the documents. Would be the right approach to it ?

 

[armoured]

Thanks a lot. I have requested for GCMS notes and documents submitted for the TRV application for my wife. I am thinking about mentioning the same history in explanation letter/new forms which was mentioned in TRV application if I receive the documents. Would be the right approach to it ?

I'm not clear on what you mean by mention it. I'd proceed as above - submit accurate history in revised form and explain that some dates in history of previously submitted with TRV app may have been wrong.

 

[Kanwal Gupta]

I'm not clear on what you mean by mention it. I'd proceed as above - submit accurate history in revised form and explain that some dates in history of previously submitted with TRV app may have been wrong.

Thanks for the reply. I have attached the link where the timelines are shown. The one above shows the TImeline for TRV and the one below shows for Spousal application. Can you suggest how I explain the dissimilarities ?
Timeline of experiences

 

[armoured]

Thanks for the reply. I have attached the link where the timelines are shown. The one above shows the TImeline for TRV and the one below shows for Spousal application. Can you suggest how I explain the dissimilarities ?
Timeline of experiences

Sorry, you'll have to figure it out yourself - only you know how the errors occurred.

 

[Kanwal Gupta]

Sorry, you'll have to figure it out yourself - only you know how the errors occurred.

Thanks. I understand but can you have a quick look if possible and check if its big of a issue when it comes to conflicts in timelines. The following is explanation I am going to use :-

We had earlier applied for Visitor Visa to sponsor my visit to Canada in 2019 and at that time, The employment history was mentioned in an official form and some additional history was added in an extra attachment.There was no availability of official letters/records of employment at that time and thus dates were approximated for the work experience. When the application was sent for Spousal visa in November 2020, most of the letters of employment were obtained and thus history was mentioned as per those letters. In this process,it has been noticed that though the histories in two applications have same positions and institutions , there is some conflict in timelines of my couple of jobs and a location, which was unintentional at the time of TRV due to unavailability of records.It is now being confirmed that the personal history timeline provided in Spousal Visa application is accurate to best of knowledge and we hope the minor conflicts in timelines for some months don't impact the Spousal visa application.

Can you suggest if the tone and reason are strong enough ?

 

[YVR123]

You need to explain any mismatch, big issue or not.

 

[armoured]

Thanks. I understand but can you have a quick look if possible and check if its big of a issue when it comes to conflicts in timelines. The following is explanation I am going to use :-

We had earlier applied for Visitor Visa to sponsor my visit to Canada in 2019 and at that time, The employment history was mentioned in an official form and some additional history was added in an extra attachment.There was no availability of official letters/records of employment at that time and thus dates were approximated for the work experience. When the application was sent for Spousal visa in November 2020, most of the letters of employment were obtained and thus history was mentioned as per those letters. In this process,it has been noticed that though the histories in two applications have same positions and institutions , there is some conflict in timelines of my couple of jobs and a location, which was unintentional at the time of TRV due to unavailability of records.It is now being confirmed that the personal history timeline provided in Spousal Visa application is accurate to best of knowledge and we hope the minor conflicts in timelines for some months don't impact the Spousal visa application.

Can you suggest if the tone and reason are strong enough ?

Sorry, can't look at your timelines, you're going to have to figure out how serious.

Your draft letter/explanation is overall fine but I'd keep it SHORT. Roughly "when reviewing application submitted for TRV in [year] and recent spousal sponsorship app, discovered that form immXXXXe inadvertently contained dates of education and employment in [years] were not exact in [trv or spousal or both]. / we apologize for this inadvertent error due to incomplete information and transcription errors at time of applying for TRV and for any inconvenience, although trust the errors have no substantive bearing on the sponsorship app. I am attaching a revised form [which is identical to that submitted with spousal sponsorship application?] and confirm the information is correct. "

Up to you to revise and proper letter language, but again, as short as possible. If need to detail specific info, bullet points preferable.

Good luck.

 

[Kanwal Gupta]

Sorry, can't look at your timelines, you're going to have to figure out how serious.

Your draft letter/explanation is overall fine but I'd keep it SHORT. Roughly "when reviewing application submitted for TRV in [year] and recent spousal sponsorship app, discovered that form immXXXXe inadvertently contained dates of education and employment in [years] were not exact in [trv or spousal or both]. / we apologize for this inadvertent error due to incomplete information and transcription errors at time of applying for TRV and for any inconvenience, although trust the errors have no substantive bearing on the sponsorship app. I am attaching a revised form [which is identical to that submitted with spousal sponsorship application?] and confirm the information is correct. "

Up to you to revise and proper letter language, but again, as short as possible. If need to detail specific info, bullet points preferable.

Good luck.

Thanks again for the valuable suggestions.