Getting my would wife to Canada - Quickest Route

[his*marty]

@Kush.k19 kindly post when you find a way. i’m also in the same situation as you.


thank you

Unfortunately, there is no way around it. The rules are clear. You will not be provided a TRV unless you fall under one of the exemptions in my post above yours.. and even in the case you *do* fall under the exemptions you are not guaranteed to get it.

 

[Idrissrafd]

Foreign Nationals that can come to Canada have to fall under any of these:

To be eligible, you must meet one of the following requirements:

• You must be travelling directly from the US for a non-discretionary purpose.
• You must be exempt from the travel restrictions and be travelling for a non-discretionary purpose.

Travellers coming from outside the US who are exempt from the travel restrictions

• temporary foreign workers
• some international students
• some people who have been approved to become a permanent resident of Canada, but who are not yet permanent residents
• immediate family members with written authorization from IRCC to reunite with a temporary resident of Canada (see Uniting with immediate family members for more information)
• transiting passengers (must remain in the secure transit area of a Canadian airport to complete their connection)
• members of the Canadian forces, visiting forces coming to perform official duties, Department of National Defence and their immediate family members
• accredited diplomats and their immediate family members (includes North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], those under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement, other organizations)
• air and marine crew members
• French citizens who live in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and have been in only Canada, the US or Saint-Pierre and Miquelon during the 14 days before the day they seek to enter Canada
• any person who does not pose a significant harm to public health, in the opinion of the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, and who will provide an essential service while in Canada
• any person whose presence in Canada is in the national interest, in the opinion of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; or Minister of Foreign Affairs
  • If you fall under this exemption, you don’t have to demonstrate that you’re entering Canada for a non-discretionary reason.
  • This exemption may be applied only by any of the 3 ministers listed above.
  • This exemption is for exceptional circumstances only. All other options must be considered before it will be considered.
  • If you think you may qualify for a national interest exemption, you can contact your nearest visa office.
• any person who is coming at the invitation of the Minister of Health for the purpose of COVID-19 assistance
• any person whose purpose is to make medical deliveries

That’s a little bit confusing, or I would say it’s a vicious circle. Indeed they say :

• show that you’re eligible to travelat this time
  • You must be able to provide evidence of one of the following:
    • You’ll stay in Canada for 15 days or more.
    • You’re travelling for a non-discretionary purpose.

• • • ....... the question here is, what’s a non-discretionary purpose ? Is the reunification a non-discretionary purpose ? I know they have a definition of “non-discretionary purpose”, but that’s still vague. For the sake of argument, reunification is a non-discretionary purpose, how can you reconcile that with the fear the visitor will overstay ?
      
      
    • Personally, I was lucky, I came with my wife, and the officer gave me 6 months. He didn’t ask me a single question like how many days I’m planning to stay with my Canadian wife. The officer was nice, I was surprised.

 

[his*marty]

That’s a little bit confusing, or I would say it’s a vicious circle. Indeed they say :

• • • ....... the question here is, what’s a non-discretionary purpose ? Is the reunification a non-discretionary purpose ? I know they have a definition of “non-discretionary purpose”, but that’s still vague. For the sake of argument, reunification is a non-discretionary purpose, how can you reconcile that with the fear the visitor will overstay ?
      
      
    • Personally, I was lucky, I came with my wife, and the officer gave me 6 months. He didn’t ask me a single question like how many days I’m planning to stay with my Canadian wife. The officer was nice, I was surprised.

The OP is not married and wants to apply for his wife TRV before marriage - that is not a reunification. I fail to see any category that she would fall under as a visitor to Canada.

 

[Idrissrafd]

The OP is not married and wants to apply for his wife TRV before marriage - that is not a reunification. I fail to see any category that she would fall under as a visitor to Canada.

Can’t he marry her, and just after that, she applies for a visitor visa (reunification?) ?

I heart that they usually refuse visas, even for someone who’s married to a Canadian ?
Why ? That’s so unfair. What about the humanitarian side of reunification?
Just because someone is “lucky” to be born in a country that doesn’t require a visa (US for example), they’ve that privilege to be with their spouse, which is not the case for someone who’s from another country that requires visa ?

Family reunification should be a priority, regardless the country of origin.

 

[his*marty]

Can’t he marry her, and just after that, she applies for a visitor visa (reunification?) ?

I heart that they usually refuse visas, even for someone who’s married to a Canadian ?
Why ? That’s so unfair. What about the humanitarian side of reunification?
Just because someone is “lucky” to be born in a country that doesn’t require a visa (US for example), they’ve that privilege to be with their spouse, which is not the case for someone who’s from another country that requires visa ?

Family reunification should be a priority, regardless the country of origin.

Well and that is a part of his question - the high refusal rate after marriage so he wants to apply for TRV prior to marriage. He's not in a good position either way.

Yes, the refusals are painful...because if you come from a country that doesn't require a visa... you can come here and apply inland, get an owp.... it's a really unfair process to those married couples from visa required countries. Basically, if you don't require a visa they're not concerned about you overstaying. No one, in their right mind would risk overstaying with a sponsorship in progress.

 

[armoured]

....... the question here is, what’s a non-discretionary purpose ? Is the reunification a non-discretionary purpose ? I know they have a definition of “non-discretionary purpose”, but that’s still vague. For the sake of argument, reunification is a non-discretionary purpose, how can you reconcile that with the fear the visitor will overstay ?

If you read the relevant orders and specific language, family reunification - visiting a spouse - is deemed to be non-discretionary for the purposes of these restrictions.

That does not get one a visa, but those who have visas or visa waivers can enter using that specific carve-out (which is what it was intended for).

 

[armoured]

Can’t he marry her, and just after that, she applies for a visitor visa (reunification?) ?

Yes.

 

[Idrissrafd]

If you read the relevant orders and specific language, family reunification - visiting a spouse - is deemed to be non-discretionary for the purposes of these restrictions.

That does not get one a visa, but those who have visas or visa waivers can enter using that specific carve-out (which is what it was intended for).

Why do they -usually- refuse/deny visa for those who are married (and sometimes with kids) ? Being away from your mother (from the kid’s perspective) and spouse for many months is something reasonable ? Why do they still use that pathetic 179(b) for those families with kids ?

 

[canuck78]

Why do they -usually- refuse/deny visa for those who are married (and sometimes with kids) ? Being away from your mother (from the kid’s perspective) and spouse for many months is something reasonable ? Why do they still use that pathetic 179(b) for those families with kids ?

Because immigration fraud exists. There are some married couples without much relationship history as well so it is hard for Canada to determine what marriages are genuine marriages. It is very hard and expensive for Canada to deport people so Canada wants to ensure that only people in actual relationships come to Canada. People do have the option to date people already living in Canada.

 

[Idrissrafd]

Because immigration fraud exists. There are some married couples without much relationship history as well so it is hard for Canada to determine what marriages are genuine marriages. It is very hard and expensive for Canada to deport people so Canada wants to ensure that only people in actual relationships come to Canada. People do have the option to date people already living in Canada.

I understand, but when you’ve been married for many years with kids, how can you justify these frequent refusals ? I will advice you to visit voices4families and see how many families are suffering. Really. That’s not good for a child to be away from his mother/father for many many months.

 

[canuck78]

I understand, but when you’ve been married for many years with kids, how can you justify these frequent refusals ? I will advice you to visit voices4families and see how many families are suffering. Really. That’s not good for a child to be away from his mother/father for many many months.

Some of these families applied for PR without their families accompanying them. In cases like study permits or unskilled WPs there was never any guarantee a family could join them in Canada.

 

[Idrissrafd]

Some of these families applied for PR without their families accompanying them. In cases like study permits or unskilled WPs there was never any guarantee a family could join them in Canada.

I disagree. They applied for PR with their families accompanying them. They still see their visa being denied using that pathetic 179(b).

 

[armoured]

I understand, but when you’ve been married for many years with kids, how can you justify these frequent refusals ?

This thread is about a person who is not yet even married. Let alone been denied anything.

 

[canuck78]

I disagree. They applied for PR with their families accompanying them. They still see their visa being denied using that pathetic 179(b).

If they applied for PR with their families accompanying them that means they aren’t PRs or citizens yet if they are separated or part of the family chose not to land.

 

[Idrissrafd]

If they applied for PR with their families accompanying them that means they aren’t PRs or citizens yet if they are separated or part of the family chose not to land.

Could you be more specific ? I do not understand.
Obviously they are not PR or citizens yet; otherwise why would they apply for a PR ?
The PA is married to a Canadian citizen. The PA has a child with the Canadian citizen. They’ve been married for many years. Why the PA’s visa is being denied ? I’m listening.