CharlieD10 said:
If you have not done so before, I suggest you write something to the Program Manager at the embassy, and outline all of these events so far. Get it in writing that you are confused by the request to pay the RPRF, then your husband being told he could be refused following his interview. The two things are supposed to be mutually exclusive and in a situation like this I think I would want it on record that one person is telling your husband one thing, and another is telling him the exact opposite.
If (God forbid) this whole situation comes down to an appeal, having this in writing should give you a fair shot at being able to bring up "procedural fairness" issues. They can't be allowed to get away with implying they are preparing to give him the visa, then arbitrarily changing their minds. If they had doubts regarding the relationship (hence the convocation of your husband for the interview), then the request for the RPRF should never have been made at the time that it was.
This process is stressful enough on us, without the embassy behaving as if it a) doesn't know what it is doing or b) being perverse or capricious in its decision-making processes or c) both.
I like the way you think. However, since no decision has been rendered yet, it is not a good idea to contact the Program Manager yet. Here are the Rules of Procedural Fairness:
Rule of Procedural Fairness
Apply to all applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and to the Canada Border Services Agency. They apply in varying degrees depending on the type of application.
1. Officers should communicate adequately and accurately with applicants.
2. They should give applicants adequate notice regarding the process or the interview that will result or lead to a decision.
3. Officers should accurately describe to applicants the documentation they are required to submit in order to address their concern.
4. Officers must show diligence in processing applications without undue delay. Visa offices must not appear to frustrate processing through unacceptable delays. A delay that cannot be justified is a denial of procedural fairness.
5. “Whoever hears, must decide.” Note that “hear” in this context does not mean interview. It simply means the person with the legal authority to make a decision must do so. The law and policies are specific about who has authority to make decisions. When officers use their decision-making authority, they assess information.
If an officer is the only person who looks at information or deals with applicants, it is clear that they “heard” (not necessarily in an interview) and decided. When there is more than just the officer dealing with applicants, the person who hears and decides may be less clear. An applicant may present information to someone not authorized to make the decision, an intermediary, who must then pass all relevant information to the officer. The intermediary cannot assess the information for an officer and arrive at a decision. The record of decision must show that the officer made the decision after assessing all pertinent information from the applicant. Often, officers rely on subjective assessments to make decisions. If a decision hinges on such assessments (e.g., abilities in English or French, personal suitability or credibility), it must be clear to the applicant that the officer made the assessment. The decision-maker must render the decision based on complete information. Therefore, all documents provided by the applicant must be forwarded to the decision-maker for consideration. A decision-maker should not indicate that they simply concur with the recommendations of an intermediary. They must indicate that they have weighed all salient factors of the application and have made their own decision on the merits of those factors.
6. Applicants must have an opportunity to disabuse officers of any concerns. They must be allowed to bring evidence and to make an argument. This includes being provided with adequate translation/interpretation. Officers must consider all the evidence and record what they based their assessment on, and why they did not consider some of the evidence. Officers must meet this requirement in all cases, but to different degrees. The opportunity should be proportionate to the complexity of the application. With visitor visa applicants, officers should express their own concerns and record the applicant’s response in the case notes. The applicant must be made aware of the “case to be met,” i.e., the information known by the officer must be made available to the applicant prior to the decision being made. For example, if an officer relies on extrinsic evidence (i.e., evidence received from sources other than the applicant), they must give the applicant an opportunity to respond to such evidence. Permanent residence applicants and some visitors may need extra time to address any concerns. The record of the exchange must be more detailed in such cases. Officers should give factual and objective reasons for their decision.
7. Decisions must be based on Immigration and Refugee Act and Regulations. The provision of the act or Regulations must be cited in the record of a refusal. It is not acceptable to explain refusals with references to policies in any manuals or bulletins. All communications, including refusal letters, should direct the reader’s attention to the appropriate legislative provision.
8. Discretion must not be improperly fettered – If Immigration and Refugee Act and Regulations give officers complete authority to make a decision, they must clearly exercise that authority. Officers may, of course, take advice before making a decision. It should be plain to applicants, though, that officers have used their authority to decide freely. The record of decision should also indicate that, after weighing guidance among all relevant factors, officers came to their own conclusion. If officers tell applicants that a decision on their case is a result of advice from a superior, headquarters or procedures manuals, they restrain their discretion. They would be violating two other principles of procedural fairness, namely: (1) whoever hears must decide; and (2) applicants must have the opportunity to disabuse decision-makers of their concerns.
9. And finally, applicants must receive fair and equitable treatment; i.e., officers must be consistent in the treatment of applicants in similar situations.
In this case, only #9 has the slight chance of being applied in this matter with respect to RPRF being requested. But IMHO it would be unlikely to be given much weight as an interview had been convoked so no final decision had been made.
