A public letter to minister of Citizen & Immigration Canada
Dear federal immigration minister Mr Keny:
As a Canadian citizen, I think it is necessary for me to reflect unfair treatment that my wife and I experienced in Canadian consulate in Hong Kong when receiving an interview about couple reunion immigrant visa, so as to improve service levels of CIC and enhance credibility of federal government.
In August 2002, my ex-wife and I arrived Canada as skilled migrants. After that, we gave birth to two children in Canada. However, we seperated because my ex-wife had an affair and divorced according to judgment of Ontario court in November 2011. We raise our daughter and son seperately. In order to rebuild family, I met my current wife through internet, we fell in love with each other and marriaged. Then, we applied couple reunion immigration for family reunion. In May 2013, we got a notice from immigration office, that my wife should accept an immigration interview in Hong Kong consulate on June 3rd, 2013. I arranged interpretation service immediately, and I myself also accompy my wife for this interview.
I understand, in recent years there are many applications with fake marriage that aimed to immigrate to Canada, and these individual cases destroyed efficiency and integrity of entire system. Therefore, after receiving the interview notice, I spent numerous time and energy to prepare various documents required in the interview in order to coordinate immigration office’s work. Besides, I make a full sense and respect subjective independent jurisdiction of immigration officer that bestowed by law. Before interview, I know about many cases that authentic marriage may be refused due to misjudgement by immigration officer’s subjective judgement. Also we have a mental preparation of denial. So today, I am not intended to appeal result of our interview to you, we respect the jurisdiction of immigration office regarding this part. But we will strive for our legal rights through normal appeal channel until my wife and I reunited. What I want to tell you today is about unfair, unprofessional and irresponsible, also disrespectful to applicant and guarantee that your colleague showed during our interview in Hong Kong consulate. I expect to bring a positive change for all work team of federal immigration office under your leadship.
At first, in my understanding, the inverview in working procedure of the immigration office is aimed at being responsible for applicants. Once immigration officer found some doubts while looking over files in advance, they will invite applicants to clarify these doubts through communicating with immigration officers to avoid destroying parties’s interests due to subjective misjudgement. But our interview experience told us that, conversation between immigration officer and us is not for this aim, he has just finished a form. While the aim of this form is just to lead the result of entire interview to the result that he has preset before interview, that is denial. Specific reasons are as below:
1. The immigration officer mentioned a specific doubt about the authenticity of our marriage in the interview directly, that is applicant did not see my parents and children(including my son stayed with me and daught stayed with my ex-wife). We also thought of the possibility that immigration officer may have a doubt about this problem, and prepared to explain the reasons according to actual situation. However, immigration officer just allowed my wife to answer whether she has seen or not, and did not allow her to explain reasons of not seeing. There was a a clear answer about the fact that my wife did not see my parents and children in application documents. If the immigration officer did not care about reasons for this problem, just cared a simple yes or no, then this interview was meaningless in my opinion. What’s more, it wasted money of taxpayer;
2. The second denial reason is that immigration officer has a doubt regarding whether my wife and I had an economic capability to afford family expenditure. First, what I want to explain is that couple reunion is a basic requirement of human rights. Just because of this reason, immigration office did not provide a rigid requirement for income of couple reunion guarantee. Otherwise, I am unable to pass through the investigation of guarantee qualification from immigration office. I understand that immigration officer may consider this factor when making a decision. While, immigration officer did not ask any questions regarding this aspect during the entire interview process. Although we reminded him that we have prepared adequate documents to prove our economic capacity, the immigration officer refused our requirements just in the reason that he did not have time to check. Finally, he added this point to the denial reasons. I think it is unfair for applicant.
3. In the denial letter, immigration officer mentioned that according to application materials you submitted, and specially mentioned”including evidences you provided during your interview”, I can not satisfy, and so on. Actual situation is that we have prepared enough documents for this interview, and the content involved all aspects of our marital life and work. More than 30kg documents are sufficient to prove authenticity of our marital life. Unfortunately, although my wife requested immigration officer to give her an opportunity to show the evidentiary materials she brought for many times, he still arbitrarily said that I did not want to read your any material. I just need to ask you several questions, and make my judgement according to your answer. Now I have given you the chance, but you are unable to make me satisfied.
In conclusion, I thought the immigration officer abused his power and did not make a justice in the interview. He deliberately lead the result of this interview to his preset subjective judgement before interview. He ignored hurt that brought to involved parties’family because of his miscounduct behavior, and this harmed the parties’ legal rights and interests seriously.
Secondly, I think that the immigration officer was extremely unprofessional during working process. He did not respect for applicant and guarantee. Detailed descriptions are as below:
1. When my wife and I enterred into the office, immigration officer just looked up to see the interviewer except when doing self-introduction, most time he just looked down and typed, occasionally gave a glance to us arrogantly. Only 10 seconds after our denial, we received a denial letter which contained hundreds of words attached to returned materials. I have a reason to believe that, just 50 minutes from beginning to the end of this interview, the only concentrated thing for the immigration officer was that he was writing and checking this denial letter seriously. This also proved why he refused to accept any detailed explanations from applicant and read any written materials prepared by applicant. He just took this interview as a means that lead to the denial result that he preset. In my opinion, this working attitude violated professional integrity of federal employees.
2. During this interview, the immigration officer interrupted talking from my wife and I rudely for many times, and frequently gave reprimand and assesment with subjective bias even contumelious to us. Such as:
a. The immigration officer has caused huge mental pressure to parties involved because of his arrogant and casual attitude, while if there was any delay for the questions, he will rebuke at once”Please answer questions honestly”.
b. When you intended to explain the his doubt detailedly, he said” Please do not make up some ridiculous reasons, you just need to simply answer me yes or no.”
c. The immigration officer asked:’ Is your husband back to see you frequently?” My wife answered” He came back to China to see me for five times since our acquaintance from now”, and the immigration officer said promptly:”Hum, he just came to China for business and met you incidentally.”
3. Many aspects in the denial letter did not match with real procedures of the interview, these would damage professional levels and credibility of federal immigration office, for example:
a. The immigration officer refused parties to explain his doubts for him and just allowed my wife to simply repeatedly answer the questions that have had clear answers in materials. However, he wrote in the denial letter that he had provided an opportunity for parties to explain fully.
b. The immigration officer did not ask any questions about economic capacity of applicant, but mentioned in the denial letter that he had inspected applicant’s economic capacity and conclued that my wife was unable to burden the family expenditures.
c. The immigration officer said in the denial letter that his decision had referred evidences submitted by applicant in the interview. But acutal situation is that, the immigration officer refused applicant’s request to show evidentiary materials carried for three times, and never checked any page of the materials.
I think, as a professional person, immigration officer may have his own subjective judgement according to applicant’s statement and evidence. But he should not give assessment that with obvious bias and contumelious to parties during conversation, also he should not say the words that may hurt mutual affection of the couple. Mostly, he should not ignore duties that he must perform during the interview casually. The immigration officer I met showed extreme unprofessional in this aspect.
This made me recall the scene when I received an interview for skilled migration visa in the consulate of Hong Kong 12 years ago (in 2001). In the same office of the same consulate, and also been federal immigration officers, their methods and attitude to work are really poles apart. That day, I was interviewed from 9 am until 15 pm, this was because the immigration services company that standed for me has gone brankrupt due to mismanagement. Their office space was withdrawed, thus made me lose contact with my immigration files. I wrote a letter to immigration department and required them to cancel the qualification of my original agent. However, I never thought that my immigration company wrote a same letter assumed my name and required to transfer my agent qualification to a person in Beijing(Actually this person is a relative of that immigration company). They did not want to provide subsequent services, but attempted to ask money from me though getting my immigration paper. The immigration officer found these two letters with the same signature but content and handwriting were different. It was resonable to judg that there must be one fake doucument and suspected a criminal offence of forging documents. The visa officer did not make a denial decision just simply and hastily. On the contrary, they took a responsible attitude to applicant and investigated entire process patiently. Finally, they determined that I was an innocent victim, and the immigration company suspected a criminal offence of forging documents. That day, I met three federal officers in total, including immigration officer, investigator in the consulate and general consul in Hong Kong. Eventually, general consul thanked for my coordination on behalf of Hong Kong consulate and issued immigration visa for me. My deepest feeling was not different visa results of the two cases, but federal officers’ distinct attitude towards work.
Today, I checked the official website of immigration office. Another disappointed thing is that, as a primary administrative institution, immigration office served for tens of thousands of citizens and applicants both at home and abroad, and established many complaints schemes that aimed at immigration consultants and undesirable immigration applicants. However, immigration office did not provide any complaints channel that aimed at themselves, it seems that our immigration minister confidently believe that the immigration office he led is always great and right. This reminded me of the autocracy style that I known in China before. These two situations are exactly the same. However, most administrative institutions in China established a complaints institution named petition office symbolically, our immigration office even omitted this form.
As a citizen, I formally demand immigration office to response for my follwing complaints about the unjust treatment that my wife and I sufferred in Hong Kong consulate:
1. Start internal investigation schem to verify the encounter I declared and give me a formal written reply;
2. If you have verified that immigration officer’s behaviour has violated professional integrity and working procedures during his work, he should be punished correspondingly and apologize for parties involved in public;
3. In order to avoid this phonomenon existing in a long run, you should improve working procedures of immigration interview, and clarify immigration officer’s working guidelines further;
4. Open a public complaints channel on the website of immigration office and disclose immigration office’s schemes of dealing with complaints to citizens.
Honorable minister, I know that I am just a negligible member among thousands of electors. My weak voice may be ignored directly, even I will never receive any reply. There is a proverb in my hometown”Good medicine is bitter, Good advice is harsh to the ear”. I believe that my criticism is kind and positive. I will continuously to claim until problems are settled down. I am confident about basic democracy and legal systems of Canada, also I will cast a tiny but sacred vote in the election.
Appreciate very much for your valuable time, and looking forward to your reply!
An ordinary citizen
Dear federal immigration minister Mr Keny:
As a Canadian citizen, I think it is necessary for me to reflect unfair treatment that my wife and I experienced in Canadian consulate in Hong Kong when receiving an interview about couple reunion immigrant visa, so as to improve service levels of CIC and enhance credibility of federal government.
In August 2002, my ex-wife and I arrived Canada as skilled migrants. After that, we gave birth to two children in Canada. However, we seperated because my ex-wife had an affair and divorced according to judgment of Ontario court in November 2011. We raise our daughter and son seperately. In order to rebuild family, I met my current wife through internet, we fell in love with each other and marriaged. Then, we applied couple reunion immigration for family reunion. In May 2013, we got a notice from immigration office, that my wife should accept an immigration interview in Hong Kong consulate on June 3rd, 2013. I arranged interpretation service immediately, and I myself also accompy my wife for this interview.
I understand, in recent years there are many applications with fake marriage that aimed to immigrate to Canada, and these individual cases destroyed efficiency and integrity of entire system. Therefore, after receiving the interview notice, I spent numerous time and energy to prepare various documents required in the interview in order to coordinate immigration office’s work. Besides, I make a full sense and respect subjective independent jurisdiction of immigration officer that bestowed by law. Before interview, I know about many cases that authentic marriage may be refused due to misjudgement by immigration officer’s subjective judgement. Also we have a mental preparation of denial. So today, I am not intended to appeal result of our interview to you, we respect the jurisdiction of immigration office regarding this part. But we will strive for our legal rights through normal appeal channel until my wife and I reunited. What I want to tell you today is about unfair, unprofessional and irresponsible, also disrespectful to applicant and guarantee that your colleague showed during our interview in Hong Kong consulate. I expect to bring a positive change for all work team of federal immigration office under your leadship.
At first, in my understanding, the inverview in working procedure of the immigration office is aimed at being responsible for applicants. Once immigration officer found some doubts while looking over files in advance, they will invite applicants to clarify these doubts through communicating with immigration officers to avoid destroying parties’s interests due to subjective misjudgement. But our interview experience told us that, conversation between immigration officer and us is not for this aim, he has just finished a form. While the aim of this form is just to lead the result of entire interview to the result that he has preset before interview, that is denial. Specific reasons are as below:
1. The immigration officer mentioned a specific doubt about the authenticity of our marriage in the interview directly, that is applicant did not see my parents and children(including my son stayed with me and daught stayed with my ex-wife). We also thought of the possibility that immigration officer may have a doubt about this problem, and prepared to explain the reasons according to actual situation. However, immigration officer just allowed my wife to answer whether she has seen or not, and did not allow her to explain reasons of not seeing. There was a a clear answer about the fact that my wife did not see my parents and children in application documents. If the immigration officer did not care about reasons for this problem, just cared a simple yes or no, then this interview was meaningless in my opinion. What’s more, it wasted money of taxpayer;
2. The second denial reason is that immigration officer has a doubt regarding whether my wife and I had an economic capability to afford family expenditure. First, what I want to explain is that couple reunion is a basic requirement of human rights. Just because of this reason, immigration office did not provide a rigid requirement for income of couple reunion guarantee. Otherwise, I am unable to pass through the investigation of guarantee qualification from immigration office. I understand that immigration officer may consider this factor when making a decision. While, immigration officer did not ask any questions regarding this aspect during the entire interview process. Although we reminded him that we have prepared adequate documents to prove our economic capacity, the immigration officer refused our requirements just in the reason that he did not have time to check. Finally, he added this point to the denial reasons. I think it is unfair for applicant.
3. In the denial letter, immigration officer mentioned that according to application materials you submitted, and specially mentioned”including evidences you provided during your interview”, I can not satisfy, and so on. Actual situation is that we have prepared enough documents for this interview, and the content involved all aspects of our marital life and work. More than 30kg documents are sufficient to prove authenticity of our marital life. Unfortunately, although my wife requested immigration officer to give her an opportunity to show the evidentiary materials she brought for many times, he still arbitrarily said that I did not want to read your any material. I just need to ask you several questions, and make my judgement according to your answer. Now I have given you the chance, but you are unable to make me satisfied.
In conclusion, I thought the immigration officer abused his power and did not make a justice in the interview. He deliberately lead the result of this interview to his preset subjective judgement before interview. He ignored hurt that brought to involved parties’family because of his miscounduct behavior, and this harmed the parties’ legal rights and interests seriously.
Secondly, I think that the immigration officer was extremely unprofessional during working process. He did not respect for applicant and guarantee. Detailed descriptions are as below:
1. When my wife and I enterred into the office, immigration officer just looked up to see the interviewer except when doing self-introduction, most time he just looked down and typed, occasionally gave a glance to us arrogantly. Only 10 seconds after our denial, we received a denial letter which contained hundreds of words attached to returned materials. I have a reason to believe that, just 50 minutes from beginning to the end of this interview, the only concentrated thing for the immigration officer was that he was writing and checking this denial letter seriously. This also proved why he refused to accept any detailed explanations from applicant and read any written materials prepared by applicant. He just took this interview as a means that lead to the denial result that he preset. In my opinion, this working attitude violated professional integrity of federal employees.
2. During this interview, the immigration officer interrupted talking from my wife and I rudely for many times, and frequently gave reprimand and assesment with subjective bias even contumelious to us. Such as:
a. The immigration officer has caused huge mental pressure to parties involved because of his arrogant and casual attitude, while if there was any delay for the questions, he will rebuke at once”Please answer questions honestly”.
b. When you intended to explain the his doubt detailedly, he said” Please do not make up some ridiculous reasons, you just need to simply answer me yes or no.”
c. The immigration officer asked:’ Is your husband back to see you frequently?” My wife answered” He came back to China to see me for five times since our acquaintance from now”, and the immigration officer said promptly:”Hum, he just came to China for business and met you incidentally.”
3. Many aspects in the denial letter did not match with real procedures of the interview, these would damage professional levels and credibility of federal immigration office, for example:
a. The immigration officer refused parties to explain his doubts for him and just allowed my wife to simply repeatedly answer the questions that have had clear answers in materials. However, he wrote in the denial letter that he had provided an opportunity for parties to explain fully.
b. The immigration officer did not ask any questions about economic capacity of applicant, but mentioned in the denial letter that he had inspected applicant’s economic capacity and conclued that my wife was unable to burden the family expenditures.
c. The immigration officer said in the denial letter that his decision had referred evidences submitted by applicant in the interview. But acutal situation is that, the immigration officer refused applicant’s request to show evidentiary materials carried for three times, and never checked any page of the materials.
I think, as a professional person, immigration officer may have his own subjective judgement according to applicant’s statement and evidence. But he should not give assessment that with obvious bias and contumelious to parties during conversation, also he should not say the words that may hurt mutual affection of the couple. Mostly, he should not ignore duties that he must perform during the interview casually. The immigration officer I met showed extreme unprofessional in this aspect.
This made me recall the scene when I received an interview for skilled migration visa in the consulate of Hong Kong 12 years ago (in 2001). In the same office of the same consulate, and also been federal immigration officers, their methods and attitude to work are really poles apart. That day, I was interviewed from 9 am until 15 pm, this was because the immigration services company that standed for me has gone brankrupt due to mismanagement. Their office space was withdrawed, thus made me lose contact with my immigration files. I wrote a letter to immigration department and required them to cancel the qualification of my original agent. However, I never thought that my immigration company wrote a same letter assumed my name and required to transfer my agent qualification to a person in Beijing(Actually this person is a relative of that immigration company). They did not want to provide subsequent services, but attempted to ask money from me though getting my immigration paper. The immigration officer found these two letters with the same signature but content and handwriting were different. It was resonable to judg that there must be one fake doucument and suspected a criminal offence of forging documents. The visa officer did not make a denial decision just simply and hastily. On the contrary, they took a responsible attitude to applicant and investigated entire process patiently. Finally, they determined that I was an innocent victim, and the immigration company suspected a criminal offence of forging documents. That day, I met three federal officers in total, including immigration officer, investigator in the consulate and general consul in Hong Kong. Eventually, general consul thanked for my coordination on behalf of Hong Kong consulate and issued immigration visa for me. My deepest feeling was not different visa results of the two cases, but federal officers’ distinct attitude towards work.
Today, I checked the official website of immigration office. Another disappointed thing is that, as a primary administrative institution, immigration office served for tens of thousands of citizens and applicants both at home and abroad, and established many complaints schemes that aimed at immigration consultants and undesirable immigration applicants. However, immigration office did not provide any complaints channel that aimed at themselves, it seems that our immigration minister confidently believe that the immigration office he led is always great and right. This reminded me of the autocracy style that I known in China before. These two situations are exactly the same. However, most administrative institutions in China established a complaints institution named petition office symbolically, our immigration office even omitted this form.
As a citizen, I formally demand immigration office to response for my follwing complaints about the unjust treatment that my wife and I sufferred in Hong Kong consulate:
1. Start internal investigation schem to verify the encounter I declared and give me a formal written reply;
2. If you have verified that immigration officer’s behaviour has violated professional integrity and working procedures during his work, he should be punished correspondingly and apologize for parties involved in public;
3. In order to avoid this phonomenon existing in a long run, you should improve working procedures of immigration interview, and clarify immigration officer’s working guidelines further;
4. Open a public complaints channel on the website of immigration office and disclose immigration office’s schemes of dealing with complaints to citizens.
Honorable minister, I know that I am just a negligible member among thousands of electors. My weak voice may be ignored directly, even I will never receive any reply. There is a proverb in my hometown”Good medicine is bitter, Good advice is harsh to the ear”. I believe that my criticism is kind and positive. I will continuously to claim until problems are settled down. I am confident about basic democracy and legal systems of Canada, also I will cast a tiny but sacred vote in the election.
Appreciate very much for your valuable time, and looking forward to your reply!
An ordinary citizen
