ScottishPolish said:
Just a question - yes it seems like it was a dumb idea, however I if they put in place to cut down on MOC...then it wasn't a dumb idea. For those of us who have genuine relationships we shouldn't care if a requirement is 2 years of living together. For those who were just marrying to get someone in the country, then yes, its was valuable. Unless they are getting better and better at identifying those? I hope so...
Even with this condition, nothing changed with respect to following up on marriage fraud....and it can hurt genuine relationships. I do humanitarian contract work overseas and because of this condition, I am not able to take on work during the 2 year period because it is impossible for my husband (who is Syrian) to move to where I am working. When I spoke to the immigration officer upon his landing about this, he said short term contracts should be no problem (i.e. spending time away for short periods of time) but the reality of it is, the condition wording is very clear...and therefore there is huge discretion in the hands of immigration.
We applied outland and are in the process of moving back to Canada (finishing up contract here) and as everyone knows, it is not easy for our spouses to find work - especially if they are looking from outside Canada....so our ability to earn an income to bolster our finances is important and impacted by this condition.
This is just a small reason why it was not a great thing to implement in the first place...more importantly it may cause those who are in abusive relationships to feel they cannot help themselves (yes I'm aware of stuff that CIC has posted on this...
http://ccrweb.ca/files/cprfrontlineen.pdf) but many people would find it difficult to present a case, not being familiar with the country and being fearful that they don't have enough "evidence"...
http://ccrweb.ca/en/conditional-permanent-residence
Anyways, thankfully it has been repealed...but it would sure be great if those of us still under it can have it removed as well.
C.
