So base it off today’s processing time.Spouse is in India. Back in May, processing time was shown as 129 days. Now it's 158 days.
So base it off today’s processing time.Spouse is in India. Back in May, processing time was shown as 129 days. Now it's 158 days.
I have never heard of being able to ascertain the identity of any individual VO or the ability to call them up and urge them on.
Processing time is now shown as about 5.5 months. I went through this recently with someone from another country. Time was shown as 37 days when the application was submitted in March. The decision came in July. By that standard, you might face a lot more than 5.5 months.
So you still haven’t started the spousal sponsorship process? You should be also focusing on that.I agree with the processing times timeline but in reality, I see random processing times from IRCC. Some vv applications are getting approved in just a week or 2. I was hoping they would follow first come - first serve kind of a system. On top of that, some tourist visa applications from my country are getting approved sooner and people like me who just want to see their spouse have to wait for months. Its just not fair, honestly.
And I agree there is a lot of unfairness in the system. Spouses seem to get the worst consideration in many ways.
Overall, I think best to follow Naturgrl's advice and start spousal sponsorship process. I recognize you have been hoping for TRV at an early date and then apply inland. But, it's costing you time and, in the end, a denial is quite likely unless your spouse is able to present a very strong application, meaning a good job to which to return, assets, especially land title, strong family ties, a record of travel to places like U.S., etc.
Then we should be adopting the American model. Stop offering many chances to stay. Do not give free legal aid. Deport swiftly. Treat the overstayers as the criminals they are. Don't punish the many innocents for the sins of the few fraudsters.
I have no expectation of any overhaul. Indeed, it will only go downhill. And Canada is now upfront about it taking 2 years (not one year) to sponsor a spouse and, if that is what they say online, you can bet 3 years will be more likely. They readily admit that one year has become 2 years and it's only a matter of time until they will concede it's 3 years. The plan is to discourage spousal sponsorship altogether. They want to send a strong message that one should not even think about marrying someone who lives in another country. The clear intent is to promote the idea that one should marry only someone who is here now, legally.
As for TRV, I see the existing practice as so artificial. Jobs and savings really mean nothing. A "good job" in many countries pays peanuts. As for showing land ownership, so what? For one thing, does the IRCC send out an appraiser to see that the land/house is worth? Again, houses in many countries cost a fraction of what they do here. And savings don't mean much and can easily be faked, by some benefactor making regular deposits well in advance. I am not talking about a clumsy large deposit being made shortly before applying for a TRV.
If someone seriously wants to come to Canada, giving up a low-paying job elsewhere is nothing. Besides, jobs are ephemeral. Often they do not last. That's certainly the modern experience in Canada. A lots of employers do not feel loyalty to an employee (and vice versa). No one has a job for life anymore.
As for property ownership, it can be sold and the proceeds brought here. It's not a tie at all. Apart from travel history, mostly what the IRCC wants to see is a show of finances. Hardly something to cause one to want to go home in many cases. And, if it's all about the money, then why not allow applicants to put up money? I would happily make a cash deposit of $500,000 to ensure a spouse I was bringing over on a TRV respects the terms of the visa. If the spouse does not go home when the visa expires, the government forfeits the money. That would keep most folks honest, far more than showing $10,000 or some pittance in the bank.
Also, often it is said here that the IRCC is slow to approve TRVs for spouses, or for a boyfriend or girlfriend, out of fear they will show up, then apply inland. Well, if that's such a concern, why allow that to happen? Make it a clear rule that if you arrive on a TRV, you are forbidden to apply inland and, if you do, the application will be summarily rejected and a 5-year ban imposed. Also make it a rule that, if you overstay, even a later outland application will be subject to a 5-year (or longer) ban.
And I agree there is a lot of unfairness in the system. Spouses seem to get the worst consideration in many ways.
Overall, I think best to follow Naturgrl's advice and start spousal sponsorship process. I recognize you have been hoping for TRV at an early date and then apply inland. But, it's costing you time and, in the end, a denial is quite likely unless your spouse is able to present a very strong application, meaning a good job to which to return, assets, especially land title, strong family ties, a record of travel to places like U.S., etc.
I'll have to take your word for that. But I'll take it that the IRCC would not tell the world to expect 2 years if any significant numbers get through in a year. Moreover, whatever the posted processing time, they put up more roadblocks to extend it well beyond that.
Take the Philippines for example. To even start the sponsorship process, one requires a Philippines Statistics Authority marriage certificate. It's very easy to provide proof in the form of the marriage certificates one can get from the Office of the Civil Registrar General right after the wedding. But the IRCC knows it can take 6 months to get the PSA certificate. It offers no weightier proof, just a lot longer to get, so the IRCC demands it, to delay the application by many months. It has to be there the day you file the sponsorship application, even though no one will even look at that application for months. Of course, they won't let you apply and send in the PSA certificate upon receipt. That would be too considerate. Similarly, if they started the application before the certificate was filed, they could send a form saying no further processing will be done until received. Instead, they will reject the application out of hand, forcing one to start over and pay the fees a second time.
I was talking not about the variety of reasons, but only the case of someone coming in on a TRV and then applying inland. It would be easy to adopt a rule precluding that manoeuvre.
I disagree it would be such a huge burden. I was talking about allowing it to be done for those willing to put up some serious money. That's why I said $500,000 or so. If too many takers at that level, raise it to $1 million. I suspect the numbers willing (or able) to come up with that kind of coin would be legion in their numbers. Just let those who can pay the freight do it. No more discriminatory than saying if you don't have "longterm good employment" you don't count. It's all discrimination. The law does not forbid discrimination. Where addressed by legislation, it always sets out "prohibited grounds" of discrimination. Can you point to some legislation, binding the IRCC, that would prohibit the type of discrimination I am talking about.
Yes, it can be blamed on the IRCC. As I said the Office of the Civil Registrar General will issue a marriage certificate. It is available on providing the marriage licence and proof that the marriage took place. The same things required to get the PSA certificate. Just that the latter takes much longer. So why require it? Many countries (Canada included) do not have such registries. When I was married in Canada, all that we got was a simple certificate filled in by the person who performed the marriage.QUOTE="canuck78, post: 10193970, member: 678500"]
Requiring documentation that involves wait time in someone’s home country can’t be blamed on IRCC. Requiring a marriage certificate is very standard documentation and is required in all countries.
Hi, how long was the validity of the TRV? I was considering going through the same process. But i read online that you can get a TRV for a single visit and they can decide the amount of months to be there? Is that true that i may not get a 10 year multiple entry visa?Guys, I want to share some good news with you all. My wife's visitor visa has been approved and PPR received. Thank you to this amazing group and whoever jumped in this thread for the support and advice. Especially @Kaibigan. I owe you a beer or two at least my friend.
Hi, how long was the validity of the TRV? I was considering going through the same process. But i read online that you can get a TRV for a single visit and they can decide the amount of months to be there? Is that true that i may not get a 10 year multiple entry visa?
Hi, how long was the validity of the TRV? I was considering going through the same process. But i read online that you can get a TRV for a single visit and they can decide the amount of months to be there? Is that true that i may not get a 10 year multiple entry visa?