Changes to Immigration Regs affecting spousal/cl/cp applications expected soon.

[hoping75]

I think the big issue here in question is for those who pick the countries they would like to live in, but have no other possible way to qualify to even visit there, and then they send out mass Emails to hundreds of women in those countries in hopes that someone will bite.
It is very sad, but we know it happens far too often. They send beautiful Emails to anyone, any age, any situation just in hopes that they will get someone to fall in love with them, and sponsor them. I really believe those are the ones that are going to have a more difficult time with this law.

I hate to say sadly that I have heard of men being engaged with several women at the same time, and marries the one who gets there the fastes to marry and sponsor them. that is such a scary and difficult fact to digest.

I really don't believe that this will be an issue for real genuine relationships.

I know the pain and the worry of waiting through this immigration process. It givers you so many sleepless nights, but as was mentioned, be sure to put together the best application package as you possibly can.
I have heard of so many couples sending in the bare minimum with the application, and saying I will just give them proof at the interview, but I honestly believe that the decision is almost made before the interview. The interview many times just verifies the agent's opinion that was established from the application itself. When my Husband had his interview, every question was related on what we had in the application, and we sent sooooooooooooo much evidence. He took a lot of evidence with him to the interview, but they didn't even have the time to look at what he brought with him.

Thank God he was approved the same day, because I would have chewed my fingers off if I had to wait for an answer. lol

So I wish everyone a speedy process and a long and happy life with your loved ones.

 

[thaihubbie]

I have mentioned our story in earlier threads so I won't get into it too much again. When my husband applied for a TRV in Bangkok in 2006 when I was pregnant and we were unmarried and then again in 2007 when we were married and with our daughter. We were TOLD by the officer in the embassy that I needed to Sponsor him. The first time he was refused a TRV we had wanted to have a marriage ceremony with my family present. So obviously when they refused and I was pregnant we got married there. If from my understanding of these new regulations they are trying to prevent people from entering into marriages simply because the Sponsored person wants to immigrate to Canada. What about our case? We were told we HAD to immigrate to Canada.

 

[mr70]

I find this quite upsetting!! The VO has been handed even more power,and it sounds like it is based only on someones feelings, the VO's feelings.So what happens if they are wrong in there feelings? They are human also and sometimes peoples feelings are not correct. Sometimes when you meet someone you don't like them,even if they are truly decent people. So if the VO don't like you,based on thier feelings, you're sunk! For some of the joint names on land titles etc, for hard evidence, the spouse has to have a SIN number,show ID and be present when signing but if the spouse is denied entry, even on a TRV, how can things be set up jointly? How can you trust only one persons feelings,maybe there're having a bad day and take it out on you! Who is going to check or police their conduct? A few bad apples have spoiled the barrel for the rest of us and now we are paying for it!!!!

 

[dair2dv8103100]

I find this quite upsetting!! The VO has been handed even more power,and it sounds like it is based only on someones feelings, the VO's feelings.So what happens if they are wrong in there feelings? They are human also and sometimes peoples feelings are not correct. Sometimes when you meet someone you don't like them,even if they are truly decent people. So if the VO don't like you,based on thier feelings, you're sunk! For some of the joint names on land titles etc, for hard evidence, the spouse has to have a SIN number,show ID and be present when signing but if the spouse is denied entry, even on a TRV, how can things be set up jointly? How can you trust only one persons feelings,maybe there're having a bad day and take it out on you! Who is going to check or police their conduct? A few bad apples have spoiled the barrel for the rest of us and now we are paying for it!!!!

I ranted over this before too...I agree...in my job I have had people call me and just because I did not use the "right" tone of voice with them they made assumptions that where completely false. We are all guilty of this...have a bad day and we don't treat people the same as we would normally...only difference...BIG difference...VO's are dealing with peoples lives not just a simple snapping at a friend cuz we are in a pissy mood. This kind of control over someones life that you have never met is disconcerting.

 

[javcil]

I don't think any of us "real" couples have anything to be concerned about.
Based on what this here says in the regulation, they understand that marrying to be able to live with our spouse in Canada is common but you should not have married solely just for a visa. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, just my understanding.

Here is the quote I was talking about:
"In a bona fide relationship, while the prospect of living in Canada may be an important consideration in choosing a marriage partner, it should not be the primary purpose of the marriage."

I think this quote is referring to arranged marriages. Right before that it states:

Genuine arranged marriages, including those in which the prospect of a life together in Canada was a consideration in choosing a marriage partner, are not intended to be targeted by this regulatory change.

 

[HoneyBird]

I think this quote is referring to arranged marriages. Right before that it states:

Genuine arranged marriages, including those in which the prospect of a life together in Canada was a consideration in choosing a marriage partner, are not intended to be targeted by this regulatory change.

so this means if its an arranged marriage its totally okay to have the reason to get married as a way to canada.

well if i had only known! I am indian...I could of simply said I was 'arrange marriage' to my hubby. steups.

 

[jade]

I hope we wouldn't be affected by this new regulation..... We got married January this year, when I was 7 months pregnant. So, we are living together here in Canada but we decided to do an outland application application anyway. Application for sponsorship was received July 14 and was approved August 16. They sent my application for permanent residence in Buffalo and it was received August 25. They started processing the PR application September 3. I hope and pray we won't be denied, we have a beautiful baby boy and it would kill me if I'd have to be sent home if there would be a problem on my application.

 

[giggles1985]

If you're living together it's rather unlikely for it to be considered an ungenuine relationship.


Also, that part about the arranged marriages really throws me for a loop. If they are truly saying that it's ok to marry someone in Canada for the purpose of moving and having a better life.. why are there even regulations about genuine relationships in the first place??

 

[buddhadimple]

I think this all depends on the definition. What is a "genuine relationship"? In my culture, a genuine relationship is where two people meet, they get to know each other over time, and then they live together, and then they get married because they love each other and want to make a solid, legal commitment. Obviously in other cultures, the definition changes. So what IS a "genuine relationship" to CIC? Are we going by standards set by Canadian culture, multi-culture, the culture of the Applicant...?

 

[dair2dv8103100]

I think this all depends on the definition. What is a "genuine relationship"? In my culture, a genuine relationship is where two people meet, they get to know each other over time, and then they live together, and then they get married because they love each other and want to make a solid, legal commitment. Obviously in other cultures, the definition changes. So what IS a "genuine relationship" to CIC? Are we going by standards set by Canadian culture, multi-culture, the culture of the Applicant...?

As well you have to take into consideration all the religious aspects as well...so how do you define between cultural and religious differences?? Thats a pretty broad range!

 

[rjessome]

@ hoping75 - Yep, we've both been around here a long time and have "seen" lots. Just take a second and think about how many unsolicited invitations to be friends that women get from men on Facebook? It happens at least 2 or 3 times a week for me so I can only imagine how many for the younger, prettier and UNMARRIED women! And the majority of these invites are not from men living in Canada.

@thaihubbie - You have already applied so any changes to the regulations will not affect you. And the changes are not trying (in the opinion of the government) to make genuine couples suffer. In your situation, having lived with your husband for so long as well, it will have no impact on your case.

@ mr70 - Subjective discretion has always been a part of this process in this category. Unfortunately, it's the nature of the immigration beast. And it's a no win situation. Humans are flawed and therefore, make mistakes. Yes, the VOs will make mistakes on both sides of the coin, i.e. not approving genuine couples AND approving those that were scammers. Amendments to the Regulations don't take away the descretion that was already there but allows the VO to err further on the side of caution. There is no perfect solution. The squeaky wheel gets the grease so those victims of fraud are yelling for the government to protect them and others who may be scammed. So the government is reacting. If this results in more refusals, longer wait times at the IAD and some media attention, it may turn the other way. Time will tell.

@ jade - You have already applied. Any amendments will not affect your application as it is already in process.

@ giggles - Arranged marriages have all kinds of cultural connotations that I don't feel qualified to comment on in depth. My basic understanding is that families have always agreed on the marriage based on what is in the best interests of their children and their respective families as a huge part of the arrangement. This has always been the case, even when Canada was an unheard of wilderness. So what will have the most "benefit" is fluid in arranged marriages but is part of thousands of years of tradition. The government is trying to recognize that. However, are VOs going to get into picking apart these contracts where it looks like the ONLY benefit is immigrating to Canada?

@ buddhadimple (love the name) - One thing I can say is that for the most part, Canadian VOs have always heavily considered all cultural norms when it comes to marriage. In fact, when there are cross-cultural marriages, it often feels like the Canadian's culture is not considered enough! That was even my own personal experience. So I would not worry about the VOs trying to impose Canadian culture on applicants.

The amendments have NOT been registered yet. The point of this thread is to advise new applicants to consider BOTH genuineness and immigration to Canada when preparing their applications because these changes are expected in the near future. Anyone already in the process will not be affected.

 

[waitingintz]

I have to say I don't think any of us should really have a problem with the principle of the new regulations: people who marry for immigration purposes alone SHOULDN'T be approved. It's the application of it that concerns us and what kind of extra proof will be required.

I've been around this forum for a few months and it amazes me how many people's timelines list marraige less than one month before the application is submitted. I'm absolutely NOT suggesting that all of those people are in fraudulent relationships or anything like that because I've heard some of the circumstances and understand. I consulted with a lawyer before applying and "should we get married first" was definitely a question I brought up. We decided to apply as common-law partners but I also have the luxory of having a partner who is a White South African (a question the lawyer delicately asked before answering the question, I might add).

I think realistically, if you have been in a long-term, genuine relationship you won't need a marraige certificate in order to sponsor your partner. It's the couples that feel that for whatever reason they wouldn't be approved that go to the extra length of getting married first. So we're talking about relationships that would be questioned anyway. As long as the VO is accessing Common-Law and Conjugal relationships in a fair way, genuinge relationships shouldn't be troubled by this new added challenge (and really - it's primarily going to be couple's recently married that this would apply to).

And does anyone really think that couples should be encouraged to rush into marraige just to be together in Canada? Better to have a reasonable common-law and conjugal application process.

 

[dair2dv8103100]

I've been around this forum for a few months and it amazes me how many people's timelines list marraige less than one month before the application is submitted.

I absolutely hope mine is ready less than a month after my marriage!! I have been away from him for over a year and once we are married in Jan I totally intend to be applying in Feb. Does this indicate somehow that my relationship is less genuine than someone who waits a year?? I should hope not! Everyone's circumstances are different and should be treated as such.

Absolutely the concern is how the new rules would be applied. I also have missing msn records because of my computer crashing...again, does this make my relationship less real?? This is the concern I have, that this totally annonymous person has that much control, having a bad day etc to say "They are missing msn records from this time to this time..hmm I think it is not genuine so sorry...DENIED"

 

[sbwv09]

I've been around this forum for a few months and it amazes me how many people's timelines list marraige less than one month before the application is submitted.

I think realistically, if you have been in a long-term, genuine relationship you won't need a marraige certificate in order to sponsor your partner. It's the couples that feel that for whatever reason they wouldn't be approved that go to the extra length of getting married first. So we're talking about relationships that would be questioned anyway. As long as the VO is accessing Common-Law and Conjugal relationships in a fair way, genuinge relationships shouldn't be troubled by this new added challenge (and really - it's primarily going to be couple's recently married that this would apply to).

And does anyone really think that couples should be encouraged to rush into marraige just to be together in Canada? Better to have a reasonable common-law and conjugal application process.

I feel this is a bit unfair. I was with my husband in an LD relationship for 6 years before we got married, so now I am a suspicious person because we applied for PR shortly after the wedding? I am a religious person and I wouldn't be with someone the rest of my life if we weren't married, regardless of an immigration situation. However, I have seen cases on here and other forums where people were initally turned down who were in legit common law or conjugal relationships and had to marry because of that. Does that make them frauds? I even read one case in another forum where the VO actually told them to get married and turned down their conjugal application.

I loved him for a long time and I waited a long time for him. Do you think we should have lived apart for a year AFTER the wedding? Do you think I should have stayed in Canada for years without being able to work or have OHIP so we could be common law (or vice versa for him)?

I'm awfully glad my VO didn't share your beliefs.

 

[dair2dv8103100]

I have to say I don't think any of us should really have a problem with the principle of the new regulations: people who marry for immigration purposes alone SHOULDN'T be approved. It's the application of it that concerns us and what kind of extra proof will be required.

I've been around this forum for a few months and it amazes me how many people's timelines list marraige less than one month before the application is submitted. I'm absolutely NOT suggesting that all of those people are in fraudulent relationships or anything like that because I've heard some of the circumstances and understand. I consulted with a lawyer before applying and "should we get married first" was definitely a question I brought up. We decided to apply as common-law partners but I also have the luxory of having a partner who is a White South African (a question the lawyer delicately asked before answering the question, I might add).

I think realistically, if you have been in a long-term, genuine relationship you won't need a marraige certificate in order to sponsor your partner. It's the couples that feel that for whatever reason they wouldn't be approved that go to the extra length of getting married first. So we're talking about relationships that would be questioned anyway. As long as the VO is accessing Common-Law and Conjugal relationships in a fair way, genuinge relationships shouldn't be troubled by this new added challenge (and really - it's primarily going to be couple's recently married that this would apply to).

And does anyone really think that couples should be encouraged to rush into marraige just to be together in Canada? Better to have a reasonable common-law and conjugal application process.

As an after thought...I agree with sbwv09 I am a person of faith and I would not live with someone or have a life long relationship with someone I am not married to.

I believe that immigration views conjugal and common law partners with the most scrutiny because it could be just a situation where it is a friend helping a friend move to another country without making the commitment of marriage which to me makes the relationship more valid since it is a huge commitment to make.

Marriage to me means that we have had a relationship...fell in love...discussed the future and decided we want to be together. Our mutual religious views also state that we must be married to live together and this is also why we choose to get married. I can't leave Canada because of my circumstances so the choice to be together means he must live here. So does this mean that we are marrying just so he can come to Canada...no, we fell in love and want to be together like any other 2 people on earth who fall in love want to be together. But I guess depending on how you look at it maybe it could...again...does that make my relationship less genuine than yours simply because we choose to get married??