Conditional PR Removal Appeal?

[duMaurier]

Hey if anyone doesnt know my story..My wife accused me of abuse within 30 days of landing. Cops came no arrest was made. She is currently with a NGO Immigration. I feel she used me, MOC.

I have informed the CBSA Fraud so up to them to investigate. But after the 2 years of separation.. How does the appeal work? Like let say she is able to get stay. Am I able to appeal the decision? Because it appears that Immigration Lawyers, etc. are able to get the conditions removed with little evidence.

I been through an appeal myself, for when her PR got rejected as they suspected MoC. It wasnt hard to show that I genuinely loved her but it was her that they suspected of MoC which I didnt have to prove... because stupid me didn't suspect that and thought it was because our ceremony was soo small. All I did was show her FB posts of our ceremony around that time and done.. I wish I can go back in time and not appeal at all then I wouldn't have to deal with this..but would still have to deal with divorce.

My question is can I appeal the decision if they allow her to stay (sorry I cant allow this dishonesty, fraud, using people to get into Canada). Because when she appeals she can show whatever evidence of abuse she had where I cant show my evidence of the type of liar, Sociopath she is.

Why isnt the local NGO Immigration not giving me the chance to hear my side of the story? It will be them that will help her get the conditions removed. I emailed them but no success. I am plannig to get all my family, friends, co-workers to mass email so they can at least have a sit down with me. I already emailed my MLA and Mayor lol. I will be sending more emails and maybe even a Facebook group in the next few months. I remember USA guys setting up a petition but I dont think any results yet.

Has anyone got any stories, success stories the better lol, of a conditional PR getting removed due to relationship breakdown within 2 years? I know the law is fairly new but I am sure there has been similar "cases" as mine. Thanks.

 

[Leon]

As far as I know, you can not appeal if they choose not to investigate her or not to remove her.

You can read about similar cases here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/#search/type=decision&ccId=cisr&text=condition%20cohabit&origType=decision&origCcId=cisr

I used a generic search for condition and cohabit so it may turn up cases that are irrelevant to your situation but you should find some that are similar to yours too.

 

[dpenabill]

Conditional PR Removal Appeal?

I have informed the CBSA Fraud so up to them to investigate.

I recognize the extent to which this situation is causing emotional pain and suffering.

You have done your part. You informed CBSA Fraud.

Your part in any CBSA or IRCC process is limited to reporting concrete facts to CBSA or IRCC, including those facts which expose misrepresentations made during the process of applying for and becoming a PR, and those facts related to the cessation of cohabiting.

Do that, make the report (or supplement the one already made if you have more concrete information), and then let the immigration part of this go. It is NOT about you. It is NOT your case.

Do that and skip the rest of what I post below. You will not like some of what I illuminate below. There is no good reason for you to pursue this and wear the pain of what it is. That is, there is no good reason for you anything other than your civic duty, make a proper factual report (which you say you have), and then deal with your spouse just like you would if your spouse was a born-in-Canada citizen, since as between the two of you, unless and until her PR is lost, she is indeed a Canadian (albeit PR not citizen, but Canadian nonetheless).


As I noted in response to SOS PLEASE:

There is NO process for an individual to pursue or obtain the deportation of another person.

The sponsor is NOT a party. The sponsor is a witness, merely a witness.




Longer, more detailed explanation:

(which you really do not need to read if you understand you have no role in what happens on the immigration side and decide to let that part of this go)

Your role is to report factual information (what you think or your conclusions do not mean much, since IRCC can only take action based on established facts) to IRCC and it is up to IRCC to investigate and, if IRCC determines there is cause, to then take action based on fraud (misrepresentation) or a failure to satisfy the cohabiting condition.

What IRCC (or CBSA) does in this particular case is no more your business than it is the business of 30 plus other million Canadians, the common interest all Canadians have to see that the law is upheld and enforced. We have dedicated government agencies to do this. IRCC and CBSA are charged with the responsibility of upholding and enforcing our immigration laws. Other than those who are specifically the subject of enforcement proceedings, individuals have no personal interest in such proceedings. You have NO personal stake in how IRCC handles this.


"Conditional PR Removal Appeal?"

Can the sponsor appeal an IRCC decision to not terminate PR status based on a failure to satisfy the cohabiting condition? No, absolutely not. A sponsor has no standing to appeal any decision to act or not act taken by IRCC against a PR.

In an earlier post I referenced one Federal Court decision which did state that a sponsor has enough of an interest in the proceedings to be entitled to some information about them. So far as I have seen, that case was a bit of an outlier and even that decision reiterated that the sponsor has NO direct interest in the proceedings.

. . . sorry I cant allow this dishonesty, fraud, using people to get into Canada . . .

Really? Apparently there are scores of instances in which people exploit a MoC for the purpose of obtaining status in Canada. How many of those cases have you previously pursued, personally pursued, to as you say "not allow" such fraud or dishonesty?"

Why are you choosing to make this one instance, among scores and scores of others, your personal cause?

Step back and recognize this is NOT your cause. You think it is because of your personal hurt or pain. But no, sorry, the revocation or termination of your spouse's PR status is NOT your cause.

IRCC does take action to revoke the PR status of those who obtained status by fraud. IRCC does take action to terminate the PR status of those who do not satisfy the cohabiting condition. Not always. Not perfectly. Not all that quickly. But IRCC is mandated to investigate and enforce the immigration laws, and they do.

IRCC's handling of this might not satisfy you. But again, you have no personal stake in how this goes, no more than I have or any other Canadian who wants to see Canada's immigration laws upheld and enforced has.

In the meantime, the fact that you are approaching this as if it was your case, your cause, may become a big reason why a defense based on abuse might work for her.


Engaging in a pattern of conduct aimed at punishing the PR:

In the meantime, it appears you may have been busy making the case easy for her lawyers or representatives by engaging in actions which could easily be interpreted to be inappropriate attempts to interfere for the purpose of punishing her.

Why isnt the local NGO Immigration not giving me the chance to hear my side of the story? It will be them that will help her get the conditions removed. I emailed them but no success. I am plannig to get all my family, friends, co-workers to mass email so they can at least have a sit down with me. I already emailed my MLA and Mayor lol. I will be sending more emails and maybe even a Facebook group in the next few months.

There is no reason why the NGO should entertain your side of the story. Their job is not to judge.

After all, what would be the purpose of the NGO giving you the chance, as you say, to tell them your side of the story? If not to punish her?

Stand back a bit and look at what you say you have been doing: the emails you describe tend to show malice, an effort to cause her harm, at the least to harm her reputation, or again to otherwise punish her. (Sure, you strongly believe you are justified, but the behavior is nonetheless geared to be punitive.)

It appears you are basically making the case for her. Note that engaging in a pattern of conduct aimed at punishing her probably meets the text-book definition of abuse.


No abuse defense if there is a case to be made based on fraud/misrepresentation:

If IRCC's investigation determines there was fraud (a MoC, obtained by misrepresentation to CIC/IRCC), a sponsor's abuse is NO defense. If the evidence is there, based on facts, IRCC should proceed to revoke her PR status. IRCC and CBSA have actually dedicated a huge amount of resources to identifying and prosecuting immigration fraud. Many will still slip through. IRCC will focus on some cases and let others go. The tendency, for MoC, is to rely on the cohabiting condition as a primary enforcement tool. But if IRCC has concrete facts establishing fraud, misrepresentation, and enforcing the cohabiting condition is not available, there is a fair chance IRCC will follow through and prosecute the case to revoke PR status. (But again, I and all other Canadians have as much interest in whether they do this as you do; you do not have a personal stake in this.)


The abuse defense to a failure to satisfy the cohabiting condition:

My impression is that you have a flawed sense of what constitutes abuse which will support a defense against terminating PR status based on the failure to satisfy the two-year cohabiting condition.

My wife accused me of abuse within 30 days of landing. Cops came no arrest was made.

The Abuse accusation I think will not stick if it ever comes down to it. As I called the police and so did she, she showed a bruise and I was not arrested . . .

. . . Again I never hurt her.

All those appear to be in reference to physical abuse, the sort of abuse that would constitute a crime and for which a person may be arrested, charged, convicted, and penalized criminally. Such abuse would indeed constitute an abuse defense for purposes of the cohabiting condition.

But several other forms of abuse, many of which would not be a crime, will also constitute an abuse defense for purposes of the cohabiting condition.

For a more thorough explanation of this, see the Backgrounder — Exceptions from Conditional Permanent Residence for Victims of Abuse or Neglect which can be found here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-10-26b.asp

In any event, abuse which will constitute a defense but which is not criminal, and thus not something law enforcement would make an arrest regarding, includes psychological abuse, intimidation, financial abuse, or neglect.

Also see an operational bulletin about enforcing the two-year cohabiting condition from about a year ago: Operational Bulletin 480 (Modified) – November 16, 2015 which can be found here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2012/ob480.asp#apph

See, in particular, Appendix C -- Types of Abuse, in OB 480

For example, Appendix C states that psychological abuse includes a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour, which can include, but is not limited to insults, intimidation, humiliation, harassment or threats, name-calling, yelling, blaming, shaming, ridiculing, disrespecting, and criticising . . .

For example, Appendix C states that financial abuse is a form of abuse which forces a spouse to depend on the perpetrator financially, including controlling finances or refusing to share money, or rigidly controlling finances and limiting the amount of resources the victim can access, or closely monitoring how the victim spends money.



Post-separation conduct:

As I noted, you may be making the case for her, engaging in a pattern of conduct aimed at punishing her, which would probably meet the text-book definition of abuse.

Technically your conduct after cohabiting has ceased would not directly support a defense of abuse, since to be a defense the abuse has to essentially be what caused the PR's failure to meet the cohabiting condition.

But, the pattern you describe, especially that which looks like an orchestrated vendetta (such as planning to get all your family, friends, and co-workers to mass email, which would be text-book harassment), would tend to corroborate if not verify an overtly abusive nature of the relationship. Just be digging yourself in deeper.


To be clear, my sense is that CBSA or IRCC will do its job.

Given the brevity of the time spent living together, particularly if you have submitted hard evidence of misrepresentations tending to indicate a fraudulent intent, this seems like a case in which IRCC will do due diligence and make a real effort to investigate and take action, assuming the result of their investigation leads IRCC to take action.

But that could take years. It often does. And it does not affect or diminish your obligations and responsibilities, particularly those you owe to the Canadian government (to reimburse the government if it provides support to her).

 

[duMaurier]

Thank you. Yes at this point im just venting out my frustrations in forums. I just thought If I tell my story to news, etc. It would spread awareness and prevent others from going through what I gone through. And isnt mass email similar to a petitioning, protesting? Or is it better to wait after everything is all done with then start awareness?

You are basically saying I already did my part by informing CBSA. Its hard to move on becuase I put so much effort into getting her here and now she is stress free and doesn't have to worry about anything as she is taken care of.. Because we still have to divorce and Divisions of Asset, etc. I don't want it to be costly but becuase we only lived together for short period and she made no contribution to the assets I wouldn't think is fair. About $35K in RRSP, rental property which is not much. Do you know of any divorce forums? Or can I start a new topic about this?

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Or is it better to wait after everything is all done with then start awareness?

Do you know of any divorce forums? Or can I start a new topic about this?

What awareness do you speak of? There are already many news stories out there about people being tricked into MOCs. It doesn't make a difference.

You should find a good divorce lawyer.

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you. Yes at this point im just venting out my frustrations in forums. I just thought If I tell my story to news, etc. It would spread awareness and prevent others from going through what I gone through. And isnt mass email similar to a petitioning, protesting? Or is it better to wait after everything is all done with then start awareness?

You are basically saying I already did my part by informing CBSA. Its hard to move on becuase I put so much effort into getting her here and now she is stress free and doesn't have to worry about anything as she is taken care of.. Because we still have to divorce and Divisions of Asset, etc. I don't want it to be costly but becuase we only lived together for short period and she made no contribution to the assets I wouldn't think is fair. About $35K in RRSP, rental property which is not much. Do you know of any divorce forums? Or can I start a new topic about this?

I am hesitant to comment further because I apprehend no matter what is said, that what is said is more likely to aggravate the hurt. It is a triple whammy. There is profound loss on one hand, an extreme sense of being exploited on another, and that combination was delivered deliberately not just by someone trusted but someone loved.

The immigration aspect of this, however, is little more than a sidenote. And, that aspect is beyond your control, beyond your reach, except to the extent that you have done your part in making a report to the proper authorities.

How much further damage you might suffer, such as in a divorce case and in the distribution of assets, I do not know. But in that regard, my guess is that you should not be too exposed in these circumstances. For example, I doubt your retirement savings are at risk. You do need, however, to protect yourself on this front. And yes, that can be expensive. Canadian lawyers seem to be rather expensive for what they do. (But so do Canadian plumbers and electricians.)

To be clear about that, the longer the marriage lasts in form, the more she might have a claim to assets. You probably would be prudent to spend the money on lawyer fees to get the divorce done sooner rather than later. Cut your losses.

I was not being flippant in my earlier post about marriage being, perhaps, the most salient illustration of the caveat Buyer Beware. If you buy the house, it's yours.

As I have suggested multiple times, as others have as well, this is not so much about immigration as it is about the breakdown in a marriage and what happens then, what does a person to do to protect their heart and their assets.

In particular, I was not being the least bit flippant when I suggested approaching this as if your spouse was a Canadian citizen. After all, unless and until she loses her PR status, which could take years, she is indeed, in the meantime, a Canadian. The difference between her being a Canadian PR versus a Canadian citizen makes no difference in a divorce proceeding.

And isnt mass email similar to a petitioning, protesting? Or is it better to wait after everything is all done with then start awareness?

This is not easy to address.

Part of me is inclined to highlight that just because "name calling," "blaming," and "criticising" can constitute pyschological abuse, for purposes of a defense to a failure to satisfy the cohabiting condition, does not mean occasionally uttering criticism or blaming or even some name calling will constitute abuse.

How does one distinguish expressing some criticism from abusively criticizing?

Yes, an email campaign can indeed constitute petitioning or protesting. But, depending on how it is done and why, it can be harassment, and when directed at an individual or about an individual, that can be abusive.

The target of the campaign matters. If the target is a particular individual, that tends to be more about harassment. If the target is the policy or practice of a government body, or a corporation, sure, that more characterizes a petition or protest.

But generally the nature of the behavior is apparent. It's intent and impact is, usually, easily discerned. In particular, if the apparent objective is to harm or punish a particular individual, directly or indirectly, no advanced degrees in sociology are necessary to recognize it for what it is.

In other words, no, an email campaign focused on your spouse's alleged MoC would not be just about increasing awareness of MoCs to facilitate immigration to Canada, but would at least appear to be a campaign to hurt or smear or push the deportation of your spouse. It would appear to be abusive.

 

[Leon]

There have been some people in the past who have gone to the media to draw attention to marriage fraud. I remember one woman in particular who went to some official building in a wedding dress with a door on her back to signify her burden of supporting her sponsored husband who took off as soon as he got his PR.

This was before condition 51 and maybe condition 51 was partially a result of these people coming forward.

However, in most cases, the sponsor has no rights except to report. That's it. The abuse exception is there for a reason too. Immigration does not want people to stay in abusive relationships because they are trying to complete their two years. And like your wife, the abuse exception can be abused when a fraudulent spouse claims abuse in order to avoid having to stay with their sponsor for 2 years. Immigration investigates these cases and like in any investigation, they may end up seeing the truth or maybe not. For you, there's nothing much you can do about it. Just get through this divorce with a good lawyer and try to keep as much of yours as you can. If you ever get married again, be smart and make a prenuptial agreement.