Conditional Visa's - It's Happening!

[maryamfarhan]

They still havnt updated the processing time for spouse sponsorship although its been more than 3 months. however many people opposed the proposed law. i heard that tons of negetive feedbacks on this have made it difficult to put it into force.

yeah u r right it has s many negative reviews ....i wish they decrease the timeline but now decreasing my hope

 

[maryamfarhan]

Processing times for sponsorship of spouses, common-law or conjugal partners and dependent children applications processed by visa offices outside Canada

The tables below indicate application processing times at Canadian visa offices outside Canada once Step 1 has been completed. The times are based on how long it took to process 80 percent of all cases between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. Processing times are subject to change.



Asia and Pacific
Visa Office Processing Times
IN MONTHS

(based on a complete application package)

Beijing - China 4
Colombo - Sri Lanka 13
Hong Kong - China 19
Islamabad - Pakistan 24
Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia 10
Manila - Philippines 10
New Delhi - India 6
Seoul - South Korea 7
Singapore - Singapore 21
Sydney - Australia 7
Taipei - Taiwan 5
Tokyo - Japan 6

 

[dutchboy54]

I think that conditional PR is a great idea. If your relationship is genuine you have nothing to worry about. It may make things easier for people who have 15 to 20 years age difference. I think it would eliminate some of the bias of the age factor. My wife is 21 years younger than me and if they gave us a conditional PR that would be great also. I also see it as protection on the sponser who may be unaware of scamming.

 

[suva]

I think that conditional PR is a great idea. If your relationship is genuine you have nothing to worry about. It may make things easier for people who have 15 to 20 years age difference. I think it would eliminate some of the bias of the age factor. My wife is 21 years younger than me and if they gave us a conditional PR that would be great also. I also see it as protection on the sponser who may be unaware of scamming.

yeah good idea, but many people want PR as soon as they land because they think they might have to go back to their country if the relationship breaks and they consider themselves vulnerable

 

[dair2dv8103100]

I still believe this was just a bunch of hot air for votes.

I still like the idea. On the other hand I have now seen how this could negatively impact someone that has moved to this country only to find their Canadian spouse is abusive. In some cases if someone has completely left everything behind for a new life with someone they thought loved them I could see how returning to their home country could be very difficult. So while this might protect the Canadian...what about the person coming here who is now in a very difficult situation.

Yes I believe they threw this out there at election time as bait and I can see why it is now taking a very long time to work out....if they were ever really intending to do anything with it in the first place.

 

[maryamfarhan]

any update???jason kenney is always speak about fraud and parents sponsorship???? why he don't realise about spouse separation for a long time period???

 

[suva]

any update???jason kenney is always speak about fraud and parents sponsorship???? why he don't realise about spouse separation for a long time period???

not yet mate

 

[toby]

yeah good idea, but many people want PR as soon as they land because they think they might have to go back to their country if the relationship breaks and they consider themselves vulnerable

I don't follow you on this.

If a PR returns to the home country, presumably because the relationship did not work out, the PR status will be lost for lack of sufficient days spent in Canada -- whether the PR is conditional or given outright on landing. So conditional PR visas would not change anything in this case.

But where the PR must stay in Canada -- because of having a child in Canada, or because the family would be hostile if she or her returned, etc etc -- this might put the PR under the thumb of the sponsor, and THAT could lead to abuse. The difference here is that a conditional PR would oblige the PR to stay with an abusive sponsor, while an outright PR would allow the PR to stay in Canada but move out of the abusive home.

If conditional PRs will speed up the process of approval/rejection, then this justifies the risk of giving leverage to sponsors. There could be a simple tribunal system to hear cases where the sponsor abuses the PR, and in those cases to waive the two-year condition, allowing the PR to move out of the home and stay in Canada.

This waiving should be only for cases of sponsor abuse. If the relationship simply breaks down, then the basis of the family PR visa is gone, and the PR should not expect to stay in Canada. Even if the sponsor is more at fault for the breakdown, Canada offered the PR visa to preserve a family unit, and should not be offering guaranteed visas where the family unit disintegrates -- regardless of fault.

If the PR falsely accuses the sponsor of abuse, in order to be able to stay in Canada where there is no abuse, only a disintegrating relationship, Canada should consider some form of penalty for the PR. If a bond (payable upon launching the accusation of abuse) is not possible, then another type of asset. Where the PR has absolutely no assets, I'm stumped.

If conditional PR visas save (say) 100 person-days, and the tribunals consume (say) 25 person-days, then the new system will pay for itself. If after several years of experience the new system is not providing a net savings in time, then Canada is always free to revert to the old (current) system.

 

[rjessome]

I don't follow you on this.

If a PR returns to the home country, presumably because the relationship did not work out, the PR status will be lost for lack of sufficient days spent in Canada -- whether the PR is conditional or given outright on landing. So conditional PR visas would not change anything in this case.

But where the PR must stay in Canada -- because of having a child in Canada, or because the family would be hostile if she or her returned, etc etc -- this might put the PR under the thumb of the sponsor, and THAT could lead to abuse. The difference here is that a conditional PR would oblige the PR to stay with an abusive sponsor, while an outright PR would allow the PR to stay in Canada but move out of the abusive home.

If conditional PRs will speed up the process of approval/rejection, then this justifies the risk of giving leverage to sponsors. There could be a simple tribunal system to hear cases where the sponsor abuses the PR, and in those cases to waive the two-year condition, allowing the PR to move out of the home and stay in Canada.

This waiving should be only for cases of sponsor abuse. If the relationship simply breaks down, then the basis of the family PR visa is gone, and the PR should not expect to stay in Canada. Even if the sponsor is more at fault for the breakdown, Canada offered the PR visa to preserve a family unit, and should not be offering guaranteed visas where the family unit disintegrates -- regardless of fault.

If the PR falsely accuses the sponsor of abuse, in order to be able to stay in Canada where there is no abuse, only a disintegrating relationship, Canada should consider some form of penalty for the PR. If a bond (payable upon launching the accusation of abuse) is not possible, then another type of asset. Where the PR has absolutely no assets, I'm stumped.

If conditional PR visas save (say) 100 person-days, and the tribunals consume (say) 25 person-days, then the new system will pay for itself. If after several years of experience the new system is not providing a net savings in time, then Canada is always free to revert to the old (current) system.

Remember that the purpose of this new law (if/when it is ever enacted) is not to remove PR from people where the relationship has broken down within 2 years of landing as a PR. It is to prevent marriage (relationship) fraud wherein the new PR only used the sponsor to obtain "status under the Act". If the relationship was genuine when the application for PR was made and visa issue, and broke down at a later date (after landing), this still meets the requirements of the Act (genuine and not entered into for the purposes of gaining status under the Act) and the PR should not be subject to removal. More potential for abuse of a conditional PR is where the requirements are met but the breakdown of the relationship is ugly and false accusations are made.

 

[suva]

Remember that the purpose of this new law (if/when it is ever enacted) is not to remove PR from people where the relationship has broken down within 2 years of landing as a PR. It is to prevent marriage (relationship) fraud wherein the new PR only used the sponsor to obtain "status under the Act". If the relationship was genuine when the application for PR was made and visa issue, and broke down at a later date (after landing), this still meets the requirements of the Act (genuine and not entered into for the purposes of gaining status under the Act) and the PR should not be subject to removal. More potential for abuse of a conditional PR is where the requirements are met but the breakdown of the relationship is ugly and false accusations are made.

WELL SAID

 

[toby]

Remember that the purpose of this new law (if/when it is ever enacted) is not to remove PR from people where the relationship has broken down within 2 years of landing as a PR. It is to prevent marriage (relationship) fraud wherein the new PR only used the sponsor to obtain "status under the Act". If the relationship was genuine when the application for PR was made and visa issue, and broke down at a later date (after landing), this still meets the requirements of the Act (genuine and not entered into for the purposes of gaining status under the Act) and the PR should not be subject to removal. More potential for abuse of a conditional PR is where the requirements are met but the breakdown of the relationship is ugly and false accusations are made.

My point in my earlier post was to ask Suva to clarify his/her point: “ … many people want PR as soon as they land because they think they might have to go back to their country if the relationship breaks and they consider themselves vulnerable

I pointed out that if the PR (with either a permanent or a conditional visa) returned to the home country, the PR status would be lost for lack of sufficient time spent in Canada. In this case, the type of PR visa makes no difference to how vulnerable or protected the PR might feel.

The rest of my post was elaboration, and perhaps obscured this main point. Rejessome, your explanation is correct, but it applies to PRs who remain in Canada, not those who leave, and thus is beside my point. Suva, in saying “well said”, you seem to have missed this distinction too.

Only where the PR remains in Canada and the abusive sponsor threatens to allege fraud is the PR (with a conditional visa) more vulnerable than the PR with a permanent visa. But even here the sponsor would have to falsely swear an affidavit alleging fraud, and prove the allegations. The penalties for falsely swearing are severe, and I wonder how many sponsors would really follow through. In other words, a “conditional” PR should feel a little bit more vulnerable than a “permanent" PR, but not much, and the supposed benefits of greater speed in approving applications (the greater speed being permitted by the safeguard of the condition) more than compensates for this small problem.

Anyone have any stats on this on false accusations of fraud by sponsors?

 

[rjessome]

My point in my earlier post was to ask Suva to clarify his/her point: “ ... many people want PR as soon as they land because they think they might have to go back to their country if the relationship breaks and they consider themselves vulnerable

I pointed out that if the PR (with either a permanent or a conditional visa) returned to the home country, the PR status would be lost for lack of sufficient time spent in Canada. In this case, the type of PR visa makes no difference to how vulnerable or protected the PR might feel.

The rest of my post was elaboration, and perhaps obscured this main point. Rejessome, your explanation is correct, but it applies to PRs who remain in Canada, not those who leave, and thus is beside my point. Suva, in saying “well said”, you seem to have missed this distinction too.

Only where the PR remains in Canada and the abusive sponsor threatens to allege fraud is the PR (with a conditional visa) more vulnerable than the PR with a permanent visa. But even here the sponsor would have to falsely swear an affidavit alleging fraud, and prove the allegations. The penalties for falsely swearing are severe, and I wonder how many sponsors would really follow through. In other words, a “conditional” PR should feel a little bit more vulnerable than a “permanent" PR, but not much, and the supposed benefits of greater speed in approving applications (the greater speed being permitted by the safeguard of the condition) more than compensates for this small problem.

Anyone have any stats on this on false accusations of fraud by sponsors?

Ok, I get where you were going. I doubt there are any stats as PRs sponsored as spouses where the relationship has ended within the first 2 years after landing are seldom reported or troubled with threats of removal. Or at least we don't hear much about them unless they make the news. CBSA says there are about 1000 cases of marriage fraud reported every year but some estimate that actual numbers are higher. Little is usually done at this time for these investigations but it might be interesting to see what CanLii has as the PR has the right of appeal.

I wonder where the assumption comes that if this law is enacted applications will be processed at a greater speed? There is nothing in the proposed law to indicate this.

 

[Baloo]

........
I wonder where the assumption comes that if this law is enacted applications will be processed at a greater speed? There is nothing in the proposed law to indicate this.

Like you, I suspect that times will not reduce.
Any thought of reducing processing times is way too optimistic.

 

[suva]

Like you, I suspect that times will not reduce.
Any thought of reducing processing times is way too optimistic.

If it comes into force then they wont give PR visa in first place they will just give a conditional 2 yr visa. So it will be faster. In UK and USA and Australia they give it in just 2/3 months. of course to get the complete PR you gotta wait 2 yrs or so but at least u could see your family in few months. So i am with it.

 

[Baloo]

If it comes into force then they wont give PR visa in first place they will just give a conditional 2 yr visa. So it will be faster. In UK and USA and Australia they give it in just 2/3 months. of course to get the complete PR you gotta wait 2 yrs or so but at least u could see your family in few months. So i am with it.

The Gazette did not state this.