Conditional Visa's - It's Happening!

[Love_Young]

I too would like to vote rjessome! ;D

 

[missmini]

me too, i want to vote

 

[rjessome]

Thanks! Sent you all PMs.

 

[kourts]

1. I think they should better describe "relationship with sponsor for 2 years". Is it dating,marriage,simply just knowing the person?
2.We all know some people commit marriage fraud to get into another country. But for those of us who are in legit marriages, distance is hard on the marriage,and being away from the person you love the most hurts.So generally we want to apply as soon as we can so we can be with that person, especially when this process can take so long.

As for the conditional 2 years, we already have to prove how legit and real our marriage is once, but to do it again,it's just frustrating proving something that you know is real and legit.Worrying if it's enough proof or the right proof, I know this is real. But since it's there jobs to pick out fake marriages i cant help but wonder if they sometimes call a legit marriage fake based on proof and how heartbreaking that must be for that couple. =/

 

[HoneyBird]

Thanks! Sent you all PMs.

I wanna vote too!

 

[valy79]

I wanna vote too!

me too ;D

 

[rjessome]

I wanna vote too!

me too ;D

LOL! PMs sent.

 

[Love_Young]

rjessome you're going to be such a busy lady just sending PM's if this keeps up. Lol.
Good luck.

 

[AmandaHsu]

It makes me so mad when I see people comment on "how easy it is to move across countries/continents" when probably none of them ever even left their province/state.

Yes....I can't agree with you more....

I'm an Asian. Everything in Canada is totally different from my hometown. Language is not the only thing I have to learn but also the culture, how to make friends with native people.....how can someone just called it "easy"?

Honestly, I'm sometimes so mad when people said to me that "oh, it must be good for you to have a chance immigrating here where so many people try to move/immigrate to, where is more peaceful & beautiful than yours...blahlahlah" well, nothing against to Canada, I do agree it's a nice place but I still love my hometown-Taiwan, no matter some people may think it's not that good environment for living as Canada, it's still my hometown where I grew up and whole my family&friends are.

The reasons for me to immigrate here just the same as Valy79 or many others. Bcos my bf can't speak my language so he will have hard time to get a job in my hometown but I've been living in Canada 4 yrs, so we think that for me to live here is easier than him to live in my hometown. For this choice, I have go give up my job, my house, everything......I actually wrote these things down on my application, maybe it's a stupid thing that I shouldn't do but I just want to tell the CIC officer the truth.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not comment for complaining...I just feel a lil bit depressed when so many of us are trying to get used to living here just bcos our loved ones are here but we have to listen to so many bu** sh*t.....

 

[Heckler]

!

For me I see this in the same way I see many populist government proposals. On the face of it seems like a good, common sense initiative. It seems hard at first glance to see any problems with it. It's a way to stop all but the most determined fraudsters while not having any major impact on honest applicants.
But as they say, the devil is in the detail!
I think right now it's hard to be able to form a full opinion on as the details released are so sparse.

The obvious issues that jump out at me are the ones already raised in the thread.

1. When do they count the "2 years" from?

Is it from when you first got in contact? When you first met in person? When you first lived together? when you got married?
If it's when you marry or fisrt lived together or when the partner first arrived in Canada thats going to mean that a huge chunk of spousal applications will automatically result in Provisional PR's. With the way the internet works & how communication is now totally "border free" I can only see more & more relationships starting in that way. I myself met my wife on a random internet forum.
Surely if thats the case you may as well make ALL PR's provisional unless the couple have actually lived together for a set period of time. It would at least mean everyone was subject to the same rules & conditions & would know exactly where they stood from start to finish.

2. How is the probationary period assesed?

When the 2 year probationary period is up, how is it decided if the conditions have been met? Is it up to the couple to provide the burden of proof that they are still in a real relationship or will it be the CIC that needs to have evidence otherwise? Who will decide, on what evidence & what appeals process would be put in place?

3. Will the lifting or the conditions happen automatically or will it involve the couple having to "apply" to have it lifted? & will there be a fee involved in that. Afterall the administration for all of this is gonna cost somebody something! Will it be the general taxpayer or the applicant themselves through increased fees?

4. What effect will it have on the time taken for an application to be processed? Will it be dealt with by current CIC staff, which would imply it would slow everything down as the workload would increase. Or would it lift some of the need for such extensive "proof of relationship" before PR is issued as the provisional aspect would mean they could be removed later if it was proved to be fake?


Until I see more details it's hard for me to come to any sure conclusion about it. I can see both good & bad aspects.

 

[annabruce]

Only cases targeted for fraud would be reviewed during the conditional period. Permanent residence could be revoked (leading to initiation of removal) if the condition of remaining in a bona fide relationship was not met. For all other cases, the condition would be automatically lifted after the specified conditional period had elapsed.

It sounds to me like they are planning an audit system, much like revenue Canada does random (sometimes targeted) audits of your taxes.

 

[toby]

I want to hear some dissent here.

Hubby tells me I can be intimidating because I have such STRONG opinions. Really??? LOL! He's right. Sorry folks. :-[

But honestly, I WANT to debate this issue. I fully intend to send comments to CIC as directed in the Gazette. But I want them to be smart and balanced. My head is skewed one way so help me find a middle ground, if possible. I've got a poll running on my facebook page and it's really interesting to see how people are voting and some of the comments. PM me if you want to vote!

This is a real divider of people. The passion in this one is tremendous! I'm a member of a group of professionals (about 200) that share information on a listserv about immigration law and it is crazy how so many like-minded people can be so far apart over this issue.

So I'm putting the challenge out there to people who want to disagree but might be shy or new. Speak your voice. Maybe you will even change my mind! : Ok, that's not likely but I promise to respect your opinion and not beat you up!

If – after a very-quick and possibly-superficial reading – I understand the issue correctly, the conditional visa would be granted as the PR lands in Canada. Two years later, if the couple is together, the visa becomes permanent. If not, if e.g. the PR came for a visa only, and left the marriage before the two-year period, he/she is liable to be deported (if he/she can be found). This is good; it cod speed up the visa process for many legitimate couples.

First, my take on the objections I have been reading. Some are based on misunderstandings, I believe. Others are valid, and should be addressed in public feedback to CIC (spearheaded by the redoubtable Rjessome!!).

Is it a hardship for the PR to leave Canada if the marriage fails within two years? Some have complained that after many years of living in Canada, this would be a personal catastrophe. But it is not “after many years”; it is only within two years, so the disruption would be less than catastrophic.

Still, if the marriage fails because of the sponsor’s actions, not the PR’s actions, then there should be a mechanism to protect an innocent PR; for example, an adjudicator could grant a permanent PR. This need not be a long, bureaucratic process. An adjudicator is not tied up by legal procedures; he/she can simply listen to the evidence, make a decision, and viola! Like the arbiters in Small Claims Court.

The arbiter could also rule for/against a PR who left the marriage because of alleged abuse by the sponsor. If the evidence is not conclusive, then the arbiter would rule against the PR. This may seem unfair in some cases, but the Applicant received his/her PR on the assumption that he/she would stay married to the sponsor, and not be a financial burden on taxpayers. If the PR misjudged the sponsor's intergrity, the PR must pay the price, not Canadian taxpayers.

Should we allow a financially-solvent PR to stay in Canada anyway? This is worth considering, but I suspect it requires a degree of wisdom beyond the reach of broad legislation.

To those who object that an arbiter can make erroneous, arbitrary decisions, I say “true, but this at least offers some measure of protection to an innocent PR, it is better than an automatic expulsion from Canada, and what better alternative do you have?” Clearly the present system – PR for life no matter how disloyal the PR was after landing in Canada – is not working.

If the couple has a child and the marriage fails before the two-year period is over, that is unfortunate, but Canada cannot allow unscrupulous PRs to use children as a ploy to get around the PR rules.

When it comes time to prove the marriage is valid after two years, some people worry that they will have to amass proof as burdensome as their PR application! They may be worrying unnecessarily. The devil is in the details, but perhaps all the couple will have to do is provide a few notarized declarations that they are still together, send them in to CIC, and viola: the PR becomes permanent. Again, not foolproof, but a step away from automatically-permanent PRs upon landing in Canada.

I hope the result of the conditional visa is to allow VOs to make decisions more speedily in cases where they have some questions about the Applicant’s true motivation. With the backing of a two-year waiting period, which can prove the PR's intent better than any document can, the VO’s initial decision to award or deny the PR is no longer an “all or nothing” proposition. Human beings avoid or delay action where the consequence of error is large; an embarrassing media story of a PR who jilted his sponsor at the airport cannot be good for the VO’s career. VOs will more readily make speedy decisions where there is a fall-back option available – deportation if the marriage does not last two years (through the actions of the PR).

 

[valy79]

it cod speed up the visa process for many legitimate couples.

How so? I have read this comment several times now, but I have trouble understanding how adding more bureaucracy to a process will speed up anything. But maybe I am not seeing something - how do you think this will lead to faster processing of legitimate couples?

Is it a hardship for the PR to leave Canada if the marriage fails within two years? Some have complained that after many years of living in Canada, this would be a personal catastrophe. But it is not “after many years”; it is only within two years, so the disruption would be less than catastrophic.

Again - it's not always that straightforward Toby. A lot of people meet their partners IN Canada (being here on a study visum, work permit and so forth). Then they apply for PR, because obviously now they have a reason to stay in Canada. At that time, and plus the two years, you might be looking at many years of living here. Take me for example (and I know there is many more like me) - I have been living here for 2 1/2 years now (on a work permit). Once I get PR (hopefully), add on 2 years and we are at 4-5 years I would have been here before being "unconditional". I don't know about you, but for me that IS a quite significant time.

Still, if the marriage fails because of the sponsor's actions, not the PR's actions, then there should be a mechanism to protect an innocent PR; for example, an adjudicator could grant a permanent PR. This need not be a long, bureaucratic process. An adjudicator is not tied up by legal procedures; he/she can simply listen to the evidence, make a decision, and viola! Like the arbiters in Small Claims Court.

Agreed. But again, I think it's not as straightforward I think it will be hard to determine whose "fault" it is why a relationship failed. Often it will be less than clear. I am not sure how CIC would judge if one or the other was innocent when a marriage failed.

If the PR misjudged the sponsor's intergrity, the PR must pay the price, not Canadian taxpayers.
Should we allow a financially-solvent PR to stay in Canada anyway? This is worth considering, but I suspect it requires a degree of wisdom beyond the reach of broad legislation.

I am wondering how many applicants are actually financially dependent on their sponsors. To be honest, this (rather than putting up some sort of conditions as proposed) should be where legislation should be altered in my opinion. I feel Canada might make it too easy for immigrants to be reliant on the financial support of their sponsors (which sometimes leads to exploitation, as we know...).

 

[fleo]

But maybe I am not seeing something - how do you think this will lead to faster processing of legitimate couples?

In theory, it should allow for a less extensive/rigorous scanning, knowing that there is a possibilty of correcting a mistake later in the process. I already put in my 2 cents regarding that... here, a quote:

VOs will suddenly be given this magic eraser that could fix every and any mistake in the initial assessment, which is in theory supposed to make the process less rigorous, faster and more efficient... and that's fine, but from the phrasing of the proposition it seems not everyone will be flagged as a possible MOC. Three ways I think this can go: 1) VOs flag 'fishy' couples and scan the rest just as rigorously as now, effectively rewarding people for looking like fraudsters with speedy residence. Oops? 2) VOs decide to play it safe and just flag everyone, thus putting unreasonable demand on the follow-up process and investigation, jamming the system on that side. Oops? 3) VOs decide to loosen up on everyone but flag only those who seem suspicious, which in turn encourages a flood of MOCs counting on the fact they won't be caught and flagged, because not everyone will be and with the whole process shortened it's well worth the gamble. Major oops?

... and rjessome feels this method will actually only reveal mistakes being made on VO's side and raise negative publicity (because if suddenly hundreds or thousands of conditional PRs end up being revoked, people will star wondering what the hell were visa officers doing in the first place), thus making the process slower and tougher. No-win if you ask me.

I feel Canada might make it too easy for immigrants to be reliant on the financial support of their sponsors (which sometimes leads to exploitation, as we know...).

Would you care to elaborate this a bit? Because I think I see your point, but I can't understand why this would be Canada's doing.

 

[miksterz]

I'm all for this but ONLY in the event that spousal visas are processed MUCH faster. The only thing more outrageous than having to be away from my wife for well over a year (Pakistan) is us potentially not even being half way done with the process once she makes it here.