Shaw said:
In this regard please consult CIC website. Only people living on welfare beyond disablity are denied. Othercases like Student loan, unemployment etc are approved and it is law. CIC has no legal standing to deny these cases and if they deny they have face legal suits and pay compensations.
This is from section 9 of the 02OP Manual - Evaluating inadmissibility (it is the manual/guide for all visa officers):
"9. Financial reasons
CIC has the policy responsibility with respect to financial inadmissibility [A39].
A39 describes people
who are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any
person who is dependent on them for care and support. If the person satisfies an officer
that adequate arrangements for care and support (not involving social assistance) are in
place, then they do not fall within this inadmissibility provision."
Also, please take a look at this: http://www.canlii.org/en/search/search.do?text=financial%20inadmissibility (read the first 2 cases)
You will find appeal cases in which the sponsored spouse (applicant) was refused permanent residency on financial grounds. If the visa officer thinks the immigrant is not able or not willing to support himself, or does not have any financial arrangements and has high chances of going on social assistance, then they will refuse your application. You are "financially inadmissible to Canada under section 39".
People living on welfare do not even pass the first stage, but that is a different matter. CIC
does have legal standing in denying an immigrant if CIC thinks the immigrant will not be able to find a job and care for himself financially. The only good thing about spouse sponsorship is that the sponsor does not have to meet minimum income requirements (LICO). But both the sponsor and the sponsored person must satisfy the visa officer that they are financially stable and will not go on social assistance, once in Canada.
This is a quote of the visa officer from case 2:
"Pursuant to section 39 of the [IRPA], I have determined that you are a person who would be “unable/unwilling” to support yourself and any other person who is dependent on you because no satisfactory proof of income or savings have been provided as requested. You have not satisfied me that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made. As a result, you are inadmissible to Canada.[2]
The CAIPS (Computer Assisted Immigration Processing Systems) notes indicate the following:
YOU DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH AND YOU HAVE SECONDARY EDUCATION. YOU HAVE LIMITED TRANSFERABLE SKILLS AND NO PROOF OF SAVINGS. ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE/WILLING TO SUPPORT YOURSELF WITHOUT RELYING ON YOUR SPONSOR AND/OR SOCIAL ASSISTANCE DURING THE INITIAL SETTLING PERIOD. LOOKING AT THE 2008 NOA (TOTAL INCOME OF $21, 885) OF YOUR SPONSOR AND WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHERE HE IS STILL EMPLOYED. IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE OR YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THE FAMILY AS THE MINIMUM CANADIAN STANDARD AMOUNT (LICO) FOR 3 PERSONS TO SELL IN CANADA IS $33, 159. [Errors not mine.]"
In this case, the visa officer thought the sponsored spouse will not be able to support herself financially. He/she requested for more documents as proof of financial stability of the immigrant. As you can see, the appeal was dismissed.
The notes of the judge who dismissed the appeal:
"[29] Unfortunately, the Panel must conclude that the applicant, even if she finds employment in Canada as a cashier or in the service industry, is unlikely to command a high wage for the foreseeable future based on several negative factors that would likely make difficult the applicant’s establishment in Canada and in particular her integration into the labour force in any meaningful way. From the perspective of education, language, or employment history the applicant would come to Canada significantly handicapped in respect of several of the preconditions for successful entry into the labour force. The applicant lacks English language skills.[13] Based on her application for permanent residence, she has twelve years of education and some work experience as a cashier and sewer. In her interview she said she was a worker in an electronic company.[14] The appellant testified that she has been selling electronic appliances for about one year. I note that there was no documentary evidence of her current employment.
[30] It was submitted that the applicant has experience as a cashier and that she will find work; that there are many cashier jobs available in the several Chinatowns in Toronto. A job offer letter was submitted from Xing He Ginseng & Tea.[15] I find that this letter is not a binding offer and therefore I give it very little weight. There was insufficient evidence to support the submission that there are cashier jobs available or that she would be able to compete with other people lacking English skills who already reside in Canada and are also looking for work in retail
outlets in many of the Chinese communities. He said that she has about $7,500 in savings that would help her to get settled in Canada. Even if she has these savings now, there is nothing to bind her to ensure that she brings it with her to Canada. Without sufficient financial information and other documentary evidence, which I note the appellant could’ve provided but did not, the Panel takes no comfort from the appellant’s reassurances that the applicant will find work and that she will be able to support herself and her son in Canada.
[31] Moreover, the applicant did not testify and, therefore, the Panel was unable to assess her willingness to work at this time. The appellant’s testimony alone did not satisfy the Panel that she is willing or will be willing to support herself and her son. Therefore, I find that she is or will be unable or unwilling to support herself and her son who is dependent on her"
