Difficult to get PR if business owner

[marina_quelle]

Hi all,

I heard this a while ago and just wanted to know if this is true? A friend of a friend of mine is currently working in Canada, he has been trying to sponsor his wife over however she's finding it difficult to get sponsorship because she has a high paying job, that involves travel and that she is also a business owner. She has been rejected because she is too "settled"? It's the first time I've heard this story and its a weird one too.

My question is: can a spouse visa be rejected on the base that he/she is a business owner in their own country?

 

[jarry96]

A spouse is not going to be rejected for sponsorship because he is a business owner in his own country or has a high paying job.

 

[Harju]

"...A friend of a friend of mine is currently working in Canada, he has been trying to sponsor his wife..."

This implies that the friend of a friend is not a citizen or resident of Canada but only working here. Is the person trying to sponsor their wife a citizen or PR of Canada? If not then the wife cannot be sponsored.
If the sponsor is a PR or citizen, then my only guess would be that they are rejected on the basis that they have not demonstrated that she will actually move to Canada but only wants to acquire PR for convenience (just a guess as I really do not know).

 

[Rob_TO]

Hi all,

I heard this a while ago and just wanted to know if this is true? A friend of a friend of mine is currently working in Canada, he has been trying to sponsor his wife over however she's finding it difficult to get sponsorship because she has a high paying job, that involves travel and that she is also a business owner. She has been rejected because she is too "settled"? It's the first time I've heard this story and its a weird one too.

My question is: can a spouse visa be rejected on the base that he/she is a business owner in their own country?

Short answer is no. Whatever the job or income is of the applicant, should have no bearing whatsoever on the application.

The CIC judges only the sponsor's intention to return to Canada if they are living abroad. i.e. if the Canadian sponsor has a successful business established in another country, the CIC may think they do not actually intend to return to Canada after PR is granted to live with their spouse, and this is basis for sponsor rejection.

However the applicant is NOT judged this way. That is why they have the "2 out of 5 years" requirement of living in Canada, to maintain PR status. So the CIC would not judge at all the applicant's real desire to move to Canada during the application process, as this rule would ensure the requirements are met anyways.

 

[herewecome]

I don't even recall a question as to what the Applicant's income is. I may be wrong though.

 

[marina_quelle]

Hi guys,

Found out this guy is on a permit and isn't a citizen.

When a citizen is sponsoring a spouse will have no issues in the application just because the spouse is a business owner abroad?

 

[marina_quelle]

Short answer is no. Whatever the job or income is of the applicant, should have no bearing whatsoever on the application.

The CIC judges only the sponsor's intention to return to Canada if they are living abroad. i.e. if the Canadian sponsor has a successful business established in another country, the CIC may think they do not actually intend to return to Canada after PR is granted to live with their spouse, and this is basis for sponsor rejection.

However the applicant is NOT judged this way. That is why they have the "2 out of 5 years" requirement of living in Canada, to maintain PR status. So the CIC would not judge at all the applicant's real desire to move to Canada during the application process, as this rule would ensure the requirements are met anyways.

That pretty much helps me put my worries at ease! Thanks!

 

[Harju]

The CIC judges only the sponsor's intention to return to Canada if they are living abroad. i.e. if the Canadian sponsor has a successful business established in another country, the CIC may think they do not actually intend to return to Canada after PR is granted to live with their spouse, and this is basis for sponsor rejection.

However the applicant is NOT judged this way. That is why they have the "2 out of 5 years" requirement of living in Canada, to maintain PR status. So the CIC would not judge at all the applicant's real desire to move to Canada during the application process, as this rule would ensure the requirements are met anyways.

The person in this thread is an applicant and is being asked to provide evidence with respect to their intent that they will reside in Canada permanently, so I would say that this means the applicant is judged on their real desire to move to Canada.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/initial-assessment-complete-detailsinformationproofplans-as-to-your-intent-t133099.0.html

 

[Rob_TO]

The person in this thread is an applicant and is being asked to provide evidence with respect to their intent that they will reside in Canada permanently, so I would say that this means the applicant is judged on their real desire to move to Canada.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/initial-assessment-complete-detailsinformationproofplans-as-to-your-intent-t133099.0.html

Very interesting. Although this seems to be an exception and not the norm. There is nowhre in the applicant parts of the forms and guides, where it asks to prove intention to move to Canada as its assumed they will follow sponsor.

Of course VOs sometimes ask for things that are not required in the application, but i would still view as isolated incident and not reflective of a "typical" scenario.

 

[Harju]

"as its assumed they will follow sponsor"

I think this was true, but I think things are changing as that assumption has been proven wrong in a lot of cases. PR's of convenience have become a high profile issue. I think this is a change of direction. The objective of the family class is to reunite families in Canada not to make it easier to to travel back and forth or to give PR as a back up plan.

 

[Reflectoman]

Short answer is no. Whatever the job or income is of the applicant, should have no bearing whatsoever on the application.

The CIC judges only the sponsor's intention to return to Canada if they are living abroad. i.e. if the Canadian sponsor has a successful business established in another country, the CIC may think they do not actually intend to return to Canada after PR is granted to live with their spouse, and this is basis for sponsor rejection.

However the applicant is NOT judged this way. That is why they have the "2 out of 5 years" requirement of living in Canada, to maintain PR status. So the CIC would not judge at all the applicant's real desire to move to Canada during the application process, as this rule would ensure the requirements are met anyways.

Could it not be more of a "PR of convenience" issue where the sponsor's attachment to canada isn't as high as the applicant's to their home country, thus a greater chance that after PR the sponsor will leave Canada to settle with the applicant in her more settled life? yes the PR residency requirements won't be met and in a few years the PR would expire, but still it seems that the chance is high that the sponsor may leave to join their spouse back home.

 

[Rob_TO]

Could it not be more of a "PR of convenience" issue where the sponsor's attachment to canada isn't as high as the applicant's to their home country, thus a greater chance that after PR the sponsor will leave Canada to settle with the applicant in her more settled life? yes the PR residency requirements won't be met and in a few years the PR would expire, but still it seems that the chance is high that the sponsor may leave to join their spouse back home.

That is why there is clear definition in the operations manual the visa officers follow, to ensure the sponsor really intends to move/settle back in Canada if they are living abroad during the application. If the VO feels the sponsor will instead stay with their spouse in another country, they would reject them as sponsor. The onus is on sponsor to prove this though... not applicant.

"as its assumed they will follow sponsor"

I think this was true, but I think things are changing as that assumption has been proven wrong in a lot of cases. PR's of convenience have become a high profile issue. I think this is a change of direction. The objective of the family class is to reunite families in Canada not to make it easier to to travel back and forth or to give PR as a back up plan.

You could be right. I am just going by the Operation Manuals that are all available on the CIC site, and that give detailed instructions to the VOs on how to process the applications. From what i've read, there is nothing that requires the VO to assess the desire of the applicant to move to Canada, as this is done to the sponsor and due to family reunification the applicant would naturally want to live with their spouse/partner. So if CIC is moving away from this and doing more due diligence on the applicant, so far it's an "unwritten" rule or one that is coming up just with some select VOs.

If CIC really wants to change this to reduce the PRs of convenience, they should add a specific question into the applicant questionnaire that also asks them to prove they will really move to Canada.

 

[canadianwoman]

CIC knows some people want to be Canadians of convenience. So occasionally they will reject an applicant if they feel the applicant does not intend to live in Canada, at least for a while. For example, a Canadian could sponsor his or her spouse, then intend to leave Canada as soon as the spouse lands. The couple then goes to live in some other country. Because a PR can keep his or her PR status by staying two years out of five in Canada, or by staying with his or her Canadian spouse outside of Canada. We would then get PRs who have been in Canada for only a couple of days. This was the case in Lebanon a few years back, where the Canadian government was expected to evacuate Canadians during a civil war, but where many of these Canadians had never even been in Canada, or had only lived here for a few weeks or months.

So perhaps an applicant with a settled life in her own country might have to show more proof that she actually plans to uproot herself and go live in Canada. It appears this is a possibility at least. I suggest everyone applying to sponsor a spouse or partner include some info about their plans for their life together in Canada. This will address the above concern, and is also evidence that goes to the genuineness of the relationship.

 

[Rob_TO]

For example, a Canadian could sponsor his or her spouse, then intend to leave Canada as soon as the spouse lands. The couple then goes to live in some other country.

But this all comes back to the sponsor still, as where the sponsor goes... the spouse would assume to follow. And there is already an intensive check done on the sponsor's motives to return to Canada if they are currently living abroad. The process followed by CPC-M is here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip02-eng.pdf

5.10. Sponsors residing abroad
Sponsors residing abroad must meet the requirements in the following table:
•must satisfy immigration officials that they will reside in Canada once their spouse, common-law or conjugal partner and dependent children become permanent residents in Canada

13.2. Residency requirements for sponsors
In assessing residency requirements for sponsorship purposes the IRB Appeal Division ruled that a sponsor must maintain a significant connection to Canada. Officers should consider whether the prospective sponsor:
• maintains a residence in Canada;
• has spouse and/or children resident in Canada;
• has assets in Canada;
• pays Canadian income tax on global income;
• visits Canada regularly;
• maintains investments, bank accounts, health insurance or club memberships in Canada.
Sponsors may be found ineligible to sponsor if:
• they maintain residences in two countries at the same time;
• they have a house in Canada, but work abroad;
• they have interrupted their residence in Canada or spend little time in Canada. Foreign stamps or post marks on the envelope, a foreign employer or the sponsor's non-Canadian address are indications the sponsor may not be residing in Canada;
• there is evidence that they will leave Canada soon after the sponsored applicant becomes a permanent resident. Sponsors must satisfy an officer they will continue to reside in Canada after the member of the family class becomes a
permanent resident;
• sponsors are not ineligible if they take short holidays or business trips outside Canada.

13.3. Sponsorship by Canadian citizens living abroad
The following applies to Canadian citizens living abroad:
• sponsors must provide evidence that they will reside in Canada after the sponsored persons and their family members become permanent residents.Evidence that sponsors will reside in Canada may include one or more of the following:
• letter from an employer;
• letter of acceptance to a Canadian educational institution;
• proof of having rented/bought a dwelling in Canada;
• reasonable plans for re-establishing in Canada or severing ties to the other country.

Again this is just going by the operating manuals the VOs follow. According to the manuals, once a sponsor is approved by passing all the checkpoints listed, then it should be taken as fact that they (and by extension their spouse/partner) intend to live in Canada. There is no place at all in the manuals where the VO is supposed to assess an applicant's intention to move to Canada, without taking the sponsor into account.

Now i'm not saying this isn't done (as obviously it is on occasion), just that the manuals and application forms don't show it. Perhaps this will become the norm soon in which case the CIC should adjust the manuals accordingly, and ask specific questions in the application that have to do with proving an applicant's intention to move here. If there was ever a case where a stage 2 VO denied an applicant because they thought they weren't going to move to Canada, i can't see how it would possibly stand up on appeal since all operation manuals, and the fact the sponsor was approved in the first place, should make it an invalid reason for refusal at stage 2.