Does this apply to you? More Regulatory Changes to Help Prevent Marriage Fraud

[rjessome]

On March 26th, the Canadian government announced their intention to introduce conditional permanent residence visas for spousal sponsorships. Just one week later, April 2nd, they introduced MORE changes to the Regulations by creating a sponsorship bar for new permanent residents who arrived under a spousal sponsorship program.

Currently, if YOU, as a Canadian Citizen or permanent resident, sponsored a spouse, got divorced, and then remarried to a different foreign national, you cannot apply to sponsor the new spouse for 3 years from the date the previous spouse became a permanent resident of Canada. This is not changing. However, what is interesting to note is that there is NO bar or time limit imposed on the person you sponsored (the new permanent resident) from sponsoring a new spouse.

This led to situations where people who had been sponsored as a spouse would arrive in Canada as a permanent resident, divorce their sponsor, return to their home country, get married to someone else, and then almost immediately sponsor a NEW spouse. This created serious doubts about the genuineness of the previous spousal sponsorship and therefore, the legitimacy of the spousal sponsorship program itself.

NOW, the Canadian government is introducing changes to the Regulations that will prohibit or BAR a person who arrived in Canada as a permanent resident under a spousal sponsorship program from sponsoring another spouse for 5 years.

I believe this is a good thing. However, my personal preference would have been a 3 year prohibition from sponsorship to equal what is imposed on the original sponsor.

Do you think 5 years is too long? Do you think this bar to new sponsorships will discourage scammers from taking advantage of Canadians and help prevent Marriages of Convenience?

 

[Tiggilicious]

I think it would be a great idea imho. Discouraging more of the marriage of convience cases

 

[Dikz]

I think it is a good regulation. Out of curiosity, what would be the case then if the sponsored person gains citizenship within the 5 years period?

 

[Love_Young]

I believe it would have been nice as you said to equalize it out to 3 years as well but overall I am glad that they are wanting to prohibit the previously sponsored spouse from being able to sponsor another for years. I believe this would really help contribute to cutting down on fraud especially for those that do immediately leave the spouse only to sponsor another spouse back home they didn't mention having.

Anyway, I am not concerned with this anyhow as I don't plan to ever leave my husband. Together until death do we part and I mean it with my whole heart so this proposal will not affect us in no way. I just think it will help Canada overall.

 

[nb8285]

in the quest to prevent marriage fraud, the canadian govt is punishing real marriages.
canadian govt assumes everyone is committing marriage fraud and people have to prove that their marriage is genuine. basically it's "you're guilty until YOU prove you're innocent".

maybe <10% of cases are marriage fraud, but to catch that they are punishing the other 90% who are genuine.

there needs to be a balance and law is getting very lopsided.

harper is doing what he can to please the americans. lets not forget that the goal of sponsorship is FAMILY REUNIFICATION - it's not about marriage fraud. lets not forget that important goal.

 

[Love_Young]

Unfortunately though nb8285, marriage fraud is a part of this process and has made it harder on those of us that are genuine in return.
Let's hope though that they continue to strive for the important part of family reunification and don't forget the main purpose for this process.

However, I don't quite understand what you are meaning about "harper trying to please the americans".
Maybe you could word it a bit better so you better illustrate your point without the chance of offending those of us from America.
Not saying you offended me but it could others.

 

[nb8285]

you will know what i mean if you are following canadian politics. harper has caught america's paranoia about illegal immigration. the regulations they draw up due to their paranoia mostly affects the good guys. the bad guys will always find a way around it. it is the good guys that will suffer and their suffering will only get worse...

Unfortunately though nb8285, marriage fraud is a part of this process and has made it harder on those of us that are genuine in return.
Let's hope though that they continue to strive for the important part of family reunification and don't forget the main purpose for this process.

However, I don't quite understand what you are meaning about "harper trying to please the americans".
Maybe you could word it a bit better so you better illustrate your point without the chance of offending those of us from America.
Not saying you offended me but it could others.

 

[Love_Young]

you will know what i mean if you are following canadian politics. harper has caught america's paranoia about illegal immigration. the regulations they draw up due to their paranoia mostly affects the good guys. the bad guys will always find a way around it. it is the good guys that will suffer and their suffering will only get worse...

Yeah but you can't point fingers at America, that just seems like a little kid saying "he did it, no he did it". You know.
I mean Canada and Harper himself, are of themselves. Not saying that they don't get influence but what countries don't get influence from others. Good people unfortunately do suffer at the fault of the bad people. I wish we could see a change in the aspect but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[uccemebug]

NOW, the Canadian government is introducing changes to the Regulations that will prohibit or BAR a person who arrived in Canada as a permanent resident under a spousal sponsorship program from sponsoring another spouse for 5 years.

I believe this is a good thing. However, my personal preference would have been a 3 year prohibition from sponsorship to equal what is imposed on the original sponsor.

To begin with, every legitimate marriage is unique and liable to some degree of misinterpretation by parties outside. But divorce is even more tricky, and introduces a lot of room for acrimony for the divorcees and difficulty for outsiders to gauge the nature of the defunct relationship. While I understand that this legislation is aimed at scammers, I'd ask why not instead perform an evaluation of the case upon divorce through an interview and if need be retroactively flag it as a false marriage from the beginning and have the PR revoked?

To my mind, the existing process of evaluating marriages during the PR approval phase is non-sensical. Instead of doing as my wife and I felt we had to do (providing in addition to the many forms an outline of our time together, various emails, letters in support from friends, a landlord, and others (I even had one from the staff at the Canadian embassy in Tokyo itself) it should hinge upon an interview that can evaluate the legitimacy of the marriage. We have a child for pete's sake, and have been married for nearly five years, but we're still presented with slanted forms geared towards past sponsorships and other inapplicables.

An interview based approach could look something like this, whether it's in-country or not:
+ do the health check and criminal check for the sponsored party
+ do a means test for the sponsor
+ provide the information in the forms
+ go through the initial 38 days evaluation
+ if the application is not dismissed during the evaluation, schedule an interview during which the agent can get a direct impression of the couple, can learn why they're bringing a party to Canada, etc. The sponsored party walks out of a successful interview with a PR designation.

Total time, maybe three months. I think this is a more humane approach that better serves Canada's needs and would likely better weeds out crooks.

 

[sheila la]

Maybe I'm missing something here but a marriage that only lasts 3 years, then on to the next one? Again sponsoring someone from another country? Seems a little fishy to me and I would be suspect if I were an immigration officer.

I understand marriages break down but what kind of committment does someone have if after 3 years of marriage, they are divorcing, save and accept abuse, it doesn't sound like committment to me. Enduring a long distance relationship and finally being together should be able to stand the test of time. Even if it is not the sponsor who wants the divorce, was the sponsored spouse serious or committed? If not, then I would be very wary of getting involved in another long-distance relationship and as an immigration officer, these are questions I would ask.

I would have no problem making it 5 or more years from sponsoring another spouse.

 

[rjessome]

I think it is a good regulation. Out of curiosity, what would be the case then if the sponsored person gains citizenship within the 5 years period?

It wouldn't matter. If you entered Canada as a PR through the spousal sponsorship program, this law would still apply to you, citizen or not.

 

[_696_]

Liking how all this is getting shaped out, though it still sounds a bit too sketchy for my liking or is it the elections rush

 

[Baloo]

Sounds good to me.

Remember that the sponsorship agreement used to be ten years duration.

It is sensible to place both parties on the same restrictions, but I will be happy with the 3 yr / 5 yr situation.

It would certainly limit those who dump a spouse, and want to bring in someone else. There has been plenty of that going on.

 

[missmini]

oops i gave my opinion on the other thread too, sorry for the spam....here is my thought:

the sponsorship ban - it's very good!! it was about time, but yeah 5 years seem a little too long...on the other hand maybe it's reasonable: with the conditional PR Bob will still stay with the sponsor Jane for 2 more years, if the relationship genuinely breaks, it would take maybe 1 more year to meet another person, Alice, and 2 more years to have the relationship serious and be sure that if he would sponsor Alice and the relationship with her won't end like the one with Jane :-X

 

[fleo]

While I understand that this legislation is aimed at scammers, I'd ask why not instead perform an evaluation of the case upon divorce through an interview and if need be retroactively flag it as a false marriage from the beginning and have the PR revoked?

Because basing a decision like that on what the recently left, probably bitter and possibly vengeful ex-spouse has to say may not be the best way to go about it

+ if the application is not dismissed during the evaluation, schedule an interview during which the agent can get a direct impression of the couple, can learn why they're bringing a party to Canada, etc.

It's a neat idea, but we mustn't forget that many, if not most, couples don't live together during the application process. Would they have to travel to attend the interview together? What about those who can't? (Pregnancies, medical issues, visa limitations, you name it.)
As you said yourself, every marriage and every situation is different, yet the system has an ungrateful task of covering them all with one-size-fits-all process. Mistakes, imperfect forms and plain stupidity are bound to happen, as much as we all hate it.

As for the new regulation, yes yes, I'm all for it. I would prefer if it was tied to the sponsorship period as well, but you take what you can get