has anyone been successful sponsoring a younger husband from a different culture

[screech339]

its ok you dont have to apologize i am just referring to the posts where you addressed me saying that if people are not ready to sponsor their spouses and be fully responsible for them because they implied that i was not ready to be responsible for my husband and that i should be responsible even if he turns out to be a fraud...(i am pretty sure he wont) 2 years is not a short time and it was not a rash decision for me to marry him or sponsor him.

The part of me saying you are not ready to sponsor your partner if you are not willing to be financially responsible" was a poor choice of words using "you". It was not meant directly to you. I apologize for that. That meant for anyone who want to sponsor including myself. The posts I have been making was indirectly posted related to steerpike's frustration of the 2 year conditional PR. As misdirected as his posts are, I pointed where his frustration should focus on. The ownership of the sponsor and their lack of sober thought into examining how real the relationship is and make an informed important decision of that person's life.

The 2 year conditional PR should have been brought about years ago. He thinks it is too draconian or too vague. He seems to forget that PR sponsorship means that you are actually moving to Canada to stay permanently. This is why it is called "PERMANENT resident". He wants the ability to move out of Canada after getting PR and do some studies. It seems that studying takes more priority than moving to Canada to stay. Nothing is preventing anyone to marry or become common-law. If studying overseas after marriage is very important, than wait until you finish your studies and then get sponsored.

 

[CdnandTrini]

Of course I know nothing about your case, and it is none of my business. May I ask which post you found as harsh. I would apologize to you if you felt hurt. Again it was not directly at you.

I think the OP may be referring to steerpike's earlier posts and comments a few pages back.........

 

[on-hold]

And for a couple whos relationship naturally breaks down due to other reasons during the 2 years conditional period, many will argue that if someone gains PR via spousal sponsorship, then if they no longer have a spouse in Canada there is no reason for them not to return to their home country.

I know that we've already discussed this on this thread, and it is beyond the original poster's question, but I just want to bring it up one more time. When a person from a foreign country arrives here and finds that the marriage isn't tenable -- which is very easy, with long-distance relationships, or where the courtship is very fast (as it often is, when a partner is foreign), sending them back can be a very cruel solution. Here is why:

- firstly, many of these people, usually women, speak English very poorly. I've known many partners who basically have no language in common. They may have a very perfunctory understanding of conditional PR, may not realize that exceptions exist for abuse, may not understand what abuse is, and may not realize it only lasts for two years.

- more importantly, their culture and community have different ideas of marriage. A woman from a conservative culture marries a Canadian and comes here; she may view the marriage as a largely transactional affair, done quickly, and have expectations about what the man will bring to it. He does not bring these things, doesn't let her study, isolates her from other people, etc. I don't believe these things qualify as 'abuse', which she is probably ill-equipped to argue anyway and will probably not have access to good advice. In many cultures, when a marriage turns badly, the wife flees, she doesn't get a lawyer. Now, she loses her PR and goes home. It seems fair from a Canadian perspective -- but from her perspective, her life is finished, her reputation ruined. Married women don't remarry, in her culture, her hopes of having children, a family, a sexual life are finished. The price she has paid for her mistake is far higher than her partner; and if she had stayed in Canada, she would have had a chance of reinventing herself here.

- I understand the argument that this woman has no claim on Canada, and that she has mis-estimated the risk she run, and her partner both. However, I also believe that both partners should bear equal risk. In the former system (3 years of responsibility), the Canadian partner had more risk, but it wasn't usually life-ruining risk. Under the conditional PR, especially for women from certain countries, the risk really is life-ruining.

- one thing to remember, is that we see the news stories about Canadians who are ill-done by foreign partners. It's not a news story when a woman arrives here to a miserable marriage with a partner she didn't know as well as she thought, and is forced to try and escape from her home. Legally it's the same as these male gigolos from Cuba, but that's the only similarity.

 

[soblue3]

The part of me saying you are not ready to sponsor your partner if you are not willing to be financially responsible" was a poor choice of words using "you". It was not meant directly to you. I apologize for that. That meant for anyone who want to sponsor including myself. The posts I have been making was indirectly posted related to steerpike's frustration of the 2 year conditional PR. As misdirected as his posts are, I pointed where his frustration should focus on. The ownership of the sponsor and their lack of sober thought into examining how real the relationship is and make an informed important decision of that person's life.

The 2 year conditional PR should have been brought about years ago. He thinks it is too draconian or too vague. He seems to forget that PR sponsorship means that you are actually moving to Canada to stay permanently. This is why it is called "PERMANENT resident". He wants the ability to move out of Canada after getting PR and do some studies. It seems that studying takes more priority than moving to Canada to stay. Nothing is preventing anyone to marry or become common-law. If studying overseas after marriage is very important, than wait until you finish your studies and then get sponsored.

yes i think same

 

[QuebecOkie]

With all this talk about conditional PR...it remains to be seen IF and HOW MUCH will actually be done by CIC to deport/revoke PR status for those who violate condition 51. It's not like CIC's budget received a huge increase to begin monitoring the lives of those granted conditional PR or to pursue those reported to have violated it. Not trying to be negative. Just not convinced that it will be a huge change until I see something to the contrary.

 

[soblue3]

I know that we've already discussed this on this thread, and it is beyond the original poster's question, but I just want to bring it up one more time. When a person from a foreign country arrives here and finds that the marriage isn't tenable -- which is very easy, with long-distance relationships, or where the courtship is very fast (as it often is, when a partner is foreign), sending them back can be a very cruel solution. Here is why:

- firstly, many of these people, usually women, speak English very poorly. I've known many partners who basically have no language in common. They may have a very perfunctory understanding of conditional PR, may not realize that exceptions exist for abuse, may not understand what abuse is, and may not realize it only lasts for two years.

- more importantly, their culture and community have different ideas of marriage. A woman from a conservative culture marries a Canadian and comes here; she may view the marriage as a largely transactional affair, done quickly, and have expectations about what the man will bring to it. He does not bring these things, doesn't let her study, isolates her from other people, etc. I don't believe these things qualify as 'abuse', which she is probably ill-equipped to argue anyway and will probably not have access to good advice. In many cultures, when a marriage turns badly, the wife flees, she doesn't get a lawyer. Now, she loses her PR and goes home. It seems fair from a Canadian perspective -- but from her perspective, her life is finished, her reputation ruined. Married women don't remarry, in her culture, her hopes of having children, a family, a sexual life are finished. The price she has paid for her mistake is far higher than her partner; and if she had stayed in Canada, she would have had a chance of reinventing herself here.

- I understand the argument that this woman has no claim on Canada, and that she has mis-estimated the risk she run, and her partner both. However, I also believe that both partners should bear equal risk. In the former system (3 years of responsibility), the Canadian partner had more risk, but it wasn't usually life-ruining risk. Under the conditional PR, especially for women from certain countries, the risk really is life-ruining.

- one thing to remember, is that we see the news stories about Canadians who are ill-done by foreign partners. It's not a news story when a woman arrives here to a miserable marriage with a partner she didn't know as well as she thought, and is forced to try and escape from her home. Legally it's the same as these male gigolos from Cuba, but that's the only similarity.

i think if somebody is mistreated like that...isolating a person, preventing them from learning or any such thing can be qualified as emotional or psychological abuse...i think before being deported a person may have a change for a hearing with a translator. and in case of any kind of abuse the 2 year provision will be lifted as far as i understand. also i think there is very little chance if the partners have no language in common that the relationship would even be possible. maybe years ago the immigration would go for it but now with all the evidence they ask for it would be very unlikely that they would not detect if the spouses can not communicate well

 

[on-hold]

i think if somebody is mistreated like that...isolating a person, preventing them from learning or any such thing can be qualified as emotional or psychological abuse...i think before being deported a person may have a change for a hearing with a translator. and in case of any kind of abuse the 2 year provision will be lifted as far as i understand. also i think there is very little chance if the partners have no language in common that the relationship would even be possible. maybe years ago the immigration would go for it but now with all the evidence they ask for it would be very unlikely that they would not detect if the spouses can not communicate well

With all due respect, this shows that you know nothing about the issues surrounding transcultural marriages. I lived for many years in Thailand, and marriages between a woman who speaks very little English (and I mean almost no English at all), and a foreign man who speaks not even 10 words of Thai, are the norm. My wife's cousin was one such -- she immigrated to Canada in 2010, after a very short sponsorship process that experienced to issues at all. Her husband's a real jerk, he runs a business and makes every decision for her, and if you asked her what she would do if the marriage broke down, or what abuse is, or anything about life in Canada, she would have no idea at all.

 

[steerpike]

The 2 year conditional PR should have been brought about years ago. He thinks it is too draconian or too vague. He seems to forget that PR sponsorship means that you are actually moving to Canada to stay permanently. This is why it is called "PERMANENT resident". He wants the ability to move out of Canada after getting PR and do some studies. It seems that studying takes more priority than moving to Canada to stay. Nothing is preventing anyone to marry or become common-law. If studying overseas after marriage is very important, than wait until you finish your studies and then get sponsored.

Actually, what I want is for loving genuine couples to be able to marry and live as they wish without the nanny state overseeing every aspect of there lives for half a decade. As a Canadian, having these conditions put on me by my own government is offensive, especially since these restrictions exists solely because idiots marry other idiots, neither has any clue what they are getting into, refuse to honour what they have signed, and basically refuse to be treated as adults. As a result, everyone ends up being treated like mentally retarded children.

Those types of people are never going to make responsible choices unless there is a downside for them in making a bad choice. A better way, in my opinion, to handle marriage fraud, is to make the sponsors fully responsible. This way, honest loving couples can live their lives free from the nanny-state, and the idiots who make the system miserable for everyone get what they deserve. Its win-win.

on-hold wrote a very good comment about how spouses who come to Canada can be unfairly treated under this system. Theres no evidence conditiion 51 will reduce marraige fraud, and it may increase spousal abuse, as on-hold described so well. You can tell the OP is really going to enjoy lording Cond 51 over her new husband and making sure he stays in line. Soblue wrote:

if he decides to leave within 2 years for no good reason then he can be deported.

And she feels perfectly justified in that belief. Its absurd. Marriages break down for all sorts of reasons (and it's not always the mans fault). Thats reality. We accept it for Canadian couples without batting an eye. ( My friend spent $20,000 on a wedding and was divorced within a year.) That's life sometimes. Except now, instead of having to deal with their life-choice, the sponsor can just deport their spouse at will with no penalty to them for wasting CIC's time. And the person who gave up their life and moved to a new country is just turfed. It's an imballance of power and it will lead to abuse.

 

[Rob_TO]

I know that we've already discussed this on this thread, and it is beyond the original poster's question, but I just want to bring it up one more time. When a person from a foreign country arrives here and finds that the marriage isn't tenable -- which is very easy, with long-distance relationships, or where the courtship is very fast (as it often is, when a partner is foreign), sending them back can be a very cruel solution. Here is why:

When you cast a large net that is condition 51 to catch the frauds, it's expected that some smaller fish will also be caught accidentally. The overall hope is you catch more frauds then people with legitimate reasons to stay.

All those reasons may be valid of why divorced PRs shouldn't be sent back to their home country, but they are also all excuses a fraudulent PR can make up as to why they shouldn't be sent home. CIC has to draw a line somewhere, and no matter what rules they impose it will never be perfect or catch everyone.

Will be interesting to see some real life examples of how condition 51 cases are handled.

 

[screech339]

Actually, what I want is for loving genuine couples to be able to marry and live as they wish without the nanny state overseeing every aspect of there lives for half a decade. As a Canadian, having these conditions put on me by my own government is offensive, especially since these restrictions exists solely because idiots marry other idiots, neither has any clue what they are getting into, refuse to honour what they have signed, and basically refuse to be treated as adults. As a result, everyone ends up being treated like mentally retarded children.

Those types of people are never going to make responsible choices unless there is a downside for them in making a bad choice. A better way, in my opinion, to handle marriage fraud, is to make the sponsors fully responsible. This way, honest loving couples can live their lives free from the nanny-state, and the idiots who make the system miserable for everyone get what they deserve. Its win-win.

on-hold wrote a very good comment about how spouses who come to Canada can be unfairly treated under this system. Theres no evidence conditiion 51 will reduce marraige fraud, and it may increase spousal abuse, as on-hold described so well. You can tell the OP is really going to enjoy lording Cond 51 over her new husband and making sure he stays in line. Soblue wrote:

And she feels perfectly justified in that belief. Its absurd. Marriages break down for all sorts of reasons (and it's not always the mans fault). Thats reality. We accept it for Canadian couples without batting an eye. ( My friend spent $20,000 on a wedding and was divorced within a year.) That's life sometimes. Except now, instead of having to deal with their life-choice, the sponsor can just deport their spouse at will with no penalty to them for wasting CIC's time. And the person who gave up their life and moved to a new country is just turfed. It's an imballance of power and it will lead to abuse.

steerpike,

All the 2 year conditional clause does other than help reduce marriage fraud (not prevent) is to alleviate the 3 year financial responsibilities to 1 year despite signing a contract for 3 years. I come to this conclusion due to the fact that during the first 2 years of marriage, the sponsor will know the applicant will not go on welfare since he/she can lose PR status and be deported (except in cases of abuse) if the marriage fails, fault or no faults. After 2 years has pass, the applicant can legally separate and leave the sponsor without jeopardizing the PR status and thus can collect welfare if needed. The sponsor will only be responsible for 1 year of welfare back payments to government as compared to 3 years. So I can understand your side of the argument why you are p*ssed at the PR conditional clause. The Federal Government basically made the sponsor a little less accountable to paying back welfare by only worrying about 1 year compared to 3 years. 3 years of paying back welfare is a lot scarier to commit to sponsorship than 1 year of paying back. The government brought on conditional PR due to victims of marriage fraud that now have to pay back 3 years of welfare. This is now reduced to 1 year since they now have to live together 2 years first. You can bet your *ss that future sponsors are more comfortable or willing to sign the sponsorship if the sponsor knows he/she will not be responsible for welfare in the first 2 years of marriage.

Years passed, it used to be 10 years financial commitment. I have a friend who knows someone having to pay back and still paying back welfare payments for more than 3 years under the 10 year commitment.

As a Canadian, having these conditions put on me by my own government is offensive...

You say you are Canadian. So the 2 year PR conditional doesn't affect you at all. If you want to study overseas, bring your partner with you. The PR status of your partner won't be affected including the 2 out of 5 year residency commitment. If you can't bring your partner along due to visa restrictions, there is always overseas online university courses available.

 

[on-hold]

When you cast a large net that is condition 51 to catch the frauds, it's expected that some smaller fish will also be caught accidentally. The overall hope is you catch more frauds then people with legitimate reasons to stay.

All those reasons may be valid of why divorced PRs shouldn't be sent back to their home country, but they are also all excuses a fraudulent PR can make up as to why they shouldn't be sent home. CIC has to draw a line somewhere, and no matter what rules they impose it will never be perfect or catch everyone.

Will be interesting to see some real life examples of how condition 51 cases are handled.

Yep, no argument with any of these. I guess I hope that condition 51 cases are first of all, considered carefully, rather than having a generic cancellation of PR; second, that CIC exercises restraint in situations where the person with conditional PR seems to be managing without depending on government help; and that the situation and good faith of the immigrant are considered.

And I also know that immigration law is not, first and foremost, about the rights of the immigrants. Look at some of the hair-raising complications that international divorce, deportation, and children can cause.

 

[screech339]

Since the PR conditional came into play recently without any statement as to how to revoke the PR status, I am going to assume one of 3 things happening at end of 2 years.

1. The US version: apply to remove the PR condition. The condition is removed when granted without interview.

2. Also US version: apply to remove the PR condition and get called in for personal interviews. PR condition removed after interview.

3. Unless the sponsor complain to CIC about fraud or report marriage breakdown before the 2 year is up, the condition PR will automatically get removed.

I suspect option 3 will be the likely route CIC will take regarding removing conditions.

 

[Aquarian]

Hi,

I agree with making at least another trip. When we applied, I had visited him twice and was already booked to visit for a third trip shortly after the interview date. As for age gap, we have a five-year difference.

Paris is fast but do refuse cases just like other visa offices. Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco are looked at more. I know of a couple, with a big age gap, who were just denied. I strongly believe your hubby will have an interview, and you should try to attend it as well; I know of another couple with a big age gap, where the spouse attended and was approved.

I also believe that they look at what you do for a living, how successful you are, and they look at your spouse's diplomas...Good luck and keep us posted!

soblue3, I think right now the best you can do is try and go to visit your husband. In many cases one visit is not enough to satisfy a visa officer that the marriage is genuine. Other than that, I think what you have in your favour is the visa office. Paris is fast and not too discriminating. There is one member on the forum, her name is Aquarian. She went through Paris, and also there were cultural/religious differences in her file, age difference, also she married after very short courtship (5 or 6 months). Her file was approved, she is married to an Algerian man. Find her on here and she can give you more information on the Paris Visa Office.

See her post on page 6. and try to send her a private message.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/thread-for-outland-paris-applications-t149184.0.html;msg3037269#msg3037269

 

[Aquarian]

Thanks...

You could provide 1000 documents of proof, but they could still refuse you. It is quality not quantity they want to see.

However, I do believe they approve cases where both couples have good diplomas and stable careers....It is like they add points...

Yeah to be honest, I didn't think Aquarian would succeed, but she must've gathered a lot of good relationship proof, good for her.

 

[Aquarian]

Ah schucks, thanks....

I am here to help, just as others have helped me...

yes joms is right Aquarian is a nice lady .. private message her...