Has the Temporary Visitor Visa policy changed?

[S_and_C]

In our situation, I'm a Canadian citizen and my wife is a Philippines citizen, and we have submitted our PR application back on June 11, 2016. What we want to do next is to apply for a Temporary Residence Visa or Permit in order for her to visit and/or stay while the PR application is processing.

So far on this forum, and from what I've been told by my MP, the impression I get is that it is very difficult to obtain a TRV for a foreign spouse, though it -is- possible as we've seen cases in this forum. I've seen tips here such as asking for 2-3 weeks for a visit instead of a longer period, proving ties are strong to the home country, and financial resources to support your stay etc, and having a nicely detailed and complete letter explaining all of this, that -may- help get a visitor visa approved. This is all based on the idea of a TRV being meant for "temporary" visitors only and the point being to convince the visa officer that you will return at the end of your stay.

I was recently on the CIC website and decided to play with the Come to Canada tool (http://www.cic.gc.ca/ctc-vac/getting-started.asp) and was intrigued by a few of the options...

One of the first questions they ask is "How long are you planning to stay in Canada?" Choices are:
1. Temporarily - less than 6 months.
2. Temporarily - more than 6 months.
3. Permanently

What stood out was number 2. It seems that the only difference here is that a medical exam is required for visits more than 6 months. When I went through the rest of the questions, I got the Permanent Residence option as well as Temporary Residence Visa option.

So, based on this, it seems I can write an invitation letter stating I want my spouse to visit for a year and wait out our PR, all expenses are paid by me covering the financial support side of things, she's done medical exam and has her police certificate. We are still playing by the rules of the TRV being temporary in that we are asking for a year, and it is highly likely the PR will be processed within that year, and then she can land as a PR. At no time would we be violating the terms of the TRV, because it expires after the PR has been granted.

If this is a choice on the CIC website, does this reflect a change in policy for granting TRVs as compared to what I've been told so far, i.e. the duration doesn't matter as long as it's "temporary"?

 

[scylla]

There's no change in policy. To the best of my knowledge, option 2 is for super visa applicants.

 

[S_and_C]

There's no change in policy. To the best of my knowledge, option 2 is for super visa applicants.

Well when I choose legally married spouse as the relationship of the relative in Canada, the option is still presented. My wife remembers trying this tool months aga and the visitor visa wasn't showing as an option, but then the questionnaire may have changed since then to include spouses in this category. Another question I plan to ask my MP this week...

 

[Sous02]

Well when I choose legally married spouse as the relationship of the relative in Canada, the option is still presented. My wife remembers trying this tool months aga and the visitor visa wasn't showing as an option, but then the questionnaire may have changed since then to include spouses in this category. Another question I plan to ask my MP this week...

There is no change and while you can select that option it will not be successful. If you think you have found something that thousands of others have missed good luck. While it is possible to get a short trv your chances are very slim. Do I wish it was different yes but then even in your own initial comments you mention "staying longer" that is why yours and my chances are slim to none.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Well when I choose legally married spouse as the relationship of the relative in Canada, the option is still presented

That option has always been shown. There has been no change in policy.

The fact is that regardless of how long of a stay she puts, with a Canadian spouse and a PR app in process, her chances of a TRV are low.

 

[Bryanna]

So, based on this, it seems I can write an invitation letter stating I want my spouse to visit for a year and wait out our PR, all expenses are paid by me covering the financial support side of things,

An invitation letter stating this is guaranteed to say goodbye to even the slim chance of getting a TRV while she waits for her PR

 

[S_and_C]

Yes so everyone agrees that the most likely outcome is a TRV refusal. How about a Temporary Resident Permit then?

Last time i spoke to my MP she mentioned my only option would be this, and the letter of invitation is replaced with a cover letter explains why I want my wife with me before the PR is approved. If you look at the CIC site for TRP it seems to be reserved for people who are normally inadmissability for things like criminal and medical inadmissability, but have "exceptional circumstances" that would allow them to enter or remain in Canada.

Would a foreign spouse then be considered inadmissible for a TRV because of all of the reasoning we have seen so far regarding it being highly unlikely to be approved for one?

 

[Sous02]

Yes so everyone agrees that the most likely outcome is a TRV refusal. How about a Temporary Resident Permit then?

Last time i spoke to my MP she mentioned my only option would be this, and the letter of invitation is replaced with a cover letter explains why I want my wife with me before the PR is approved. If you look at the CIC site for TRP it seems to be reserved for people who are normally inadmissability for things like criminal and medical inadmissability, but have "exceptional circumstances" that would allow them to enter or remain in Canada.

Would a foreign spouse then be considered inadmissible for a TRV because of all of the reasoning we have seen so far regarding it being highly unlikely to be approved for one?

The only option available is a trv. You need to realize your circumstances are no different than the thousands of spouses waiting to come to Canada.

 

[scylla]

Yes so everyone agrees that the most likely outcome is a TRV refusal. How about a Temporary Resident Permit then?

Last time i spoke to my MP she mentioned my only option would be this, and the letter of invitation is replaced with a cover letter explains why I want my wife with me before the PR is approved. If you look at the CIC site for TRP it seems to be reserved for people who are normally inadmissability for things like criminal and medical inadmissability, but have "exceptional circumstances" that would allow them to enter or remain in Canada.

Would a foreign spouse then be considered inadmissible for a TRV because of all of the reasoning we have seen so far regarding it being highly unlikely to be approved for one?

Your spouse is not inadmissible and therefore doesn't qualify for a TRP. Being refused a TRV doesn't make you inadmissible - it simply means you've been refused a visa. Inadmissible means you are legally not allowed to enter Canada for a period of time - because you either have a criminal charge or conviction and haven't yet been through the rehabilitation process - or you have been banned from Canada (e.g. 5 year misrepresentation ban).

 

[S_and_C]

The only option available is a trv. You need to realize your circumstances are no different than the thousands of spouses waiting to come to Canada.

Yes of course I realize that, it's just that my interpretation of the information and possibilities presented on the site leads to these conclusions.

Your spouse is not inadmissible and therefore doesn't qualify for a TRP. Being refused a TRV doesn't make you inadmissible - it simply means you've been refused a visa. Inadmissible means you are legally not allowed to enter Canada for a period of time - because you either have a criminal charge or conviction and haven't yet been through the rehabilitation process - or you have been banned from Canada (e.g. 5 year misrepresentation ban).

Thanks for clarifying this. Then this makes MP's office information wrong as well, so you can see how these conflicting views make it hard to come to a firm conclusion. In my case, the lady at the MP office suggested this because of my situation of being a single parent with 2 young kids, working full time, a type 1 diabetic, my kids need a motherly figure etc gives me a chance of arguing the required "exceptional circumstances" in hopes of getting a visa or permit approved.

I'm not saying I'm special in any way, it's hard for everybody who is trying to bring in their spouse. Some have convinced a visa officer to issue a TRV, but in our situation we just don't have enough proof of strong ties to her home country, and trying to embellish the more trivial ties to make them seem more important than they really are just feels like it won't work. Our situation is obvious that she wants to be here with me.

 

[Sous02]

Yes of course I realize that, it's just that my interpretation of the information and possibilities presented on the site leads to these conclusions.
Thanks for clarifying this. Then this makes MP's office information wrong as well, so you can see how these conflicting views make it hard to come to a firm conclusion. In my case, the lady at the MP office suggested this because of my situation of being a single parent with 2 young kids, working full time, a type 1 diabetic, my kids need a motherly figure etc gives me a chance of arguing the required "exceptional circumstances" in hopes of getting a visa or permit approved.

I'm not saying I'm special in any way, it's hard for everybody who is trying to bring in their spouse. Some have convinced a visa officer to issue a TRV, but in our situation we just don't have enough proof of strong ties to her home country, and trying to embellish the more trivial ties to make them seem more important than they really are just feels like it won't work. Our situation is obvious that she wants to be here with me.

The reasons that the mp's office are giving you make it more likely to be refused than granted.

 

[scylla]

In my case, the lady at the MP office suggested this because of my situation of being a single parent with 2 young kids, working full time, a type 1 diabetic, my kids need a motherly figure etc gives me a chance of arguing the required "exceptional circumstances" in hopes of getting a visa or permit approved.

Keep in mind that the MP and MP office staff are not immigration experts. While they often try to help, they unfortunately don't always give very good advice. They generally only have a high level understanding of immigration rules. My guess is that they looked at the CIC web site and found something they thought might apply to you. However their advice isn't coming from a place of true experience or expertise.

Again, the option you have available to you is to apply for a TRV. To be approved, your wife needs to include as much evidence as possible that she has strong ties to her home country. It's already been suggested you keep the requested trip length short - this is sound advice that is based on actual experiences on this forum.

 

[CanadianAlien]

I'm not any sort of expert...however I have a 12 month visa to be with my spouse (who is Canadian) while my application is ongoing.....the magic words are "dual-intent" I stated I wished to come in and conform to all visitor rules while my application is ongoing...they checked my spouse could support me...and that was it.

 

[Sous02]

I'm not any sort of expert...however I have a 12 month visa to be with my spouse (who is Canadian) while my application is ongoing.....the magic words are "dual-intent" I stated I wished to come in and conform to all visitor rules while my application is ongoing...they checked my spouse could support me...and that was it.

I suspect you are from a visa exempt country.

 

[S_and_C]

I'm not any sort of expert...however I have a 12 month visa to be with my spouse (who is Canadian) while my application is ongoing.....the magic words are "dual-intent" I stated I wished to come in and conform to all visitor rules while my application is ongoing...they checked my spouse could support me...and that was it.

Thanks for a little ray of hope. I have also explored this and it falls in line with my original post in this thread, to full explain our intent and that we want a TRV to cover the PR processing...

Thanks everyone else for the replies, but want to rant on this a bit...

I just find this whole thing frustrating because the supposed priority of Canada's immigration system is to bring families together, yet spouses who want to be together, even if temporarily, via the TRV route are largely refused because marriage is usually the strongest tie, and the PRV processing time is just too long to be apart.

I know they are trying to reduce processing times, and they want to stop marriage fraud cases, and they want to do their background checks, but why punish the genuine couples for the small few who abuse the system. Imagine if they decided to refuse 50,000 refugees because a handful might be terrorists, so we'll reject 98% of those cases unless they can really prove they are not a terrorist. It's absolutely absurd to think of it that way of course since these people are trying to escape life threatening situations, but this is the same "guilty until proven innocent" logic that seems to be used for spouses. Assume everyone is going to commit fraud or overstay so the only way to be sure is to do all the background checks through the full PR process, and don't allow them to visit temporarily unless they really prove strong ties that show that they have no need to immigrate quite yet. Then once people are in Canada "temporarily" on visit/work/study visas, they are allowed to extend those visas, apply for PR inland and continue to remain in Canada while waiting for processing. So whether people intended this or not, they have tricked the system so they could get into Canada earlier than would have been allowed otherwise.

As was said, my situation is no different than thousands of other spouses waiting for their PRs, and we are no different than the thousands already in Canada building their lives together waiting for their PRs. In my opinion, they should let that 98% of rejected spouses visit each other freely, as long as you can prove you are married to your spouse and all the standard rules apply.

Otherwise, why not truly enforce the temporary nature of TRVs and deport anyone who overstays, eliminate visitor visa extensions entirely, and demand everyone return to their home country in order to apply for their PR, eliminating inland processing. Equally ridiculous thought right?

Sorry for the rant, but you can see that the system just doesn't make sense to me...