I came across an article that I think everyone here will find interesting.

[Totonium]

Here is the link:

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2014/02/01/a_rare_look_inside_the_black_box_of_canada_immigration.html

What I find unacceptable is the following:

• Couples who don’t have a common language of communication, have not met before marriage, do not know details in each others’ personal histories and current lives, and are deemed not compatible in age, physical appearance and values;

So my point is who the heck deems about age, PHYSICAL APPEARANCE and VALUES! S basically Donald Trump would not be able to Sponsor Melania if he were Canadian...

Plus:

“The system allows racial biases to creep in the selection process. They could use their authority to put it bluntly and crudely, to keep Canada white,” Satzewich noted.

I am sure that some MPs and Justin Bieber, I mean Trudeau most look into the process if this is true.

I found quiet a bit of racism specially from the Canada Customs guys at the airports, even more than the NSA guys in the U.S and I am a CAN citizen...

Any ways, I just wanted to drop you guys a though here.

 

[WeegieInOttawa]

Bear in mind this is an old article (2014)

 

[Totonium]

Bear in mind this is an old article (2014)

Well, do you think a lot has change since 3 years ago?

 

[Buletruck]

Yeah, well anyone who can tie there own shoes knows "The Star" has a slightly biased view of anything immigration does (and it's always that the system is wrong). The research in the article was conducted 5-7 years ago during the Harper government. Some of the points would also make me question the validity of an applicant without a second thought. Examples of what I see as valid concerns from the article:

• In one application that Satzewich observed, an officer in India flagged the case because “there is a seven-year difference in age between the couple and the sponsor is a divorcee and only five days elapsed between when the couple first met and the marriage.”
  
• An applicant facing deportation suddenly getting married often raises concerns, said one officer from a Caribbean visa post.

Information in the article is also outdated and no longer relevant:

• With marriage of convenience being Ottawa’s catchphrase on the abuse of the immigration system in recent years, Canada has tightened sponsorship rules by making permanent residence conditional upon a couple living together for two years

And the final quote from the studies author "But in the end, I came away with a lot more confidence into our immigration system and a better appreciation of the complexity of what our visa officers do" leads me to believe the hype is all from The Star and an attempt to push their agenda.

 

[Buletruck]

Bear in mind this is an old article (2014)

And I completely missed that......DOH!

 

[carolbb23]

i do respect that these officers have weed out real marriages and fake marriages and someone has to do the job because they are front line in who they let into canada

 

[Nick~Nick]

“there is a seven-year difference in age between the couple and the sponsor is a divorcee and only five days elapsed between when the couple first met and the marriage.”

I like to say something here:
Firstly, I know there is and in the above statement, so it is might be for that case only.
But, I like to talk about that green sub-statement, if that is one of the reason visa officer are rejecting applications then good luck (including me) to all Indian who had arranged marriage. in my case we had less then a month between engagement and marriage.
Arranged marriage never gives you time between engagement and marriage.
If someone here from India and think what I am saying is correct, please reply, because now I am tensed after reading that statement.

 

[spousalsponsee]

What do you find objectionable about the article?

Putting aside the obvious problems like this being one person's opinion from three years ago, to take OP's complaints; viewing the whole of the relationship seems the only valid way a case officer could be making the decision. The example you suggest, there is little doubt it would succeed; a billionaire and a model seem a likely match; they're both bringing things to the table.

For the next suggested problem, again, is a problem with a complete set of facts. A short engagement is not intrinsically said anywhere to be a problem. An age gap and a social desirability gap (one divorcee) and a rapid marriage? That's not common. It might be genuine, but anyone with a brain would be looking at it twice.

All this article is saying is the common advice on this forum; the more red flags your relationship has, the more likely you are to undergo additional scrutiny. Be similar age, social backgrounds, income, and comparable appearance for the easiest ride. Start changing the components of that, and things get harder. Have one person who's clearly outbalancing the other and whose main advantage is being a Canadian PR/Citizen, eyebrows will be firmly raised.

Unless, of course, you think it's actually statistically likely that someone met and married the Canadian love of their life immediately after being told they were being deported from Canada (in which case, I have some beautiful ocean view property in Alberta to sell you).

 

[Totonium]

What do you find objectionable about the article?

Putting aside the obvious problems like this being one person's opinion from three years ago, to take OP's complaints; viewing the whole of the relationship seems the only valid way a case officer could be making the decision. The example you suggest,

For the next suggested problem, again, is a problem with a complete set of facts. A short engagement is not intrinsically said anywhere to be a problem. An age gap and a social desirability gap (one divorcee) and a rapid marriage? That's not common. It might be genuine, but anyone with a brain would be looking at it twice.

All this article is saying is the common advice on this forum; the more red flags your relationship has, the more likely you are to undergo additional scrutiny. Be similar age, social backgrounds, income, and comparable appearance for the easiest ride. Start changing the components of that, and things get harder. Have one person who's clearly outbalancing the other and whose main advantage is being a Canadian PR/Citizen, eyebrows will be firmly raised.

Unless, of course, you think it's actually statistically likely that someone met and married the Canadian love of their life immediately after being told they were being deported from Canada (in which case, I have some beautiful ocean view property in Alberta to sell you).

Well, I already said what I found objectionable in the article...

Let's go to the Donald Trump example: YOU said: "there is little doubt it would succeed; a billionaire and a model seem a likely match; they're both bringing things to the table." that is YOUR OPINION. Now if I am the VO, I would say, this is B.S marriage, this woman wants a Green Card and it is good for both of them the public and press for their career. Therefore, I dont believe their marriage are real. That woman doesnt even want to hold the hand of that ugly F#$% and even when the sponsor becomes president she is not even smiling. And on top of that, she has money she doesn't even need the orange guy's money... So Not visa for her.

So who would go against my opinion? Once I refuse the application? Then Donny will have to go to court and get 2 more years of his life lost... MY POINT IS THAT VO HAS TOO MUCH SUBJECTIVENESS ATTACHED TO THEIR DECISION. And it appears that IRCC endorses that kind of subjective thought.

And I guess you dont find this objectionable:

“The system allows racial biases to creep in the selection process. They could use their authority to put it bluntly and crudely, to keep Canada white,” Satzewich noted.

My answer to that is: there was a Canadian Trump already and his name was S. Harper... You go a judge.

 

[spousalsponsee]

As I intimated; I would go against your opinion, as I suspect many would. If a case officer decided that way, the couple could appeal.

Of course cade officers could use the opportunity to expound on their own racism. If they did, there would be many appeals, and they would lose their jobs in short order. When judging human relationships, there's no possibility other than using humans. I do hope you're not suggesting some kind of objective test where, eg, everyone who submitted 50 photos together was allowed in. Now that would indeed be a horrifying process, wide open to abuse. Lacking that specific, objective test, our relationships are judged by our fellow humans. I ask again, what reasonable objection you can have to this.

 

[Totonium]

“there is a seven-year difference in age between the couple and the sponsor is a divorcee and only five days elapsed between when the couple first met and the marriage.”

I like to say something here:
Firstly, I know there is and in the above statement, so it is might be for that case only.
But, I like to talk about that green sub-statement, if that is one of the reason visa officer are rejecting applications then good luck (including me) to all Indian who had arranged marriage. in my case we had less then a month between engagement and marriage.
Arranged marriage never gives you time between engagement and marriage.
If someone here from India and think what I am saying is correct, please reply, because now I am tensed after reading that statement.

Hi Nick,

I dont know specifics about your case, but I believe for arranged marriage they already study those cases. And as you have notice that the new forms they have an specific set of questions about if the marriage is arranged. So I would believe that they have a different rule to study cases based on arranged marriages.

 

[Buletruck]

“The system allows racial biases to creep in the selection process. They could use their authority to put it bluntly and crudely, to keep Canada white,” Satzewich noted.

I really do find this statement to be insulting (and nothing more than an effort to inflame people's emotions), considering the various religious and ethic groups that make up the staff at IRCC and Visa Offices around the world! Do you really think that it carries the potential for "white only" Canada? I've had the opportunity to live in several different regions around the world, and to say that racism would creep in and then identify whites only as the reason is absurd. Why not an Indian VO preventing Pakistani immigrants or a Buddhist VO rejecting a Muslim applicant on religious beliefs or an Aboriginal VO deciding there are enough white people in Canada already....please!

There are checks and balances in the system to prevent these sorts of abuses that are inherent in any cultural group (I've never seen one particular group that didn't have some level or racism or discrimination against some other group). It not like there isn't someone who reviews the VO comment and recommendations.

 

[canadianwoman]

I agree that there are a lot of problems with how the decisions are made. But this is only normal: it is difficult to judge whether a marriage is genuine. All we can hope is that they try to be fair. We should make a complaint if we feel the visa officer was racist, homophobic, etc.
For countries where arranged marriages are normal, the visa officers will accept them. In fact, in India it often seems easier to get an arranged marriage approved than a love match. The visa officers know what is normal in arranged marriages, so expect to see that. Not having met much before the ceremony is normal, so that will be accepted. But they also expect a couple traditional enough to have an arranged marriage to follow other traditions: for example, they will expect the parents to have arranged a suitable match, and so if the couple is not suited, there will be questions. They will also expect the couple to have done all the traditional ceremonies. Now if it were a love match, couples who are less suited to each other can be more easily accepted, and having gotten married without a big traditional ceremony can be accepted.