I feel like to sue the Canadian Embassy and Government...

[margobear96]

If this was true then the appeals wouldnt win. But they usually do. What VOs think and what judges think are not on the same wavelength. It creates inefficiencies in the system, and that IS the CICs fault.

This statement is meaningless. You're missing a metric. What percent of denials are appealed? Presumably if you applied with a fraudulent marriage and got denied, you're not going to appeal. The ONLY people who are going to bother to appeal are the ones with genuine marriages who got denied either through the VO's or the applicants' incompetence.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

Did we lose a few pages of comment here?

 

[frankinto]

Did we lose a few pages of comment here?

Most messages dealing with the most personal issues of the OP appear to have been deleted. It's just as well.

 

[Fencesitter]

This statement is meaningless. You're missing a metric. What percent of denials are appealed? Presumably if you applied with a fraudulent marriage and got denied, you're not going to appeal. The ONLY people who are going to bother to appeal are the ones with genuine marriages who got denied either through the VO's or the applicants' incompetence.

If the other posters statement is meaningless, than I suppose yours is as well.

You assert that the 'ONLY' people who are going to bother with an appeal are the ones with a genuine relationship. I have trouble believing that since it is nothing but conjecture. One could argue that people who were denied, and in a marriage of convenience, might actually pursue the appeal to make it appear as though the relationship is genuine and continuing. Moreover, once an application has been denied, and again, assuming it's a marriage of convenience, the applicants may be less likely to bother applying again (from the beginning), so an appeal might be the best course of action. You see? We could go back and forth like this all day long. It's rather pointless, or as you said, 'meaningless'.

As for the OP and her situation, I think she simply neglected to adequately prepare her application. The OP said she did extensive research, but that doesn't mean a whole lot if she focused on the wrong things.

In the end, she has to deal with it.

FS

 

[margobear96]

If the other posters statement is meaningless, than I suppose yours is as well.

You assert that the 'ONLY' people who are going to bother with an appeal are the ones with a genuine relationship. I have trouble believing that since it is nothing but conjecture. One could argue that people who were denied, and in a marriage of convenience, might actually pursue the appeal to make it appear as though the relationship is genuine and continuing. Moreover, once an application has been denied, and again, assuming it's a marriage of convenience, the applicants may be less likely to bother applying again (from the beginning), so an appeal might be the best course of action. You see? We could go back and forth like this all day long. It's rather pointless, or as you said, 'meaningless'.

Sigh. PP's asserts that "appeals usually win" (BTW I'm giving him/her the doubt and assuming that's true) and concludes therefore that CIC is massively incompetent. I'm simply saying that without a statement of what percentage of denials are actually appealed he/she cannot reach that conclusion. I said "presumably" (i.e., it is reasonable to assume) that only people in a genuine relationship are likely to appeal as an illustration that IMO the percentage appealed is probably not close to 100%. Unlike the PP, I am most definitely not making any sweeping conclusions about the efficiency of CIC's process based on my presumption.

 

[Fencesitter]

Sigh.

FS

 

[steerpike]

Sigh. PP's asserts that "appeals usually win" (BTW I'm giving him/her the doubt and assuming that's true) and concludes therefore that CIC is massively incompetent. I'm simply saying that without a statement of what percentage of denials are actually appealed he/she cannot reach that conclusion. I said "presumably" (i.e., it is reasonable to assume) that only people in a genuine relationship are likely to appeal as an illustration that IMO the percentage appealed is probably not close to 100%. Unlike the PP, I am most definitely not making any sweeping conclusions about the efficiency of CIC's process based on my presumption.

Here is an example of a case that won on appeal. You can clearly see the thinking of the VOs is out of step with the thinking of the Judge.

http://canlii.ca/en/ca/irb/doc/2011/2011canlii95622/2011canlii95622.html

 

[Rob_TO]

I'm simply saying that without a statement of what percentage of denials are actually appealed he/she cannot reach that conclusion. I said "presumably" (i.e., it is reasonable to assume) that only people in a genuine relationship are likely to appeal as an illustration that IMO the percentage appealed is probably not close to 100%.

Actually i did find some basic stats: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/tribunal/stat/Pages/iadsai.aspx

It shows in 2012 there were 6,100 new appeals filed for ALL refused sponsorship cases, removal orders, and residency obligation orders.

For 2012 (Oct 2011 - Sept 2012 stats), ALL outland sponsorship refusals amounted to around 10K (2.5K parents, 6K spouse, 1.5K children and other).

I'm guessing that the majority of new appeal cases by volume involve sponsorships, as opposed to removals and obligation appeals. So that would put the % of refused cases that file for appeal, at around 50-60%. Or if perhaps more of the 6K spousal refusals are appealed since they are more open to interpretation as opposed to the more straightforward parent and children cases... the % of spousal appeals could be much higher. Unfortunately no clear definition of the stats.


There are definitely cases where the appeal judge cites specific errors in judgement on the VO's part. This is why I would really like to see a simple panel do a review of all refused cases, before the VO's decision becomes permanent. This would be just a check if the VO has overstepped their boundaries or is way out of line with a refusal and is not following their operating procedure properly.

IMO, I think VOs are guided by the CIC to ensure only a certain number of applications get approved. It's no secret Canada has set limits on how many new immigrants they want coming to Canada each year (i think it's around 200K). And its also no secret that there has been a big shift from family class to economic class here. So there is probably some undocumented "quota" of refusals a VO must hit, to ensure the correct number of family class immigrants are allowed. If a VO approves too many applications, they would be looked at as not doing their job properly and not weeding out the frauds. So often i think a VO needs to refuse every so many applications, and perhaps refuse one with just a few minor red flags that they would normally pass. Just a thought of course... no evidence whatsoever to back this up.

 

[PMM]

Hi

Actually i did find some basic stats: http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/tribunal/stat/Pages/iadsai.aspx

It shows in 2012 there were 6,100 new appeals filed for ALL refused sponsorship cases, removal orders, and residency obligation orders.

For 2012 (Oct 2011 - Sept 2012 stats), ALL outland sponsorship refusals amounted to around 10K (2.5K parents, 6K spouse, 1.5K children and other).

I'm guessing that the majority of new appeal cases by volume involve sponsorships, as opposed to removals and obligation appeals. So that would put the % of refused cases that file for appeal, at around 50-60%. Or if perhaps more of the 6K spousal refusals are appealed since they are more open to interpretation as opposed to the more straightforward parent and children cases... the % of spousal appeals could be much higher. Unfortunately no clear definition of the stats.


There are definitely cases where the appeal judge cites specific errors in judgement on the VO's part. This is why I would really like to see a simple panel do a review of all refused cases, before the VO's decision becomes permanent. This would be just a check if the VO has overstepped their boundaries or is way out of line with a refusal and is not following their operating procedure properly.

IMO, I think VOs are guided by the CIC to ensure only a certain number of applications get approved. It's no secret Canada has set limits on how many new immigrants they want coming to Canada each year (i think it's around 200K). And its also no secret that there has been a big shift from family class to economic class here. So there is probably some undocumented "quota" of refusals a VO must hit, to ensure the correct number of family class immigrants are allowed. If a VO approves too many applications, they would be looked at as not doing their job properly and not weeding out the frauds. So often i think a VO needs to refuse every so many applications, and perhaps refuse one with just a few minor red flags that they would normally pass. Just a thought of course... no evidence whatsoever to back this up.

1. The old conspiracy theory of CIC having a quota for refusals
2. The VO doesn't have any stake in the application, and either the applicant is approved or refused based on the information that THEY and their spouse supplied, as well as CIC's outside resources. Think about it, it is actually easier for a VO to approve an application than refuse it, a loooooooooot less work.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

Hi


1. The old conspiracy theory of CIC having a quota for refusals
2. The VO doesn't have any stake in the application, and either the applicant is approved or refused based on the information that THEY and their spouse supplied, as well as CIC's outside resources. Think about it, it is actually easier for a VO to approve an application than refuse it, a loooooooooot less work.

Years ago (about 20) I had a friend who was a VO. She specifically said that there was an expectation to refuse visas for a portion of your caseload. She was never given a percentage so you couldn't say there was a quota but she said that there were some applications she had to deny simply because she couldn't approve everyone. There is a cap limit on how many immigrants are allowed in each year and if there are far more applications then visas available then one could expect a quota-like system to be adopted out of neccessity.

 

[gsize]

I found this out as well.

Where is the transparancy ?

I called the IAD in Toronto asking them about wait times.......(I had to wait 28 months for appeal) They told me 12-18 months. Seems like they say the same thing over and over knowing its not true !

After I told them, why did I have to wait 28 months then......silence......''wait times are constantly changing'

 

[lunas]

Years ago (about 20) I had a friend who was a VO. She specifically said that there was an expectation to refuse visas for a portion of your caseload. She was never given a percentage so you couldn't say there was a quota but she said that there were some applications she had to deny simply because she couldn't approve everyone. There is a cap limit on how many immigrants are allowed in each year and if there are far more applications then visas available then one could expect a quota-like system to be adopted out of neccessity.

Hmm I'm not saying that's a fact but I think there are things like that in every government. Here cops (State Patrols for example) have a quota for speed tickets they have to meet every month. By the end of the month, is so obvious, they start giving tickets or warnings for stupid things. It'd be awful if CIC had quota, but why doesn't it surprise me.

 

[Rob_TO]

1. The old conspiracy theory of CIC having a quota for refusals

Its not a conspiracy theory, it's stated on the CIC website. Just call it "target" and not "quota": http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-levels2013.asp
For each range, CIC also sets an admissions target. The work of CIC's visa processing network is based on the admissions target so that admissions fall within the planning range.

The target for spouse/partner/children class for 2013, is 48,300 people. You can bet rejection rates will be expected that will meet this target. In the past, family class used to make up a much higher percent of the 250K immigrants to Canada each year so approval rates were higher overall. As Canada started targeting the economic class more and reducing family class, it's no surprise VOs started rejecting more and more applications.

2. The VO doesn't have any stake in the application, and either the applicant is approved or refused based on the information that THEY and their spouse supplied, as well as CIC's outside resources. Think about it, it is actually easier for a VO to approve an application than refuse it, a loooooooooot less work.

You have further proved my point. Yes its much easier to just approve an app. So what do you think would happen if a VO went an entire year without rejecting a single app? Obviously they would get a severe investigation into their work to see if they are competent. VOs MUST reject apps at a certain level, to be considered doing their job. And i wouldn't be surprised if VOs reject the occasional app they would otherwise approve, just for the sake of keeping up their rejection level and showing they are doing their job properly. No specific hard quota, but a "target" nonetheless that their performance review would be based on. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's common sense.

 

[gsize]

good post.....very disturbing !! 8)

Last time I checked.....playing with people's lives is not nice. Shame !

 

[Harju]

Its not a conspiracy theory, it's stated on the CIC website. Just call it "target" and not "quota": http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-levels2013.asp
For each range, CIC also sets an admissions target. The work of CIC's visa processing network is based on the admissions target so that admissions fall within the planning range.

The target for spouse/partner/children class for 2013, is 48,300 people. You can bet rejection rates will be expected that will meet this target. In the past, family class used to make up a much higher percent of the 250K immigrants to Canada each year so approval rates were higher overall. As Canada started targeting the economic class more and reducing family class, it's no surprise VOs started rejecting more and more applications.

The spousal/children target for 2011 was 45,500 to 48,600. The applications accepted were 41,253. It seems they had a long way to go to meet their "quota".
The spousal/children target for 2012 was 44,000. I have not seen any 2012 final numbers but it would be interesting to compare.





http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/annual-report2010/section1.asp
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-levels2012.asp
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2011-preliminary/01.asp