tow75 said:
Yes, applying outland is something we're talking about right now. Interesting that the federal court doesn't consider the evidence...but just wondering what you think our credible arguments would be if we went down that road? Other that our relationship is completely genuine, and the best reason the IO has to turn us down is why my husband failed some courses and dropped out of school 4 years ago. It would be a huge help to us if we could know.
The Federal Court will consider the evidence - but only the evidence that was before the officer. Further, they give great latitude to the officer making the original decision. However, if a Federal Court judge reviews the evidence and concludes that the decision is not within the range of reasonable outcomes, she or he may overturn the decision and send it back to CIC for reconsideration.
It sounds to me like the VO has fixated on this specific event. But yes, it's a judgment call. Some of what you have described is suspicious - her initial refusal to take your documents, now her insistence you provide them. Overall, rather odd. But the Federal Court is definitely not a guarantee.
Still, you painted a rather compelling story - this is a person of wealth who married for love. He isn't
gaining an improved economic background, he's giving it up. I don't find the 2009/2010 thing about colour blindness to be particularly compelling, either. When you look at what you have laid out for us, it doesn't sound like an MOC to me.
If you DO send additional documents, I'd suggest laying out your argument one more time. Explain the error in the date, lay out your case. Ask people in your life to read it and see if they find it compelling. In the end, you want a clear case that lays out your relationship, why it is genuine, what he has given up for this relationship. You want anyone reading this write-up to come away with a clear understanding of the legitimacy of your relationship. Lay it ALL out. Anything you add to the case now can be considered by a Federal judge - and what you want is a clear roadmap that leaves no other reasonable conclusion other than the genuine nature of your relationship.
tow75 said:
I think outland would be the best option for us. We'll order the FOSS notes (or whatever they're called) and remember everything that was said in the interview...she was hard on us, but when she left we both thought she had been hard on us, but fair. She said she had a "good feeling" about the interview, but that she didn't want to give us "false hope"...but she gave us false hope. Clearly she changed her mind after the interview. The only proofs we left her were my husbands lease from 2 years ago (that I cosigned) and one of my bank bills that came to his old address- proof that i lived there before our wedding. How these things can change her mind, I don't know. My husband didn't remember when he found out he was colourblind (why he left school at one point) and accidentally told her 2009 instead of 2008. This is a mistake that anyone could make...I don't remember what year I had my last eye exam either.
When she was on the phone with my husband, she brought up a concern with our short engagement (we knew each other 6 months before the wedding)- she didn't mention this in detail in the interview.
If you think it's going to be a refusal, and you won't pursue a judicial review, you really should consider withdrawing the application rather than letting the IO make her decision. Indeed, what I'd say is "after consideration, we have decided an outland application would be better. Accordingly, please withdraw this application."
tow75 said:
Will getting a refusal affect our future outland application?? The IO said she would be making a decision tomorrow morning (when she gets the info we sent) so there's not much time. She's been so up and down with us that I'm pretty sure it'll be refused, but then again she could read all the info we send and change her mind.
There is no way that a refusal will have anything but a negative impact on a future application. In my own case, I had to deal with this and I can see how my initial rejection was an issue in consideration of the second application. I had an advantage - I was in Federal Court on the first refusal (for a skilled worker application) and it looked likely I would win. That's a rather unusual situation and it led to some pretty strong arm-twisting to get my second (spousal) application approved in record time.
But I can see it in the notes for my case: "Based on information provided, further review required due to previous inadmissibility."
Then the notes
five days later:
"Reviewed file and case analysis: FOSS: PA previously refused SW application on A38, medical inadmissibility for excessive demand. That file currently has application for leave for JR pending with Federal Court. Current
medical result is Passed (M39 - EDE). No other eligibility or admissibility concerns noted on previous file. PA residing in Canada on WP since 2009, recently applied to extend. PA currently has TRP appln in process in
Seattle. Based on evidence on file, I am satisfied the relationship is genuine and has not been entered into primarily to gain immigration status in Canada."
So yes, they definitely look at your previous refusals.
