interview in los angeles

[Decoy24601]

Well, I assume they have some kind of limit. Even for Americans. I tried reading up on some US citizen interview reasons, a few I found:

• Applicants from other countries of citizenship but going through the Ottawa/LA office
• Applicants who were in a same-sex relationship
  
• Criminality issues (obviously), such as being accused of being a hacker.
  
• Someone who was rather vague about a relationship concern the officer had
  
• Applicant who applied under conjugal but living in the US
  
• Blatant misrepresentation
  
• One guy who's app was sent to LA, with allegedly no known reason. Possibly by mistake.
  

Yeah, I'm sure there's some kind of limit too. Still, everything except the mistake and applying as a same-sex couple would be fairly serious. My guess here is that there application was probably vague with little proof of relationship or there was some sort of suspected misrepresentation. Or it could be a complete mistake, but that seems less likely than there actually being some issue.

Baccs, how much and what types of proof of relationship did you send with the application?

 

[CDNPR2014]

i know a young couple who was called in for an interview because some one made a call to CIC about them. so even if everything else is 100%, 1 little thing can trigger an interview even if it has no merit.

it's really not my business as to what the reason is, it's just interesting when a us applicant gets called for an interview because it is very seldom it happens.

 

[baccs]

Hey really appreciate all the support you guys are giving, we have been together for 3 years now, and our marriage has been a year and a half deep since 2014, but we started dating 3 years ago, is that considered a short relationship? And also we provided lots and lots of photos and letters and communication proofs, and in the gcms notes we have a note from an officer saying he believes thats our relationship is genuine, so i really see no reason but maybe they want to confirm the marriage is still on going?

 

[CDNPR2014]

Hey really appreciate all the support you guys are giving, we have been together for 3 years now, and our marriage has been a year and a half deep since 2014, but we started dating 3 years ago, is that considered a short relationship? And also we provided lots and lots of photos and letters and communication proofs, and in the gcms notes we have a note from an officer saying he believes thats our relationship is genuine, so i really see no reason but maybe they want to confirm the marriage is still on going?

no, that length of time doesn't usually trigger an interview. we were married for less than a year and dated for 3 years prior to applying. are there any criminality issues (beyond the canada border issues) or do you have dependants? is your wife a US CITIZEN? again, very odd you have been called for an interview and the relationship has been considered valid. maybe it DOES have to do with your age? If one of you is now 20, and you started dating 3 years ago, then that suggests one of you was technically a minor when you started dating and just barely 18 when married (if my calculations are correct). The couple i know who had an interview was also young. at this point it's anyone's guess what triggered it.
any other clues in the notes?

 

[mikeymyke]

Hey really appreciate all the support you guys are giving, we have been together for 3 years now, and our marriage has been a year and a half deep since 2014, but we started dating 3 years ago, is that considered a short relationship? And also we provided lots and lots of photos and letters and communication proofs, and in the gcms notes we have a note from an officer saying he believes thats our relationship is genuine, so i really see no reason but maybe they want to confirm the marriage is still on going?

How long ago were those GCMS notes? You should order another one and see if it's updated. There should be somewhere in the notes that says they're concerned about _____, and will do an interview.

 

[Aquakitty]

Hey really appreciate all the support you guys are giving, we have been together for 3 years now, and our marriage has been a year and a half deep since 2014, but we started dating 3 years ago, is that considered a short relationship? And also we provided lots and lots of photos and letters and communication proofs, and in the gcms notes we have a note from an officer saying he believes thats our relationship is genuine, so i really see no reason but maybe they want to confirm the marriage is still on going?

Maybe the age, but still, it's really not that unusual to get married in your early 20's. So you never received a docs requests? I don't mean to seem nosy, I'm just very curious as a learning experience to help you and others.

 

[Decoy24601]

Maybe the age, but still, it's really not that unusual to get married in your early 20's. So you never received a docs requests? I don't mean to seem nosy, I'm just very curious as a learning experience to help you and others.

I'm positive it wouldn't be the age. I've seen people with age gaps where the younger person is 19 and they had no issues. I'm honestly thinking this could be some sort of mistake now. I doubt the CIC would care if one person was 17 when the other is 20 etc.

Definitely order some new GCMS notes. I'm on the young side and my husband and I have an age gap (not a very large one or anything, but it's there) and I've been given advice on here that as long as you have plenty of proof of relationship then you should be fine. Case officers still view these events with cultural norms in mind. Since your spouse is a US citizen, dating when one of you was a teenager or even younger than 18 and only three years apart and getting married when you're 20 should really not be an issue.

I'm sorry you have to deal with an interview. Especially since it just seems fairly odd.

 

[baccs]

Yes i find this very odd too, nope we had not got any requests for any documents ever... we applied in feb 2015 we got aor on march 30th 2015, n momentarilly got file transferred to cpc ottawa.. ever since the cic had no communication with us nor any document requests up until this interview letter... on the gcms notes the only concern noted is: PA has previously overstayed in Canada when a minor. Also, adverse information regarding sponsor has been noted POE examining officer. PA has been denied entry to Canada several times but has not disclosed this information on the application.

But the thing is she did not get denied before, its only been twice she tried to cross and it wasnt a rejection or denial on the papers it says that it was a withdrawn decision to cross the border and she is in Canada with me now no problem the third time she crossed with me with a PR application undergoing

 

[baccs]

Maybe because we had no big wedding reception? We only had the legal marriage ceremony held in new york.

 

[Decoy24601]

Maybe because we had no big wedding reception? We only had the legal marriage ceremony held in new york.

That's not considered against cultural norms for either the US or Canada. A lot of Americans do this and apply with no issue.

PA has previously overstayed in Canada when a minor. Also, adverse information regarding sponsor has been noted POE examining officer. PA has been denied entry to Canada several times but has not disclosed this information on the application.

If PA has been denied entry and didn't disclose that on the application that's misrepresentation and I could see her getting called in for an interview with that with her other overstays combined make them a little suspicious.

Was she given a "voluntary withdrawal" each time or was one or more of them an actual denial? I have been given one of those before and promised that there wouldn't even be a record of it and I remember asking on this forum if that counted as a refusal and people said that it doesn't.

 

[Ponga]

PA has been denied entry to Canada several times but has not disclosed this information on the application.

But the thing is she did not get denied before, its only been twice she tried to cross and it wasnt a rejection or denial on the papers it says that it was a withdrawn decision to cross the border and she is in Canada with me now no problem the third time she crossed with me with a PR application undergoing

This could be seen as misrepresentation, since the PA is asked whether or not they have been refused entry into Canada or any other country. However, if she was given an `Allowed to Leave' document from CBSA, perhaps it's not truly a denial of entry?

It's odd that the GCMS notes say that she has been denied entry...several times. This could very well be why the interview was scheduled.

 

[Decoy24601]

This could be seen as misrepresentation, since the PA is asked whether or not they have been refused entry into Canada or any other country. However, if she was given an `Allowed to Leave' document from CBSA, perhaps it's not truly a denial of entry?

It's odd that the GCMS notes say that she has been denied entry...several times. This could very well be why the interview was scheduled.

Yeah, it's odd. I've been reassured on here myself that a "voluntary withdrawal" is not a true denial of entry, so you should say you haven't been denied entry on the application. You are simply withdrawing your application to enter Canada. I wonder, could an inexperienced case officer have gotten a hold of their application?

 

[CDNPR2014]

PA has previously overstayed in Canada when a minor. Also, adverse information regarding sponsor has been noted POE examining officer. PA has been denied entry to Canada several times but has not disclosed this information on the application.

this seems like the likely cause of the trigger. if she was allowed to leave, and as others suggested, if these particular forms don't stay on your record, i'd try to see if you can get her CBSA record to be sure what they are referring to. if she has her copies of the forms given to her, that will be helpful in determining if something was interpreted wrong. was there ever a specified period of time where she was told not to return to canada? that is not the same as "allow to leave". since they also brought up the fact she was a minor, that may also be a contributing cause. i say try to call a cbsa office and ask if it's possible to get a record of her crossings. i'm not sure if this is possible, but it's worth a shot!

 

[Decoy24601]

this seems like the likely cause of the trigger. if she was allowed to leave, and as others suggested, if these particular forms don't stay on your record, i'd try to see if you can get her CBSA record to be sure what they are referring to. if she has her copies of the forms given to her, that will be helpful in determining if something was interpreted wrong. was there ever a specified period of time where she was told not to return to canada? that is not the same as "allow to leave". since they also brought up the fact she was a minor, that may also be a contributing cause. i say try to call a cbsa office and ask if it's possible to get a record of her crossings. i'm not sure if this is possible, but it's worth a shot!

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/pia-efvp/atip-aiprp/thr-rav-eng.html

That page has some information on getting a record of crossings.

If the PA was given a true voluntary withdrawal, then that isn't denied entry and they shouldn't have called an interview for that. However, I could understand if they wanted to clarify why this happened and how this happened.

 

[Ponga]

It really is a game of semantics, since the Allowed to Leave really does mean that she was denied/refused entry into Canada, even if it doesn't `officially' say this.