Is it harder for women to sponsor their spouse?

[Aquakitty]

CIC does discriminate against women who sponsor their husbands -- they do it by applying the 'traditional' test, which is normally biased against women. For example:

A man, 55 years old, marries a 30 year old woman from Thailand. She is his second wife. No big deal, this is pretty normal. They have some form of wedding, no big party, he hangs out with her for a year or so in her village, sponsors her. They get the visa without much trouble.

A woman, 55 years old, marries a 30 year old man from Morocco. He is her second husband. They have a traditional wedding with his family but not hers because it is too far away for them to go. They get called in for an interview, and he is asked again and again "Why did you marry an old woman? Why did you marry a woman who is not a virgin? Why did you marry a woman who has been divorced? Why this age gap? Why?" He never gets a visa to emigrate to Canada.

How is this not discrimination? CIC judges relationships based on traditional standards; and traditional standards discriminate against women.

This is true, but really it's because of the bias towards that particular culture. Certainly sexism is a part of that. but only as a result of the cultural bias. They don't care at all about older women marrying men from first-world countries. If there was a purely sexist bias it would extend to every country.

I'd like to see much less emphasis on the "genuine marriage" part of things. The bar for this can be ridiculous. I always joke that my husband would have been doomed if he had an interview because he never retains the minute details they seem to ask about.

The system is so geared towards stopping those form poor countries from getting a "free ride" into Canada. I say, so what? The skilled migrants often don't pay off, many of them come here and leave anyways. At least you know with the family immigrants they really want to be here to go through all that just for a visa. Then, you wouldn't risk the genuine couples waiting years to reunite. That's worth a few more fakers getting in.

 

[aylar10]

You mention that most of his family lives in Canada except his mom correct?

No sorry, his aunt and his friend live in Canada. My family lives here.

 

[aylar10]

I am a woman and I cannot imagine being pregnant and going through this process. The stress at times I am sure would be detrimental to the baby. This forum has most of the answers to questions you might have. You have of course prove the marriage is genuine with pictures letters cards and contact whether it is by phone emails or letters. Good luck

Thank you, I am hoping to submit my application by the end of the month or early next month

 

[aylar10]

If the media ever caught wind that CIC was discriminating against women sponsors, believe me, there'd be hell to pay. I doubt it would even be possible for CIC to maintain such a policy -- it would certainly be very difficult to keep it quiet. So I agree with Ponga. It's unlikely to the point of being crazy.

Your bigger problem may be convincing CIC that your relationship is authentic. From what I can tell, you've known him for several years but only met twice, and got engaged after the second meeting, and then married very shortly after that. This lack of actual time together, lack of time in a romantic relationship, and very short engagement period may generate red flags. So you'll want to prepare your relationship evidence carefully, including as much as you can demonstrating the authenticity of the relationship. I would suggest getting letters of reference from family and friends, as well.

Should my husband write a letter as well. I am doing a cover letter myself but I am not sure, if my husband should send one too? We don't want to provide too many letters that may look suspicious for CIC.

 

[Galano1213]

Absolute have your husband write a letter about your relationship start to marriage . What he plans to do in Canada What your future plans are together.

 

[nope]

This is true, but really it's because of the bias towards that particular culture. Certainly sexism is a part of that. but only as a result of the cultural bias. They don't care at all about older women marrying men from first-world countries. If there was a purely sexist bias it would extend to every country.

I'd like to see much less emphasis on the "genuine marriage" part of things. The bar for this can be ridiculous. I always joke that my husband would have been doomed if he had an interview because he never retains the minute details they seem to ask about.

The system is so geared towards stopping those form poor countries from getting a "free ride" into Canada. I say, so what? The skilled migrants often don't pay off, many of them come here and leave anyways. At least you know with the family immigrants they really want to be here to go through all that just for a visa. Then, you wouldn't risk the genuine couples waiting years to reunite. That's worth a few more fakers getting in.

Yep, I totally agree. One of the absurd things about this system is the confidence CIC has that 'high quality' migrants with good educations are what Canada needs. I'm not convinced that this is true at any level. The aspect of this that makes me the sickest is the way that people can actually be sent back to their countries if their marriage fails within 2 years of landing -- that their acceptance by Canada is only provisional at first, and depends on their spouse.

The 'genuine marriage' test erases any idiosyncrasies, and is biased against people who want to get away from their culture and become Canadian. There are more of these than people realize . . .

 

[WaitingSince2012]

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2016/06/10/couple-rejected-over-south-asian-stereotypes-caught-in-immigration-backlog.html
Go figure.... you can call it sexism or discrimination...it's happening.
*Mandie*

It sad what they do to spouses. My story is similar to hers except for the age, country and we have a son. If you look at the appeal thread her story is told through so many people from all different parts of the world.

 

[dominokitty]

Yep, I totally agree. One of the absurd things about this system is the confidence CIC has that 'high quality' migrants with good educations are what Canada needs. I'm not convinced that this is true at any level. The aspect of this that makes me the sickest is the way that people can actually be sent back to their countries if their marriage fails within 2 years of landing -- that their acceptance by Canada is only provisional at first, and depends on their spouse.

The 'genuine marriage' test erases any idiosyncrasies, and is biased against people who want to get away from their culture and become Canadian. There are more of these than people realize . . .

Why is that sick? It's a spousal sponsorship - you are immigrating to Canada for no other reason than to be with your spouse. If the relationship breaks down, you have no reason to stay in Canada anymore. Spousal sponsorship is not meant for people who are just trying to build a better life for themselves outside of their home country - there are other streams of immigration built for that where people can get in based on their merits.

At the end of the day, you don't marry a Canadian to get away from your culture and become Canadian, and if you do I truly believe your spousal application should be rejected because it's not a genuine marriage. You marry a Canadian because you love them and consider them to be your closest family - and it's inhumane to keep families apart. Spousal/family sponsorship is designed to bring families together, not to bring new immigrants into Canada for economic benefits.

I'm very happy the 2 year condition exists; it's the only thing protecting Canadian sponsors from being taken advantage of by opportunists who will use them as an easy ticket into Canada. I'm immediately suspicious of people who think the condition is unfair - It's the only protection we have against fake marriages of convenience, and in all honesty the government of Canada exists to protect Canadians first and foremost.

 

[mikeymyke]

Why is that sick? It's a spousal sponsorship - you are immigrating to Canada for no other reason than to be with your spouse. If the relationship breaks down, you have no reason to stay in Canada anymore. Spousal sponsorship is not meant for people who are just trying to build a better life for themselves outside of their home country - there are other streams of immigration built for that where people can get in based on their merits.

At the end of the day, you don't marry a Canadian to get away from your culture and become Canadian, and if you do I truly believe your spousal application should be rejected because it's not a genuine marriage. You marry a Canadian because you love them and consider them to be your closest family - and it's inhumane to keep families apart. Spousal/family sponsorship is designed to bring families together, not to bring new immigrants into Canada for economic benefits.

I'm very happy the 2 year condition exists; it's the only thing protecting Canadian sponsors from being taken advantage of by opportunists who will use them as an easy ticket into Canada. I'm immediately suspicious of people who think the condition is unfair - It's the only protection we have against fake marriages of convenience, and in all honesty the government of Canada exists to protect Canadians first and foremost.

Couldn't agree with you more. However I do sympathize with people who come here, establish a life here for a few years, made lots of friends, have a stable job, bought a house, etc, but the marriage just mutually broke down, and they wish to remain here, that I can understand, because it would really suck to send someone back home who has really settled down here and made a life here for so long.

My wife comes from a poor country, her family isn't exactly rich, but she doesn't care one bit about living in Canada. When we were together, she actually wanted me to live with her in Vietnam, because that's where she grew up her whole life, that's where her family and friends are, and she doesn't want to leave them. But I told her that I'd love to move there with her, but I already have a house and a very good job here, I have very poor employment prospects in Vietnam, and so I want her to come here so that I can better take care of her.

To her, Canada is a strange foreign land and not really anything to get overly excited about. If our marriage ever broke down, she'd be taking a one way ticket back to Vietnam so fast, your head would spin.

 

[Shineon39]

My wife comes from a poor country, her family isn't exactly rich, but she doesn't care one bit about living in Canada. When we were together, she actually wanted me to live with her in Vietnam, because that's where she grew up her whole life, that's where her family and friends are, and she doesn't want to leave them. But I told her that I'd love to move there with her, but I already have a house and a very good job here, I have very poor employment prospects in Vietnam, and so I want her to come here so that I can better take care of her.

To her, Canada is a strange foreign land and not really anything to get overly excited about. If our marriage ever broke down, she'd be taking a one way ticket back to Vietnam so fast, your head would spin.

This is the same situation with my wife, she would like me to move to thailand. For her she has everything she need there, good weather, food, friend and family. She even have her own house. But she love me and I have a really good job here and we want a kids and I dont have good opportuniti for job over there. If we win the 6/49 lottery, for sure she will ask that we move back to thailand. If our relation broke down i'm sure she will move back to thailand quite fast

 

[screech339]

There is no doubt some form is discrimination against women when it comes to sponsoring their spouse / common law. It can also be viewed as a form of protection against female sponsors.

Statistically men tends to prey on women for their own gain than women do. So by scrutinizing the relationship more, they want to make sure it's an genuine relationship. It is easier to stop a con man from coming into Canada than to deport him once inside Canada, even with conditional 51 clause in place. Yes the women can call CIC about the fraud marriage, but the con man is still here in Canada.

 

[nope]

Why is that sick? It's a spousal sponsorship - you are immigrating to Canada for no other reason than to be with your spouse. If the relationship breaks down, you have no reason to stay in Canada anymore. Spousal sponsorship is not meant for people who are just trying to build a better life for themselves outside of their home country - there are other streams of immigration built for that where people can get in based on their merits.

At the end of the day, you don't marry a Canadian to get away from your culture and become Canadian, and if you do I truly believe your spousal application should be rejected because it's not a genuine marriage. You marry a Canadian because you love them and consider them to be your closest family - and it's inhumane to keep families apart. Spousal/family sponsorship is designed to bring families together, not to bring new immigrants into Canada for economic benefits.

I'm very happy the 2 year condition exists; it's the only thing protecting Canadian sponsors from being taken advantage of by opportunists who will use them as an easy ticket into Canada. I'm immediately suspicious of people who think the condition is unfair - It's the only protection we have against fake marriages of convenience, and in all honesty the government of Canada exists to protect Canadians first and foremost.

It's sick for three reasons. Firstly, because it gives great power to the Canadian spouse in the relationship. If you give this power to people, some of them will abuse it. How many? No idea. However, I'm more comfortable worrying about the specific people who can be hurt by this than by the abstract idea that without this clause, some people will get to stay in Canada because of dishonest marriages. I've lived in SE Asia for some time, and am aware of the potential for abuse on both sides of an international marriage -- the foreign partner can be extremely vulnerable.

Secondly, because it means that Canada is not actually accepting the results of their marriage scrutiny. If they are going to inspect marriages for authenticity, then they should have the confidence to issue real, permanent status in this country based on that.

Thirdly, as pointed out in this thread, Canada gives a certain type of preference to traditional marriages. Many of the people who immigrate here come from conservative countries -- e.g. South Asian and Middle Eastern states -- where marriage happens without dating, the woman is expected to be a virgin, and her adult identity depends on her husband. When a woman from one of these countries marries a Canadian, frequently from her own ethnic community, and comes here to live with him, she cannot simply return to her old life if her marriage breaks down. It's possible she won't be accepted by her family; it's possible she won't have another chance to marry again; she may be unable to even have a public existence, depending on how conservative the country is. Living in Canada, she can do all of those things. I believe that it is wrong for Canada to accept someone provisionally and then return them to such a situation, and that the 'risk' to Canada of such a person is very small; whereas the risk to the person themselves, particularly to their ability to live as an individual, is very great. If Canada prefers people who emigrate after a traditional marriage, then it should accept the implications of that marriage for the woman and not retract PR status if something breaks down two years later.

This issue has been debated extensively, and the arguments for both sides are pretty clear. I'm not going to restate my position beyond what's here, and the observation that apparently CIC agrees with me, because they are in the process of revoking Article 51 (note that four of the five countries listed are deeply conservative). To me, this is a matter of prioritizing the safety of individuals, primarily women.

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2016/03/01/activists-hail-proposed-changes-to-spousal-sponsorship-rules.html

 

[screech339]

It's sick for three reasons. Firstly, because it gives great power to the Canadian spouse in the relationship. If you give this power to people, some of them will abuse it. How many? No idea. However, I'm more comfortable worrying about the specific people who can be hurt by this than by the abstract idea that without this clause, some people will get to stay in Canada because of dishonest marriages. I've lived in SE Asia for some time, and am aware of the potential for abuse on both sides of an international marriage -- the foreign partner can be extremely vulnerable.

Secondly, because it means that Canada is not actually accepting the results of their marriage scrutiny. If they are going to inspect marriages for authenticity, then they should have the confidence to issue real, permanent status in this country based on that.

Thirdly, as pointed out in this thread, Canada gives a certain type of preference to traditional marriages. Many of the people who immigrate here come from conservative countries -- e.g. South Asian and Middle Eastern states -- where marriage happens without dating, the woman is expected to be a virgin, and her adult identity depends on her husband. When a woman from one of these countries marries a Canadian, frequently from her own ethnic community, and comes here to live with him, she cannot simply return to her old life if her marriage breaks down. It's possible she won't be accepted by her family; it's possible she won't have another chance to marry again; she may be unable to even have a public existence, depending on how conservative the country is. Living in Canada, she can do all of those things. I believe that it is wrong for Canada to accept someone provisionally and then return them to such a situation, and that the 'risk' to Canada of such a person is very small; whereas the risk to the person themselves, particularly to their ability to live as an individual, is very great. If Canada prefers people who emigrate after a traditional marriage, then it should accept the implications of that marriage for the woman and not retract PR status if something breaks down two years later.

This issue has been debated extensively, and the arguments for both sides are pretty clear. I'm not going to restate my position beyond what's here, and the observation that apparently CIC agrees with me, because they are in the process of revoking Article 51 (note that four of the five countries listed are deeply conservative). To me, this is a matter of prioritizing the safety of individuals, primarily women.

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2016/03/01/activists-hail-proposed-changes-to-spousal-sponsorship-rules.html

United states must be so damn awful to sponsored spousal green card holders. They have been using 2 year conditional 2 year green card for years long before Canada introduced theirs. After which it doesn't disappear on it own. You must make schedule an appointment to remove the condition to make green card permanent. This is done after each people get interviewed separately about very personal and very private questions about your lives. Then notes gets compared to determine genuineness of marriage.

Geee. I rather have conditional 51 clause that disappeared all on it own. Make a phone call to report the fraud and call it a day.

 

[aylar10]

Absolute have your husband write a letter about your relationship start to marriage . What he plans to do in Canada What your future plans are together.

The letter he wrote is 3 pages long. Is that okay? too short, too long? I am not sure how detailed that should be as some of the information is repeated in the application.

 

[Galano1213]

I really don't think that will matter as long as it is from him expressed in his own words as he may have to answer questions regarding it if he gets an interview so I suggest you keep a copy.