Letter of explanation for Filipina Spouse applying for TRV

[Paragone]

Hi,I need advice on submitting a letter of explanation(which I have come to understand, can help speak to the motives of the applicant) for my Filipina wife's proposed visit to Canada.

I have been married for little more than a year and a half, and would like to bring her and my one year old son over to Canada for a lengthy visit with relatives(little less than 6 months).

I understand that the primary focus of concern for the assessing visa officer will be her likelihood of returning to her home country, as well as her means of support for the trip, and the duration of her stay.

Even though she is financially dependent on me(she was working in business until last summer, when we decided it would be better for her to focus on being a full time mother), with little to show in terms of personal savings, she has recently purchased a house last June valued at more than $90,000 CAD(cash payment!).

Her entire family - including both parents, 3 brothers, and 4 sisters, as well as her two sons(one of whom she shares custody of), all reside in the Philippines, with her only relation in Canada being myself(her husband).

So, given this, her strong substantial ties to the Philippines should be evident enough(I hope) to suggest someone who is low risk for an illegal stay(I even have old online chat logs where we discuss our future in terms of dividing time between Canada and the Philippines).

What worries me, is her financial situation - even though she has high valued assets, she has no job(full-time mom), and very little savings.

I have been supporting her, but I myself, have a very low income, and the monthly amount that I have allotted for her is approximately $1000.00(which has been more than adequate, considering she has no rental expenses).

I, myself, live in a house owned by my brother(rent free), and while I have an investment fund valued at more than $50,000, I don't own much in terms of assets myself.

So, given my circumstance, and the fact that I don't own the house I live in, it is my brother(her brother-in-law) who has written the actual (notarized)letter of invitation, pledging to attend to all her needs(food, clothing, travel, medical), as well any potential and unforeseen expenses.

The letter is also supported by documents which demonstrate my brother's adequate financial means(high salary, $50,000 savings, two houses).

But since she is normally dependent upon me, it has also been suggested that I draft a letter of support - which I fear may only diminish her application if it is seen to fall short of what my brother has already offered(I am concerned of providing the visa officer any pretext to refuse the application on financial grounds, however unreasonable - it should be noted that food/clothing costs are the same in NW Ontario, as they are where she lives in Cavite).

The supporting documents we plan to submit, along with the her application forms:

Letter of Invitation

Letter of explanation

Copy of my wife's House receipt(to show the value, and that she payed cash).

Copy of shared Custody Document(written in Tagalog) of her six year old son(who will not be accompanying her to Canada).

Copy of Marriage Certificate(to show her relationship to me, and my brother-in-law).

Copy of my passport photo page

Itinerary

My wife's Passport

2 Photographs

My Wife's Bank Statements

My Brother's bank statements

My Brother's Pay stubs

My Brother's Notice of assessment

And, tenuously:

Letter of support from husband(myself).

My Bank statements.

Feedback, opinions, and personal experiences for the purpose of advice are welcome, and
sincerely appreciated.

 

[pie_vancouver]

Why not sponsor her to be Permanent Resident?

 

[Paragone]

Because, the plan is to divide time between the Philippines and Canada - she also shares custody of her six year old son with her ex BF.

And even if that were not the case, she would want to visit Canada first before even considering permanent residency.

But your question makes evident the strength of her ties to the Philippines, which *should* only further demonstrate her as low risk for an illegal stay.

Unfortunately, from what I have read, visa officers tend towards ad-hoc reasoning(and intellectual laziness) in rendering decisions, rather than sound judgement.

This has made me and my wife very demoralized, as we think the chances are very low of getting a reasonable judgement made.

Can anyone tell me if the application is assessed in Philippines, or in Canada?

She will be submitting the application online.

 

[pie_vancouver]

How about her travel history?
Unemployed and maybe lack of travel history might get her denied, but go ahead and apply maybe she will get lucky
TRV will be assessed in Manila, you will get an email within a few days if she is approved or denied.

 

[mikeymyke]

What about her travel history?

Also, you should not ask for 6 months, it's way too long for a visit. Should be 2-3 weeks. The extra benefit of that is your wife doesn't have to have a lot of funds for a shorter stay. Also, there's a chance she could get a multiple TRV or gets to stay for 6 mths on her first visit, so it's definitely not worth to risk asking for more time and then get refused.

 

[Paragone]

What about her travel history?

No travel history, and travel history to undeveloped countries wouldn't count anyway.

But, the only way this should be relevant is in disproving bad assumptions that a visa officer is *already* making about her motives(ie. assuming that sheis intending to overstay, unless shown otherwise).

I recall saying something about intellectual laziness.

Also, you should not ask for 6 months, it's way too long for a visit. Should be 2-3 weeks.

Why is 6 months too long for a visit?

The extra benefit of that is your wife doesn't have to have a lot of funds for a shorter stay.

Why does she need to show funds if my brother is pledging to support her, along with my own letter of support(showing some $100,000 worth of financial assets, along with his two house titles)?

Also, there's a chance she could get a multiple TRV or gets to stay for 6 mths on her first visit, so it's definitely not worth to risk asking for more time and then get refused.

Again, the visa officer and the port of entry officer will ultimately decide on her length of stay, so why does it hurt to ask?

The Visa officer doesn't have to refuse, they can simply set the validity duration to whatever they think is appropriate.

But, the logic of asking for a shorter stay escapes me - either she is seen as risk to overstay, or she isn't.

The length of time she asks for shouldn't be relevant(ie. do they really expect that someone who is intending to overstay, is actually going to be bound by the visa validity length they are asking for, lol).

It occurs that it is the agenda of Canadian immigration to keep PR quotas low.

And if this is the case, then it would be better to allow cases such as mine, instead of forcing our hands towards a PR application(which I am quite sure is NOT what they want).

 

[scylla]

A long visit tends to weaken ties to the home country. CIC's logic is if you're able and willing to leave your country for six months then your ties to that country aren't very strong. But by all means apply for what you want.

 

[PrayerWarrior]

Paragone, in cases like these all you can do is seek as much advice as you can, and then present as strong a case as you possibly can, with your given circumstances. The truth is, everyone has different circumstances and realities, and sometimes our truth doesn't appear to be that attractive in the eyes of others (in this case the Immigration Officers) or to be supported by various policies. So, since the truth (though difficult at time) is the best policy, just try to make your case as strong as you can (like you're doing now) and then submit your wife's TRV application and then have faith, hoping for the best. This is what it comes down to bro. I've applied for a TRV earlier this year so that I can be in Canada to witness the birth of my child by my wife, and my first TRV application was refused.

However, given the fact that my Canadian wife and I really desire me being present for the birth of our child, we decided to apply a second time. We did go back to the drawing board and see how we can truthfully make our case stronger, and we did what we could (even bought my return tickets to Canada already) and then applied a second time. And we are just having faith and hoping for the best. Despite others thinking my case has a low chance of being approved, my wife and I are still hopeful and trusting God for a miracle. That's what it comes down to in the end, when your case doesn't seem that strong, but you know you are telling the truth from your heart, and because you desire that which you want, you just have to be persistent and go after it despite the odds. So my advice to you is, do the best you can, apply and then have faith. And if you get a response that you don't want, go back to the drawing board and try again - until you get it. My wife and I applied for my TRV 5 days ago, and we're still waiting for that positive response, this our second and final time trying, because I believe we are going to get it this time. Never stop going after what you want because it seems or is difficult or challenging. One only fails when one gives up.

All the best, I hope you get it this time around bro.

 

[Paragone]

A long visit tends to weaken ties to the home country. CIC's logic is if you're able and willing to leave your country for six months then your ties to that country aren't very strong. But by all means apply for what you want.

The relative strength of ties should only be an issue of concern insofar as it suggests someone is unlikely to return.

And on this basis alone, it would be the same as assuming a Canadian who stays six months in the Philippines is unlikely
to return.

Which is simply not plausible.

 

[mikeymyke]

No travel history, and travel history to undeveloped countries wouldn't count anyway.

But, the only way this should be relevant is in disproving bad assumptions that a visa officer is *already* making about her motives(ie. assuming that sheis intending to overstay, unless shown otherwise).

I recall saying something about intellectual laziness.

Why is 6 months too long for a visit?

Why does she need to show funds if my brother is pledging to support her, along with my own letter of support(showing some $100,000 worth of financial assets, along with his two house titles)?

Again, the visa officer and the port of entry officer will ultimately decide on her length of stay, so why does it hurt to ask?

The Visa officer doesn't have to refuse, they can simply set the validity duration to whatever they think is appropriate.

But, the logic of asking for a shorter stay escapes me - either she is seen as risk to overstay, or she isn't.

The length of time she asks for shouldn't be relevant(ie. do they really expect that someone who is intending to overstay, is actually going to be bound by the visa validity length they are asking for, lol).

It occurs that it is the agenda of Canadian immigration to keep PR quotas low.

And if this is the case, then it would be better to allow cases such as mine, instead of forcing our hands towards a PR application(which I am quite sure is NOT what they want).

6 months is too long because it doesn't show that she intends to leave Canada and has weak ties to her country. Because of zero travel history as well, why would someone who's never been to any country in her life, decide to suddenly stay in a strange country for 6 months?

She needs to show her own funds because the pledge of support from ur brother is no guarantee that he will actually go through with it. It's not even a binding or legal document that CIC can enforce. Otherwise any random person with no money can just apply for a TRV saying that their uncle, aunt, or whomever will take care of everything.

There are 2 steps to entering Canada for a TRV: first the person at CIC has to issue the visa, then it's up to the border officer to determine if you're an overstay risk, have enough funds, etc and then will determine how long you get to stay. Now the 1st step is by far the most difficult, as the officer in the 2nd step is much easier because he just has to look at you in real, ask you questions in person, and get a personal feeling as to whether you will overstay or not. The officer in the 1st step does not even see you, just looks at some documents and papers, and makes a determination from there. Wouldn't you rather pass the most difficult step and then deal with the easier one later? By asking for 6 months from the get go, you're already setting yourself up to fail in Step 1. By asking for a few weeks, you increase your chances of being approved significantly, then if and when you get the TRV and arrive at the border, now you can sweet talk or do whatever you want to convince border officer to let you stay for 6 months.

"Do they expect someone who's gong to overstay to be bound by the length of the visa validity?"

No but they're trying to evaluate risk factors, and asking for a long period of stay is a red flag already, as is no funds and lack of travel history. Border officers don't have a crystal ball, so they have to rely on looking at a person's risk factors and red flags. So your job is to minimize those things to maximize your chances of being approved.

The relative strength of ties should only be an issue of concern insofar as it suggests someone is unlikely to return.

Otherwise it would be the same as assuming a Canadian who stays six months in the Philippines is unlikely
to return.

Which is simply not plausible.

You're comparing apples to oranges. A Canadian who stays in Philippines for 6 months is highly unlikely to overstay because their home country is far more affluent, quality of life is better, blah blah blah. You can't say the same for a Filipino wishing to stay in Canada for 6 months is unlikely to overstay, because it does happen quite often, hence which is why they have to force these countries to get visas to enter. If Canadians were so willing to overstay in Philippines, the govt would see the data and notice that, "Wow, too many Canadians overstay their visas here, we must put restrictions on them." Well the govt doesn't do that, because the fact is, Canadians do not overstay in Phillipines in general, but it's the complete opposite for Filipinos in Canada, as well as people from developing countries, based on data gathered, so they just go off the data, not really because of politics.

Filipinos are constantly in the top 3 for the past few years, in # of immigrants arriving to Canada. There's a lot of Filipinos wishing to leave their country for Canada, whether illegally or not. Unfortunately with a large # of Filipinos wishing to arrive here, there also comes a lot of them who wish to overstay, and because of that, CIC has to force them to get visas to enter. At least you're not as bad as in Vietnam, which is where my wife is. Her country is so high risk for overstay, they force their citizens to get biometric data before arriving. There are only 30 or so countries who are on the biometric list, and guess who else is on that list?

Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan

Not exactly good company is it? But hey guess what? My wife got a multiple TRV for life of her passport, despite being from Vietnam, and married to a Canadian. So take it from someone who actually has experience in getting approved from an even more difficult country: DO NOT ask for 6 mths. Your wife won't be able to show she has enough funds to stay for 6 months anyway, but she might be able to if she just stays for a few weeks.

One other thing I forgot to mention, my wife asked for 3 weeks stay in Canada, not only did she get a multiple TRV for life of passport, when she arrived in Vancouver, they let her stay for 6 months. But she chose not to because we had a passport request incoming for our PR application.

 

[Paragone]

6 months is too long because it doesn't show that she intends to leave Canada and has weak ties to her country. Because of zero travel history as well, why would someone who's never been to any country in her life, decide to suddenly stay in a strange country for 6 months?

The length of stay is not intended to show this, nor should it NEED to.

That is why I have submitted *evidence* about her ties - her recently purchased house, and son whom she shares custody of(and will not be accompanying her).

Is this really the profile of someone who intends an illegal stay?

Should I expect that the visa officer will really be this obtuse as to disregard all these considerations?

She needs to show her own funds because the pledge of support from ur brother is no guarantee that he will actually go through with it. It's not even a binding or legal document that CIC can enforce. Otherwise any random person with no money can just apply for a TRV saying that their uncle, aunt, or whomever will take care of everything.

And what would be the harm in that?

But, that is where I would be submitting my letter of support.

Also, I live in Northwestern Ontario, which is NOT Alberta, or even Southern Ontario - I have been supporting both of us, and my son, on my low income(which is all people can get here, which is why expenses are low).

And I will continue to do so, whether her application is approved or not.

There are 2 steps to entering Canada for a TRV: first the person at CIC has to issue the visa, then it's up to the border officer to determine if you're an overstay risk, have enough funds, etc and then will determine how long you get to stay. Now the 1st step is by far the most difficult, as the officer in the 2nd step is much easier because he just has to look at you in real, ask you questions in person, and get a personal feeling as to whether you will overstay or not. The officer in the 1st step does not even see you, just looks at some documents and papers, and makes a determination from there. Wouldn't you rather pass the most difficult step and then deal with the easier one later? By asking for 6 months from the get go, you're already setting yourself up to fail in Step 1. By asking for a few weeks, you increase your chances of being approved significantly, then if and when you get the TRV and arrive at the border, now you can sweet talk or do whatever you want to convince border officer to let you stay for 6 months.

Well, I guess I could get my bro to write out another letter, but I don't think he'll be able to get it notarized in time(which shouldn't matter I guess, if visa officers don't take them seriously to begin with).

"Do they expect someone who's gong to overstay to be bound by the length of the visa validity?"

No but they're trying to evaluate risk factors, and asking for a long period of stay is a red flag already, as is no funds and lack of travel history. Border officers don't have a crystal ball, so they have to rely on looking at a person's risk factors and red flags. So your job is to minimize those things to maximize your chances of being approved.

This is all true, I am just discouraged that the prevailing biases are so poorly suited to the accurate assessment of risk(it is easy to minimize risk, when you exclude too many cases using bad evidence - like I said, intellectual laziness).

 

[mikeymyke]

Paragone, logic and CIC sometimes don't go together. I've seen some cases where an Indian guy got refused for "poor employment prospects", but he makes $60,000CDN a year equivalent in India, which is about 30x the average salary. I've seen cases where a man got refused a TRV to attend his son's graduation because "The son will likely be employed as an engineer after graduation, where his high salary will be enough to support a potentially overstaying father".

The best thing you can do is just maximize your chances of being approved, and even if you do, yes there's a chance you will be refused. But that's just how it goes at CIC.

 

[PrayerWarrior]

Paragone, logic and CIC sometimes don't go together. I've seen some cases where an Indian guy got refused for "poor employment prospects", but he makes $60,000CDN a year equivalent in India, which is about 30x the average salary. I've seen cases where a man got refused a TRV to attend his son's graduation because "The son will likely be employed as an engineer after graduation, where his high salary will be enough to support a potentially overstaying father".

The best thing you can do is just maximize your chances of being approved, and even if you do, yes there's a chance you will be refused. But that's just how it goes at CIC.

And it's for these reasons why I say, one can only put their best foot forward and have faith.
I recently landed a US visa for 10 years (the life of my passport), and that wasn't the first time I had applied.
When I thought I had a strong case, amazing job, salary, travel history, etc, etc, I was denied. However, when I never had what would be classified as a STRONG case, I was issued a 10 year US visa. Go figure. That's why I say, put your best foot forward, have faith, because, you just never know.

 

[mikeymyke]

prayerwarrior I have to say, I'm extremely intrigued by your strong faith in not just this TRV you're applying for, but also in life in general. Are you a religious man or something? Sorry to go off topic, but I have to say, I really admire your ability to be optimistic. You even bought non refundable tickets for your TRV!

I have to say if you do get the TRV inspite of your background, I will be a believer

 

[Paragone]

You're comparing apples to oranges. A Canadian who stays in Philippines for 6 months is highly unlikely to overstay because their home country is far more affluent, quality of life is better, blah blah blah.

Then the relevant consideration is not her intended length of stay, but the fact that she is Filipino.

But, I suspect you are right, that this is exactly what the visa officer will be thinking.

So, I won't argue against the logic, as it is unproductive whether I agree or not.

You can't say the same for a Filipino wishing to stay in Canada for 6 months is unlikely to overstay, because it does happen quite often, hence which is why they have to force these countries to get visas to enter. If Canadians were so willing to overstay in Philippines, the govt would see the data and notice that, "Wow, too many Canadians overstay their visas here, we must put restrictions on them." Well the govt doesn't do that

No, it doesn't, but then again, the Fil government could care less(which why it is so easy to get visa extensions there).

And there are more than a few cases I have come across there where a Westerner(in particular, one Canadian man I know) is effectively stranded there(after getting screwed over), which is more common than you might think.

Filipinos are constantly in the top 3 for the past few years, in # of immigrants arriving to Canada. There's a lot of Filipinos wishing to leave their country for Canada, whether illegally or not. Unfortunately with a large # of Filipinos wishing to arrive here, there also comes a lot of them who wish to overstay

Yeah, but because of the admittedly high rate of(mostly) legitimate traffic, some unlawful stays are inevitable(and thus the high rate of traffic is an obvious confounder).

Not exactly good company is it? But hey guess what? My wife got a multiple TRV for life of her passport, despite being from Vietnam, and married to a Canadian. So take it from someone who actually has experience in getting approved from an even more difficult country: DO NOT ask for 6 mths. Your wife won't be able to show she has enough funds to stay for 6 months anyway, but she might be able to if she just stays for a few weeks.

One other thing I forgot to mention, my wife asked for 3 weeks stay in Canada, not only did she get a multiple TRV for life of passport, when she arrived in Vancouver, they let her stay for 6 months. But she chose not to because we had a passport request incoming for our PR application.

Now THAT is useful information - *exactly* what I came here for.

Thanks for that!

I will get my bro to write out another letter of invitation, with dates amended - would you advise notarization as being necessary for the new letter?