I sponsored my wife from Jamaica to come to Canada with her and teen aged child. She arrived May 2013 after 3 years of waiting because she had to sign a IMM 1441 form. We applied under the old rules. Since she has arrived with her daughter she has been abusing, threatening and extorting me. I haven't laid a hand on this women and she freaks out when she doesn't get money or her own way. I stopped living in the house after a month (just stayed in my garage). I called the police on her 3 times because she's attacking me, scratching, kicking, punching, taking away my keys, wallet and taking off with it for the day. They tell me I should leave, because shes trying to charge me for abuse. the last time i called she called them 2 weeks after, saying that punched her in the mouth. She wanted to fight that day. I lock myself in the garage and she tried to break in so she called the cops and and said I hit her. They charged me with assault. She did even have a mark on her and I've had my hair ripped out, scratches, clothes ripped when I've called. When she's beating up on me she says put a mark on me so I can have you locked you up She always texts me and taunts why do you call the police when they are never on your side. When the police charged me, a week later she tried to have it dropped because she says she just wanted them to talk to me. i had to stay away from her and my house till court. Now she taken over the house starts renovating and buying new furniture with credit of course. I cant do anything to stop her. The first week she came to Canada I found her checking the internet for divorce laws, I knew what she was up to. The charges got dropped after I attended anger management. I tried to get her to sign a separation agreement. She kept saying she can't because of her religion. I believe this woman has issues (bi-polar). After a year i told her i want to move back to my house, we will be living in separate quarters. She agreed the after 2 weeks she broke in and attacked me. I went to the police station and nothing happened. Another 2 weeks went by her and her daughter (15 years old) ambushed and attacked me again while daughter recorded the whole thing. She ripped out my hair and was biting me i managed to get her off me and pushed her out the door. The cops were called and she was charged and removed from the home. She went to court and got a peace bond with a restraining order to say away from me for a year. It been struggle since she come here and cost lots of money, hardship and government resources. I brought a terrorist here that has one mission, that is to take what she can from me and the rest of the country. I documented everything that that has taken place since her arrival (texts, voice). Is my case a good case for Marriage of Convenience or marital breakdown?
Marraige of conveince
- Thread starter Luchan
- Start date
Maybe it was a marriage of convenience but it's already been 3 years. You can report her to immigration but you can not really control what happens after that. It's not like she walked out on you a week after getting her PR so they may not see it as a priority.
I can not tell you how you can get divorced from her in the cheapest manner. You need a lawyer for that.
I can not tell you how you can get divorced from her in the cheapest manner. You need a lawyer for that.
I agree with Leon. She's been in Canada too long now and CIC certainly isn't going to remove her or revoke her PR status.
This isn't an immigration matter. It's a family law matter. You need to find a good family law attorney to represent you.
This isn't an immigration matter. It's a family law matter. You need to find a good family law attorney to represent you.
Does her signing a !MM1444E doc aide my case. Why would they make her sign something like that before granting PR status. I have a lot of evidence to show how she has manipulated the system. There is a lot more to this. What she wants is 50% of my assets and support for her and her child. She is entitled to a % of my property and possible spousal and child support by law. The lawyers just want money, they can get you a divorce, but that's all you get. She'll still have rights to my property and support. I could see this could costing me a lot of $$$, so I use the lawyers to a minimum. I live and run my business from my home and she cannot handle this property on her own. I don't want her around me at all and she now has conditions to stay away from me and my home. My daughter doesn't live in this country. I want to revoke my sponsorship. I was told by the CBSA that I would need lots of evidence and would be a long process.
50% of everything is normally what happens when you get married unless you had pre-nups. With her abusing you, having had plans to divorce as soon as she arrived in Canada etc. if you can prove it, a good lawyer could save you from having to pay her some of the money but instead you have to pay money to the lawyer. I have no idea if you will have to support her but according to your sponsorship agreement, you are legally required to support her child that you sponsored for 10 years or until she turns 25 whichever happens first. That means that if her child has to go on welfare, you will have to re-pay the govt. As for alimony, with the abuse and all, a good lawyer can get you a better deal. However, I also worked with a guy who went through a dirty divorce and he actually quit a well paying job and got a lower paid one to minimize his alimony payments. He also allowed his wife to keep the house with the condition that it would go to their children. Later she had a boyfriend and wanted to sell the house and spend the money and he got a court order to stop her based on that the house should belong to the children.Luchan said:
You can not revoke sponsorship after she already landed. You can accuse her of marriage of convenience but you should have done it 3 years ago. Immigration sees a lot of cases where a marriage was genuine but a couple of years later, the couple started fighting and ended up getting divorced and then accuse the other of marriage fraud.
The following is largely a reiteration and expanded version of what has already been said. In particular, I concur in the observation by Leon:
There are NO provisions for revoking sponsorship.
And, while a sponsored spouse's PR status may be terminated (there are various grounds), that would not have any impact on the sponsored spouse's rights to a proper share of marital assets or to support.
Your case is a divorce case. No more than that.
If there is an immigration case, that is NOT your case. You might be a witness. You would not be an interested party. You would have no say in such a case. It would have no impact on your domestic/family law status or obligations.
The longer explanation:
Your only case is a matter of family law to be determined in a Canadian court or per agreement (within permissible parameters under Canadian family law with some variability depending on the applicable province).
In these cases, and in your case, fault is generally NOT relevant. The only thing fault is the least bit relevant regarding is whether or not there are grounds to dissolve the marriage. And generally when one spouse says there are grounds to dissolve the marriage, that is enough.
For the division of assets and support obligations, fault has nothing to do with it.
Immigration side of things:
What was attested to in the immigration forms, and especially if there is objective evidence that the information in those forms was knowingly false, has to do with whether or not IRCC has a case. That would not, not in any way, be your case.
If you have information that a fraud was committed by someone, such as your spouse, in obtaining status in Canada, your obligation is to inform IRCC or CBSA of that information. That's the entirety of your involvement: you are merely a witness, a witness with NO interest in the case (that is if the government elected to proceed with a case, you might be involved to the extent of answering questions or providing additional information, like any witness, but you have no personal role or interest to be considered in the case).
You would have NO personal interest in any such case.
It will be entirely up to IRCC whether to pursue the matter. Given the time that has elapsed, given that you obviously have a motive if not an outright agenda, as others have noted the account of your spouse's behavior after becoming a PR is not likely to be given much if any weight.
Your spouse may not be entirely entitled to half of your assets, depending on what they are, where they derive from, when obtained, and other factors. But yeah, that's the basic premise: equal partners walk away with equal shares of all the partnership's assets if the partnership breaks down, and a married couple are presumed to be equal partners unless, as others have noted, there are specific contractual provisions otherwise (such as a pre-nuputial agreement legitimately protecting assets acquired before the marriage -- pre-nup cannot take away a partner's right to an equal share of assets acquired during the marriage, regardless who acquired them).
Prior to the sponsored partner becoming a PR, the sponsor can withdraw from sponsorship at any time prior to the sponsored partner being issued the PR visa. The sponsored partner then becomes ineligible for the family class visa and it should be denied. This has NO effect, no relevance to anyone who has already already landed.
After that, the sponsor can terminate the relationship, and if this happens within the first two years for a spouse whose PR is subject to condition 51, that might mean the condition was NOT met, and that individual would be subject to the loss of PR status.
If there was no condition 51, this has no relevance.
If there was a condition 51, this only has relevance during the first two years after landing. After that this has no relevance.
Note: a spouse's loss of PR status does not diminish or compromise or take away that spouse's right to a proper share of the marital assets or to spousal support. Again, division of assets and support obligations are determined by family law not by immigration law, not by immigration authorities.
This is probably about the procedure to bring charges of misrepresentation and proceedings to thereby revoke PR status. As noted before, any such case would NOT be your case, and you would essentially have no interest or part in any such case, except the role of a witness. In the meantime, as noted, this would not have any effect on the spouse's right to a proper share of the marital assets or, if applicable, to support.
If you have discussed the particulars of your situation with CBSA and they responded this way, that appears to be a hint they are not receptive to your claims. They get scores of complaints motivated by disgruntled sponsors seeking to punish the spouse they sponsored, or based on erroneous thinking that the sponsor can save his or her assets this way. CBSA and IRCC probably reserve their resources to go after the more obvious and egregious cases in which overt fraud can be readily proven. In this, remember, fraud is about what happened before the individual became a PR. What happened after is largely irrelevant (with some exceptions in very obvious circumstances).
But, the only interest you might possibly have in IRCC or CBSA going after your spouse is revenge. And the harder you pursue that, the more apparent it is that revenge is a motive if not the primary motive. And that hurts your credibility. For obvious reasons.
At the least, barring some serious substance underlying such a characterization, uttering this sort of inflammatory insult will generally reflect badly on the person uttering it. Indeed, insults largely derived from anger tend to make the person uttering the insults look worse than their intended target, often by a lot.
Evidence of actual fraud:
If you can document misrepresentations made in the course of the PR visa application process, notify IRCC and let IRCC take it from there. IRCC will determine whether there is cause to investigate or pursue the matter. It is not up to you. And, frankly, not really your concern.
Again, some of your language raises red flags. Perhaps it will help if you retake the anger management courses. Sure, you cite all sorts of reasons which would cause a person to be angry. How a person manages their anger, though, is important, and to be sure, this is mostly important in terms of helping to improve your life. But, for example, as noted above, my guess is that your throwing around the "terrorist" label is not helpful, and in particular not helpful for you.
For example: obviously if a tenth of what you describe is true, your description about how law enforcement has responded indicates you have done a rather poor job representing yourself when dealing with law enforcement. Not sure what you were doing that made things more difficult for you, more difficult than you deserved, but this is something you might consider looking into and figuring out how to be a better advocate for yourself.
Beyond all that, obviously you need a good lawyer. Yeah, a good lawyer will be expensive. Obviously you want to divorce and go your separate ways.
In any event, overall this appears to be an unhappy domestic situation, more about family relationships and family law. At this stage it is hard to see how this is much at all about immigration.
For reference:
There are NO provisions for revoking sponsorship.
And, while a sponsored spouse's PR status may be terminated (there are various grounds), that would not have any impact on the sponsored spouse's rights to a proper share of marital assets or to support.
Your case is a divorce case. No more than that.
If there is an immigration case, that is NOT your case. You might be a witness. You would not be an interested party. You would have no say in such a case. It would have no impact on your domestic/family law status or obligations.
The longer explanation:
Let us be clear: None of the immigration forms have anything at all to do with your case.Luchan said:
Your only case is a matter of family law to be determined in a Canadian court or per agreement (within permissible parameters under Canadian family law with some variability depending on the applicable province).
In these cases, and in your case, fault is generally NOT relevant. The only thing fault is the least bit relevant regarding is whether or not there are grounds to dissolve the marriage. And generally when one spouse says there are grounds to dissolve the marriage, that is enough.
For the division of assets and support obligations, fault has nothing to do with it.
Immigration side of things:
What was attested to in the immigration forms, and especially if there is objective evidence that the information in those forms was knowingly false, has to do with whether or not IRCC has a case. That would not, not in any way, be your case.
If you have information that a fraud was committed by someone, such as your spouse, in obtaining status in Canada, your obligation is to inform IRCC or CBSA of that information. That's the entirety of your involvement: you are merely a witness, a witness with NO interest in the case (that is if the government elected to proceed with a case, you might be involved to the extent of answering questions or providing additional information, like any witness, but you have no personal role or interest to be considered in the case).
You would have NO personal interest in any such case.
It will be entirely up to IRCC whether to pursue the matter. Given the time that has elapsed, given that you obviously have a motive if not an outright agenda, as others have noted the account of your spouse's behavior after becoming a PR is not likely to be given much if any weight.
Yeah. That's basically how it works. And last I looked, Canada recognizes the parental obligation of support for any child in the home, regardless whether there is a formal relationship between the person who has been acting in the capacity of a parent and the child.Luchan said:
Your spouse may not be entirely entitled to half of your assets, depending on what they are, where they derive from, when obtained, and other factors. But yeah, that's the basic premise: equal partners walk away with equal shares of all the partnership's assets if the partnership breaks down, and a married couple are presumed to be equal partners unless, as others have noted, there are specific contractual provisions otherwise (such as a pre-nuputial agreement legitimately protecting assets acquired before the marriage -- pre-nup cannot take away a partner's right to an equal share of assets acquired during the marriage, regardless who acquired them).
There are no provisions whatsoever for a sponsor to "revoke" sponsorship. Forget that.Luchan said:
Prior to the sponsored partner becoming a PR, the sponsor can withdraw from sponsorship at any time prior to the sponsored partner being issued the PR visa. The sponsored partner then becomes ineligible for the family class visa and it should be denied. This has NO effect, no relevance to anyone who has already already landed.
After that, the sponsor can terminate the relationship, and if this happens within the first two years for a spouse whose PR is subject to condition 51, that might mean the condition was NOT met, and that individual would be subject to the loss of PR status.
If there was no condition 51, this has no relevance.
If there was a condition 51, this only has relevance during the first two years after landing. After that this has no relevance.
Note: a spouse's loss of PR status does not diminish or compromise or take away that spouse's right to a proper share of the marital assets or to spousal support. Again, division of assets and support obligations are determined by family law not by immigration law, not by immigration authorities.
This would not, could not, be about revoking your sponsorship. Again, there is NO procedure for revoking sponsorship.Luchan said:
This is probably about the procedure to bring charges of misrepresentation and proceedings to thereby revoke PR status. As noted before, any such case would NOT be your case, and you would essentially have no interest or part in any such case, except the role of a witness. In the meantime, as noted, this would not have any effect on the spouse's right to a proper share of the marital assets or, if applicable, to support.
If you have discussed the particulars of your situation with CBSA and they responded this way, that appears to be a hint they are not receptive to your claims. They get scores of complaints motivated by disgruntled sponsors seeking to punish the spouse they sponsored, or based on erroneous thinking that the sponsor can save his or her assets this way. CBSA and IRCC probably reserve their resources to go after the more obvious and egregious cases in which overt fraud can be readily proven. In this, remember, fraud is about what happened before the individual became a PR. What happened after is largely irrelevant (with some exceptions in very obvious circumstances).
But, the only interest you might possibly have in IRCC or CBSA going after your spouse is revenge. And the harder you pursue that, the more apparent it is that revenge is a motive if not the primary motive. And that hurts your credibility. For obvious reasons.
Apart from the red flags such language invokes (not in your favour), you might want to temper the tone of your vilification some. Canada's libel laws are not so robust as England's, but in today's world it is better to be careful about making this sort of accusation.Luchan said:
At the least, barring some serious substance underlying such a characterization, uttering this sort of inflammatory insult will generally reflect badly on the person uttering it. Indeed, insults largely derived from anger tend to make the person uttering the insults look worse than their intended target, often by a lot.
Evidence of actual fraud:
If you can document misrepresentations made in the course of the PR visa application process, notify IRCC and let IRCC take it from there. IRCC will determine whether there is cause to investigate or pursue the matter. It is not up to you. And, frankly, not really your concern.
Again, some of your language raises red flags. Perhaps it will help if you retake the anger management courses. Sure, you cite all sorts of reasons which would cause a person to be angry. How a person manages their anger, though, is important, and to be sure, this is mostly important in terms of helping to improve your life. But, for example, as noted above, my guess is that your throwing around the "terrorist" label is not helpful, and in particular not helpful for you.
For example: obviously if a tenth of what you describe is true, your description about how law enforcement has responded indicates you have done a rather poor job representing yourself when dealing with law enforcement. Not sure what you were doing that made things more difficult for you, more difficult than you deserved, but this is something you might consider looking into and figuring out how to be a better advocate for yourself.
Beyond all that, obviously you need a good lawyer. Yeah, a good lawyer will be expensive. Obviously you want to divorce and go your separate ways.
In any event, overall this appears to be an unhappy domestic situation, more about family relationships and family law. At this stage it is hard to see how this is much at all about immigration.
For reference:
Luchan said: