NEW DELHI - 2013 APPLICANTS.

[ramkris]

how would they know for how long you have been to India since there is no exit stamp in Canada, and how would they know you have been with your wife or with friends or on a fun trip, I think they should allow us to update them in between procedure as its a year long process, previously it was 2-3 months process, so nobody was updating,

actually I am asking as I am totally confused if I should send them additional proofs for my husband's visit and stay with me or not, my lawyer said a big NO for it.

but there is an entry stamp in india. and entry stamp in US also if passing by US.

 

[CMR]

Seven months since application received and ecas still shows 'application received'. Had already sent in the PCC and medicals seven months back along with the application forms.

I see fellow members have more detailed info on their ecas.

Should I be worried?

And they let me hold on to my passport since I do not currently live in India. Does a second PPR stretch it a whole lot longer or by a few days?

 

[Chinnmaye]

What is your timeline? I know they are working on july applications now and so far they touched one August applicant...i am assuming you are September applicant..in that case i think you might hear good news in june..all the best

Seven months since application received and ecas still shows 'application received'. Had already sent in the PCC and medicals seven months back along with the application forms.

I see fellow members have more detailed info on their ecas.

Should I be worried?

 

[Zeel]

Hello Zeel,

Welcome to the forum. Could you tell us your full timeline? Thanks. You are an August applicant so you will probably hear good news in early May so hopefully. They are still processing on Julys now and older files. Dont worry! Its better to wait until your spouse gets visa and then you can visit your spouse and come back together to Canada. Have some patience. All the best for the speedy visa!
Fill your timeline here:

Application file received: (DD-MM-YYYY)
Sponsorship approved:
AOR:
Passport Request:
Medicals done:

hi there..!! thank you soo much for the reply... feeling bit lite after reading ur msg...!!!

here is my time line for appication:

Application file received: 01-08-2013
Sponsorship approved: 05-09-2013
AOR:
Passport Request:07-12-2013
Medicals done:22-07-2013

 

[ashjiah]

Here is the link of NDVO email.

www.canadainternational.gc.ca/india-inde/offices-bureaux/new_delhi.aspx

Thank u

 

[SN0206]

hi there..!! thank you soo much for the reply... feeling bit lite after reading ur msg...!!!

here is my time line for appication:

Application file received: 01-08-2013
Sponsorship approved: 05-09-2013
AOR:
Passport Request:07-12-2013
Medicals done:22-07-2013

Your welcome. thank you for your timeline.

 

[SN0206]

Wake Up NDVO!!! Give blasts of IPs and DMs to all of us here. May we hear good news soon! God bless all!

 

[chirag vadera]

Good morning every one !!!
hope few of us will get IP DM OR VISA !!
Good luck everyone[flash=200,200][/flash]

 

[pavan00747]

Good morning every one !!!
hope few of us will get IP DM OR VISA !!
Good luck everyone[flash=200,200][/flash]

yaah,,,hope will get IP...soon its almost 8 and half month and still waiting for update...

hope will be with my wife before my 1st anniversary which is in next month....finger crossed.

 

[hawaii123]

Hello, I'm new to this forum and I hope someone can help me. I am sponsoring my husband from Afghanistan. I filed the application in Jan 2013 and got AOR from Mississauga in Feb 2013, where it said that the file was transferred to ISL. When checking the application status, it only says that application has been received. So not in process yet. Now, after reading a couple of posts. it seems that files are not transferred right away to the abroad visa office but are instead waiting in Ottawa? Is that right? and also, how come some people got confirmation from NDVO who filed in mid of 2013, so after my application date? are they not processing cases chronologically? Thanks for your help.

 

[khushim]

I already met at the consulate at Delhi for urgent inquiry .... they told will let u knw my mail but uptill not received any mail or post of passport .. i told them the following things of passport medical and police clearance on 5th of march 2014 ....

 

[jass14]

I already met at the consulate at Delhi for urgent inquiry .... they told will let u knw my mail but uptill not received any mail or post of passport .. i told them the following things of passport medical and police clearance on 5th of march 2014 ....

Tell your sponsor to visit his/her MP. This is genuine case to visit MP and a matter of common sense, come on no body can visit any country on expired passport and to renew a passport their are certain procedure in every country and those procedures requires time. Those people can't understand this simple thing .....

 

[khushim]

ya waiting for their response by mail or by post since last i came from delhi ... to renew but this ppl r too lazy to do the things positive ..

 

[haritsharma]

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ALL VISA APPLICATION BY CIC

As noted in by the Federal Court and by the Immigration Appeal Division in Chavez,38
there are a number of factors that assist in determining whether a relationship is genuine or
whether the primary purpose of the relationship was for immigration purposes. Case law under
the IRP Regulations as well as from the former Regulations (which remains relevant in
considering these factors) have dealt with the following factors:


A) Inconsistent or contradictory statements
Where there are significant discrepancies between the information that a sponsor provides
to an immigration officer and the information that an applicant gives to the visa officer abroad
about such matters as the origin and development of the relationship between the couple, this
may result in a refusal. Allegations that an applicant’s lack of knowledge may have been caused
by difficulty with the interpretation at the interview must be supported by the evidence

Bad Faith Family Relationships - Ch. 6

As noted by the Court in Roopchand40: “The section [section 4 of the IRP Regulations]
raises questions of fact with respect to the intent and purpose of the sponsored spouse. As a
practical matter, a person’s intent is not likely to be successfully tested by a grilling crossexamination
designed to elicit an admission of fraud or dishonesty. Rather, in the usual case, the
trier of fact will draw inferences from such things as inconsistent or contradictory statements
made by the parties, the knowledge the parties have about each other and their shared history, the
nature, frequency and content of communications between the parties, any financial support, and
any previous attempt by the applicant spouse to gain admission to Canada.”
In Bhango,41 the Court noted that there must be a link between credibility issues of an
applicant and section 4 of the IRP Regulations.42
Procedural fairness does not require an immigration officer to give spouses the
opportunity to respond to discrepancies in the evidence they have presented in their separate
interviews.43

B) Previous attempts by applicant to gain admission to Canada
Relevant, though not conclusive,44 is the applicant’s history of previous attempts to gain
admission to Canada.45 A marriage contracted when removal from Canada is imminent, in and by
itself, does not support a conclusion that the marriage is not bona fide.46

Sponsorship Appeals Legal Services
January 1, 2008 Bad Faith Family Relationships - Ch. 6
11
C) Previous marriages
Evidence of a prior marriage for immigration purposes, in and of itself, does not generally
provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for finding that a subsequent marriage is likewise one for
immigration purposes.47

D) Arranged marriages
The practice of arranged marriages does not in itself call into question the good faith of
the spouses as long as the practice is customary in their culture.48

E) Cultural Context
The Immigration Appeal Division in assessing the bona fides of a marriage must take into
consideration the cultural context within which the marriage took place.49 In Dhaliwal,50 the
Court held that the Immigration Appeal Division did take into consideration the cultural context
and found that the arranged marriage did not conform to Sikh tradition. The main explanation for
the marriage was destiny, with no evidence being provided as to the role of destiny in Sikh
culture. In Khan,51 the Court noted that the genuineness of a spousal relationship must be
examined through the eyes of the parties themselves against the cultural backdrop in which they
have lived.52

F) Mutual Interest
i) Knowledge about the other
One of the basic indicators of mutual interest between a sponsor and applicant is
knowledge about each other. However, the application of this criterion tends to vary according to
the nature of the marriage, that is, whether or not the marriage was arranged by the families of
.
Sponsorship Appeals Legal Services
January 1, 2008 Bad Faith Family Relationships - Ch. 6
12
the couple.53 In Froment,54 the Court found that the Immigration Appeal Division’s conclusion
that the sponsored spouse knew little about his wife’s activities was justified, and the
Immigration Appeal Division had the right to take this lack of knowledge into consideration.

ii) Contact between the couple
Of relevance in ascertaining intention is evidence suggesting that a sponsor and applicant
keep in touch and avail themselves of opportunities to spend time together. This includes
evidence of communication by telephone and mail; visits; cohabitation; consummation of the
marriage; the sponsor’s willingness to emigrate to the applicant’s country in the event of an
unsuccessful appeal; and expressions of love and affection.55

iii) Family ties
Depending on the cultural or religious context, the Immigration Appeal Division will
consider evidence regarding family ties, contact between the couple and their respective in-laws56
and the presence of members of both families at engagement and marriage ceremonies.57
However, as noted by the Court in Ouk,58 the focus of the examination under
section 4 of the IRP Regulations “is on the relation between the couple. While family
connections may be seen as a consideration to be weighed, the genuineness of the marriage
should be a separate question from the concerns about family connections.”
iv) Financial support and exchange of gifts
54 Froment, supra, footnote 49.
no members from either side of the family

Sponsorship Appeals Legal Services
January 1, 2008 Bad Faith Family Relationships - Ch. 6
13
In relation to certain cultural contexts, the exchange of gifts59 and financial support60 have
been viewed favourably by the Immigration Appeal Division as indicators of a genuine
relationship.

v) Delay in submission of sponsorship application

Delay in submitting a sponsorship application may not be a significant factor in
repudiating the genuineness of a spousal relationship because if the marriage was for immigration
purposes, “the parties would not wish to delay the sponsorship application unduly, the ultimate
aim presumably, in both instances, being to get the applicant into Canada as soon as possible.”61
However, if there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, it may be significant.62

vi) Persistence in pursuing appeal

A sponsor’s persistence in pursuing an appeal from a spouse’s refusal has been taken into
account in considering the genuineness of their marriage.63

v) Birth of a child

In Mansro,64 the Immigration Appeal Division panel held that while typically the birth of
a child is an important factor in considering whether a marriage is genuine, the existence of a
child is not determinative, and in that appeal the lack of credible evidence from the appellant and
applicant was so striking that it overwhelmed the fact that there was a child of the marriage. In
Aujla (Sidhu)65 the panel found that absent exceptional circumstances, a reasonable person
accepts the existence of a child as proof of a genuine spousal relationship.

G) “Compatibility”

The Immigration Appeal Division has been critical of some visa officers’ practice of
stereotyping a spousal relationship, as it is normally understood, based on the compatibility of
two persons as marital partners. As the Immigration Appeal Division has stated:66
It almost goes without saying that individuals with differences in religious
beliefs and backgrounds regularly marry in Canada, and are not normally
deemed, by virtue of that factor alone, to be incompatible as a married

Sponsorship Appeals Legal Services
January 1, 2008 Bad Faith Family Relationships - Ch. 6
14
couple. The conclusion reached by the visa officer that a permanent marital
relationship was not contemplated appears to have been based solely on his
questionable definition of a normal spousal relationship.
In deciding upon the validity of refusals where incompatibility has been alleged,
differences in religion,67 education and language,68 and age69 have been examined. In Froment,70
the Court held that the Immigration Appeal Division could consider factors such as age and
differences in customs or language. It is not contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to consider differences in age, education and marital status of the parties.71

H) Summary

The case-law indicates that no single criterion is decisive. It is the interplay of several
factors that leads the Immigration Appeal Division in any given case to make its finding as to the
genuineness, the purpose for, and intentions in respect of, a marital relationship or a relationship
between common law or conjugal partners.

 

[haritsharma]

Interview cic



The duty of fairness includes the right to have counsel attend and observe an applicant's interview with the officer.

1. The initiative to have counsel present must come from the applicant as the officer is under no duty to inform the applicant of this right.

2. The duty of fairness does not necessarily require an officer to conduct an oral interview before reaching a decision.

3. It may not be unfair to conduct an interview without prior notice to the individual.

4. There is no duty to interview third parties identified in the context of any given application.

5. The procedure whereby an interview is conducted by one officer and the decision made by a different officer is not a breach of fairness