NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF COHABITATION

[Amalthea]

Guys, I have a received a letter that the officer is not convinced with the proofs I provided, and is demanding for more, he also wrote the failure to disabuse his concern will result in refusal. I need help guys
Please guide me on what to provide

I'm truly sorry. There was a couple in my cohort in the same situation, after 12 years of common-law! So they simply got married and submitted proof of the day (photos) and all they could (since marriage certificate would take longer than the 30 days). It's very stressful situation to be in, and I am sorry that I can't give better advice.

Did the letter specify what dates were lacking evidence for cohabitation, or did they specify that they didn't believe you "lived in a marriage like relationship"? I'm sure it would help others to know exactly what the officer said and/or what they are looking for.

Edit: Maybe I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. You are replying to a thread about cohabitation evidence (for common-law), correct? But your other comment says the officer doubts the genuineness of your relationship which is a VERY different issue!

 

[Idrissrafd]

I'm truly sorry. There was a couple in my cohort in the same situation, after 12 years of common-law! So they simply got married and submitted proof of the day (photos) and all they could (since marriage certificate would take longer than the 30 days). It's very stressful situation to be in, and I am sorry that I can't give better advice.

Did the letter specify what dates were lacking evidence for cohabitation, or did they specify that they didn't believe you "lived in a marriage like relationship"? I'm sure it would help others to know exactly what the officer said and/or what they are looking for.

Edit: Maybe I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. You are replying to a thread about cohabitation evidence (for common-law), correct? But your other comment says the officer doubts the genuineness of your relationship which is a VERY different issue!

I’m wondering : so basically, in Canada, a police officer can’t be biased ? That’s a really bad system. A decision should always be taken by a council in order to limit biases.

We’re talking about someone’s future. We should reduce their power. They’ve too much power. If they want -and some do, because they’re evil-, they can destroy someone’s future.

It’s not related at 100%, but see in France, they identified 50 neo-Nazis in the french army, and they were humiliating African kids. Now, let’s suppose that the police officer in charge of your file is one of them, we can’t prove it, obviously, but he can ruin your file using any small mistakes. That’s why we need more transparency, the possibility of changing your agent if you’ve a doubt about his integrity, etc.

 

[YVR123]

I’m wondering : so basically, in Canada, a police officer can’t be biased ? That’s a really bad system. A decision should always be taken by a council in order to limit biases.

We’re talking about someone’s future. We should reduce their power. They’ve too much power. If they want -and some do, because they’re evil-, they can destroy someone’s future.

It’s not related at 100%, but see in France, they identified 50 neo-Nazis in the french army, and they were humiliating African kids. Now, let’s suppose that the police officer in charge of your file is one of them, we can’t prove it, obviously, but he can ruin your file using any small mistakes. That’s why we need more transparency, the possibility of changing your agent if you’ve a doubt about his integrity, etc.

I believe the above post was about the immigration case officer whose processing the case has doubts on the genuineness of the applicant's relationship.

Not police officer.

 

[armoured]

I believe the above post was about the immigration case officer whose processing the case has doubts on the genuineness of the applicant's relationship.

Not police officer.

Sometimes a rant is just a rant and people need to unload.

 

[Idrissrafd]

I believe the above post was about the immigration case officer whose processing the case has doubts on the genuineness of the applicant's relationship.

Not police officer.

Yes, I’m talking about a police officer of immigration.

“ has doubts on the genuineness”...Really? How can I be sure he’s not biased ? I can’t. That’s the problem.

 

[armoured]

Yes, I’m talking about a police officer of immigration.

Immigration officers are not police officers in any sense.

CBSA is a law enforcement agency, but they have multiple roles, immigration only a part of it - and they don't handle PR applications, only the issues that arise at borders. (Basically - I'm simplifying a bit)

If you believe there is some bias in your file or treatment, that's what the courts/appeal processes are for.

 

[Idrissrafd]

Immigration officers are not police officers in any sense.

CBSA is a law enforcement agency, but they have multiple roles, immigration only a part of it - and they don't handle PR applications, only the issues that arise at borders. (Basically - I'm simplifying a bit)

If you believe there is some bias in your file or treatment, that's what the courts/appeal processes are for.

My bad. But that doesn’t change the fact that we’re not protected.
Appeal processes take time. So basically, if an agent in charge of our file wants to make our life miserable, he can.

 

[armoured]

My bad. But that doesn’t change the fact that we’re not protected.
Appeal processes take time. So basically, if an agent in charge of our file wants to make our life miserable, he can.

Well, yes. But that's true of almost any interaction with any kind of authority or third party. If the bank teller decides to put a money laundering flag on your account, it won't be fun, either.

Mind, allegations of bias are not fun for the officers either; that's why allegations without any evidence whatsoever tend to just be ignored.

 

[Naheulbeuck]

Yes, I’m talking about a police officer of immigration.

“ has doubts on the genuineness”...Really? How can I be sure he’s not biased ? I can’t. That’s the problem.

I think you should feel free to rant to release some stress, but no the system is not entirely in the hands of one person with no balances and checks.

There are reviews of recommendation by staff, audits, requests for more information, collecting evidence and finally appeals. There are plethora of court cases that both validated or went against IRCC's decision. However make no mistake, there are laws and rules in place for this specific area of the spousal sponsorship.

For example,

Bad faith

4. (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership

(a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; and

(b) is not genuine.

Many court cases have reviewed and continue to do so, the requirements in determining both of those. Even a married couple does not necessarily meets the criteria as the two bolded criteria above are also requirements. Cases have determined that this determination must be based on evidence and therefore the two criteria above tend to be linked (i.e. proving one supports the other) but it does add some distinction nonetheless. For example a marriage that is now genuine will not mean that the applicant qualify if it can be proven that the marriage was initially entered with the primary purpose of acquiring PR. This is not however just based on only the opinion of the officer processing the case, it has to be supported by strong evidence, most often objective evidence such as testimony from other parties as to the intent at the time. Lack of credibility is another strong evidence used my IRCC, for example when officers determine that evidence provided by applicants is not credible. The overall test however tends to consider multiple aspects such as the intent of the parties, the credibility of the parties, the immigration history and the genuineness of the marriage, one flag in one area tends to invite stronger scrutiny in other areas.

Overall the checks and balances tend to achieve balance of speed and accuracy for the immigration process.

There are requests for additional evidence, referral for reviews, interviews, appeal to IAD (where even more evidence can be provided).

 

[Idrissrafd]

Well, yes. But that's true of almost any interaction with any kind of authority or third party. If the bank teller decides to put a money laundering flag on your account, it won't be fun, either.

Mind, allegations of bias are not fun for the officers either; that's why allegations without any evidence whatsoever tend to just be ignored.

That’s why they shouldn’t have that kind of authority. The authority should be split. A council of different agents from different backgrounds should take a decision. Not a single person.

That might not be fun for him, but do not worry, he can sleep peacefully; which is not our case. They play [ unintentionally or not] with our future, mental and health. They know that they’ve that full power. I repeat: they can make our life miserable if they want. The bank teller is different. I can look for another one. I can even complain, which is not the case with IRCC (do they read complains ? Who’s reading it ? Is it effective?). Two different things.

 

[Idrissrafd]

I think you should feel free to rant to release some stress, but no the system is not entirely in the hands of one person with no balances and checks.

There are reviews of recommendation by staff, audits, requests for more information, collecting evidence and finally appeals. There are plethora of court cases that both validated or went against IRCC's decision. However make no mistake, there are laws and rules in place for this specific area of the spousal sponsorship.

For example,

Bad faith

4. (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership

(a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; and

(b) is not genuine.

Many court cases have reviewed and continue to do so, the requirements in determining both of those. Even a married couple does not necessarily meets the criteria as the two bolded criteria above are also requirements. Cases have determined that this determination must be based on evidence and therefore the two criteria above tend to be linked (i.e. proving one supports the other) but it does add some distinction nonetheless. For example a marriage that is now genuine will not mean that the applicant qualify if it can be proven that the marriage was initially entered with the primary purpose of acquiring PR. This is not however just based on only the opinion of the officer processing the case, it has to be supported by strong evidence, most often objective evidence such as testimony from other parties as to the intent at the time. Lack of credibility is another strong evidence used my IRCC, for example when officers determine that evidence provided by applicants is not credible. The overall test however tends to consider multiple aspects such as the intent of the parties, the credibility of the parties, the immigration history and the genuineness of the marriage, one flag in one area tends to invite stronger scrutiny in other areas.

Overall the checks and balances tend to achieve balance of speed and accuracy for the immigration process.

There are requests for additional evidence, referral for reviews, interviews, appeal to IAD (where even more evidence can be provided).

I really appreciate your message. So what you’re saying is, the decision is not taken by one agent (the one in charge of your file) ?

 

[armoured]

I really appreciate your message. So what you’re saying is, the decision is not taken by one agent (the one in charge of your file) ?

I'd ask, where did you get the idea that it's only one person deciding?

 

[AmyL]

Hi everyone, these forums have been helpful for me as I am sponsoring my US partner through inland common law route and it has been a long and tough journey. We just received a letter from IRCC today that we did not provide "sufficient evidence of cohabitation". Advice would be greatly appreciated as we are terrified of being rejected.

In hindsight, we should have planned better to have more formal evidence of our cohabitation. Some facts...

• My partner moved here in Oct 2018 while awaiting his Working Holiday Visa. He is listed on our rental lease. We have been leasing together since then.
• He received his visa in April 2019
• We submitted our PR application in February 2020
• He has not worked in Canada so he does not have tax forms. He uses his US credit card as it has no foreign transaction fees so he has never opened a bank account. He wasn't working here so he didn't get a SIN until this year when we were filing his Canadian tax return (after submitting PR app). I generally handle all the bills and he pays me for rent and utilities through cheques. He is a co-user on our Bell bill but Bell says they cannot provide bills with two account holders listed. His US cell phone plan allows for Canada-US calling and texting so he never got a Canadian phone plan. No car insurance or drivers license as I only have a G1 as of April 2018 and he sold his car when he moved here since we use public transit/bike.
• We are both listed on our tenant insurance but we didn't have to get that until Nov 2019. The IRCC seems to want more proof that we were cohabitating in Feb 2019 - which makes sense.
• The period between Oct 2018 and Feb 2019 (1 year before we submitted our PR app) is when we have the least "official" evidence as he was settling into Canada. In retrospect we should have made more effort to establish official documents.

We will explain all this to the IRCC. We are thinking of providing the following documents:

• Additional letters from coworkers and family/friends attesting to our cohabitation since Oct 2018
• Receipts of purchases such as Uber rides and Amazon purchase from Feb 2019 and prior
• Photos with date and location stamps (many of which were in our apartment)
• Bank statements of him making purchases in Toronto, such as our groceries
• Screenshots of conversations between us referencing our home together
• Photos of his cheques deposited into my bank account

I'm not sure if these types of documents will suffice. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you so much in advance.

As a US citizen having accounts and family here in the US, can you let me know what company he has his card through and which company he has his phone through. It would be very appreciated. My current ones make me pay a pretty penny when I go to Canada. Thanks.

 

[Idrissrafd]

I'd ask, where did you get the idea that it's only one person deciding?

Because in the rejection letter, the agent uses the personal pronoun “I” not “we”. “I have carefully considered all information and I am not satisfied [...]”. It implies that HE is not satisfied. Him, personally.

 

[armoured]

Because in the rejection letter, the agent uses the personal pronoun “I” not “we”. “I have carefully considered all information and I am not satisfied [...]”. It implies that HE is not satisfied. Him, personally.

Okay, if you think that shows how it works, fine. Seems a bit naive.

You can of course complain. But do you have any evidence of bias? or do you just feel you were mistreated?