Ottawa Moves To Curb Marriages of Convenience

[ShaunT]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-moves-to-curb-marriages-of-convenience/article2215245/

People like this make me sick. No wonder it is so hard for us genuine ones.

What shocks me as well is that there are Canadians who willingly allow themselves to abuse their countries immigration rules.

 

[rathika2011]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-moves-to-curb-marriages-of-convenience/article2215245/

People like this make me sick. No wonder it is so hard for us genuine ones.

What shocks me as well is that there are Canadians who willingly allow themselves to abuse their countries immigration rules.

i agree these people makes me sick...we being the genuine couple have to suffer because of these people mis using the law

 

[suva]

i think it would be a good step by the govt. marriage is not a funny thing so the genuine couples should not have any problem to live together for 2+ yrs.

 

[Indigo]

OK, this is making me very nervous. My husband sponsored his ex-wife to come to Canada, she landed in 2004. So the sponsorship ended in 2007, which is 4 years ago, which is less than the minimum of 5 they are talking about enforcing. That marriage was genuine, it just fell apart. It happens. It's a complete coincidence that I am foreign too (different country though) and thus have to be sponsored too. Is this going to backfire on us? Really worried.

Also, how do they expect couples to stay together for 2, 5 or 10 years before PR, on one income?! The sponsored person would have to put career and family plans on hold for that period of time, which I think is cruel.

I'm just hoping that these rules won't retro-actively apply to applications that have been submitted already.

I'm very worried and am debating calling CIC over this. However they might want to link me to my application and I don't want to raise flags, or have the application delayed because I called before my waiting time is up.

 

[AmericaninQuebec]

I'm just hoping that these rules won't retro-actively apply to applications that have been submitted already.

I would be very surprised if it was enacted retroactively. That would change all of the sponsorship agreements two which our sponsors agreed, not to mention the PR applications we ourselves signed. I would assume that if it were enacted they would state a date on which it took effect, and all new applications received from that day forward would have to use new forms and be bound by the new rules. That's what they did with work visa applications this past spring. If you had applied the day before the date the new rules took effect, but the app was received after you didn't generally have to resubmit. If you signed your application the day of or after the date the new rules took effect you had to resubmit using the new form and be bound by the new rules (assuming you had mistakenly used the old forms because the new ones weren't online until the day everything changed).

Also, I don't understand why they used an example of a man jumping off of a bridge, because his wife wanted to move to Toronto as an example of how this new rule could hurt people. It seems like that poor man had some serious issues, but I don't see how that shows an example of a fraudulent marriage. If it were fraudulent why would he have been upset if she left him? Sorry, not at all the point of this feed, but it seems like a poor example.

 

[suva]

I would be very surprised if it was enacted retroactively. That would change all of the sponsorship agreements two which our sponsors agreed, not to mention the PR applications we ourselves signed. I would assume that if it were enacted they would state a date on which it took effect, and all new applications received from that day forward would have to use new forms and be bound by the new rules. That's what they did with work visa applications this past spring. If you had applied the day before the date the new rules took effect, but the app was received after you didn't generally have to resubmit. If you signed your application the day of or after the date the new rules took effect you had to resubmit using the new form and be bound by the new rules (assuming you had mistakenly used the old forms because the new ones weren't online until the day everything changed).

Also, I don't understand why they used an example of a man jumping off of a bridge, because his wife wanted to move to Toronto as an example of how this new rule could hurt people. It seems like that poor man had some serious issues, but I don't see how that shows an example of a fraudulent marriage. If it were fraudulent why would he have been upset if she left him? Sorry, not at all the point of this feed, but it seems like a poor example.

we applied on 20th july... and our VO takes 21 months to complete.... do u think the new rule will effect our application?

 

[Indigo]

I would be very surprised if it was enacted retroactively. That would change all of the sponsorship agreements two which our sponsors agreed, not to mention the PR applications we ourselves signed. I would assume that if it were enacted they would state a date on which it took effect, and all new applications received from that day forward would have to use new forms and be bound by the new rules. That's what they did with work visa applications this past spring. If you had applied the day before the date the new rules took effect, but the app was received after you didn't generally have to resubmit. If you signed your application the day of or after the date the new rules took effect you had to resubmit using the new form and be bound by the new rules (assuming you had mistakenly used the old forms because the new ones weren't online until the day everything changed).

Also, I don't understand why they used an example of a man jumping off of a bridge, because his wife wanted to move to Toronto as an example of how this new rule could hurt people. It seems like that poor man had some serious issues, but I don't see how that shows an example of a fraudulent marriage. If it were fraudulent why would he have been upset if she left him? Sorry, not at all the point of this feed, but it seems like a poor example.

I hope you are right. It sounds plausible though; Essentially the sponsorship undertaking is a contract. If the rules change, there should be a new contract.
I feel somewhat better, but I won't be able to relax until we get sponsorship approved....

 

[suva]

I hope you are right. It sounds plausible though; Essentially the sponsorship undertaking is a contract. If the rules change, there should be a new contract.
I feel somewhat better, but I won't be able to relax until we get sponsorship approved....

do we have to submit again if the new rule comes into force before my application go 'in process' or 'decision made'?

 

[Indigo]

do we have to submit again if the new rule comes into force before my application go 'in process' or 'decision made'?

I find it unlikely. That will cause immense delays & chaos. Let's try to stay calm and follow the news regarding this.
I have to say that I prefer reading more relaxing things over morning coffee...

 

[aerogurl87]

Ok so from what I gathered they want to make you live together for 2 years before you get your PR. Well personally I'm ok with that as long as I get an open work permit to work during that time and can travel abroad still. As regards to domestic abuse, if that's the case the person should just go back to their homeland. I know if my boyfriend beat me I'd go back to the States and live with my parents or other relatives. There's always a way out of domestic abuse, but staying and enduring it just to get PR isn't one of them.

 

[Bargeld]

Ok so from what I gathered they want to make you live together for 2 years before you get your PR. Well personally I'm ok with that as long as I get an open work permit to work during that time and can travel abroad still. As regards to domestic abuse, if that's the case the person should just go back to their homeland. I know if my boyfriend beat me I'd go back to the States and live with my parents or other relatives. There's always a way out of domestic abuse, but staying and enduring it just to get PR isn't one of them.

I don't think that's fair especially if one has gone through the painstaking process of a PR, moving their stuff, changing their life to be in Canada, etc. Certainly going back is an option but not reasonable as a requirement.

As for the article, I wonder if I'm the only one who is surprised at the 16% refusal rate from 2010. I presumed almost everyone who applies for spouse/fam class PR has a genuine marriage -- naive of me it seems. Personally, I like the new requirements aimed at curbing fraud.

 

[Danny4450]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-moves-to-curb-marriages-of-convenience/article2215245/

People like this make me sick. No wonder it is so hard for us genuine ones.

What shocks me as well is that there are Canadians who willingly allow themselves to abuse their countries immigration rules.

The two countries with the most frauds have the quickest timeline for spousal sponsorship. This just doesn't make any sense.

 

[ccbrasil]

Its horrible that all of us on real relationships have to wait longer just so other can come and take advantage of our country.

I am also sympathetic to those who live in poverty or in harsh conditions and dream of a better life.

Obviously is a touchy subject, and I am happy the government for once is doing something possitive.

 

[jayde]

I think that this is a great idea. It will not make those of us in genuine relationships wait longer... it just means that our spouses will have a "conditional PR" for the first few years. They will be allowed to work and have every right that a normal PR currently has EXCEPT, if the marriage breaks down prior to the condition being lifted, then they will not be permitted to remain in Canada and their PR will be revoked.

This is nothing but good for those of us who are in genuine relationships.

If there is ANY chance that they can curb immigration fraud then I am all for it.

They are willing to put provisions in place for those immigrants who suffer spousal abuse after they arrive, and may waive the condition that would force them to stay in an abusive relationship or be deported.

I would have zero objections to this since my marriage is solid and aside from that, the conditional PR and the normal PR allow for virtually identical freedoms and rights.

Those who come here on a "spousal" application should absolutely be subject to a condition that requires them to remain in that marriage for a certain amount of time... their PR application was approved based on that condition and should be maintained on that condition.

 

[Indigo]

Ok so from what I gathered they want to make you live together for 2 years before you get your PR. Well personally I'm ok with that as long as I get an open work permit to work during that time and can travel abroad still. As regards to domestic abuse, if that's the case the person should just go back to their homeland. I know if my boyfriend beat me I'd go back to the States and live with my parents or other relatives. There's always a way out of domestic abuse, but staying and enduring it just to get PR isn't one of them.

I'm not positive, but I think it doesn't matter where you live together for these 2, 5 or 10 years. So I think what will happen is: they want you to live together, but won't automatically give the newcomer the right to live in Canada.
This doesn't feel good.

Sure, marriage and immigration fraud should be battled, but is this really the way to go? Or is this another thing genuine couples of mixed origin will have thrown on their path that complicates their lives?