Sign The Petition!!

[haXudon]

if people actually applied for TRV before getting married then you wouldn't even need a petition like this. Canada's immigration law and process is so streamlined compared to any other country. personally, i can't complain. i have been in the US and i was trying to get a permanent resident status, i waited for 8 years and i still haven't been granted one. i tried Canada, after one year, i'm a PR. like hell yeah, right? lol

so guys, just be smart, get a TRV for your fiance, or would-be husband/wife. get married, apply for sponsorship, go to Canada. and wait. ez as pie!

 

[Buletruck]

so guys, just be smart, get a TRV for your fiance, or would-be husband/wife. get married, apply for sponsorship, go to Canada. and wait. ez as pie!

That's what we did. Spent a year or two building up travel history to other visa required countries (Indonesia is one of those places its hard to get a TRV to Canada), applied for a single entry TRV for 8 days, applied for a second single entry for 2 weeks, and the third was a 10 year multiple. Not quite a piece of pie, but with a little thought in how to do it, not insurmountable!

 

[majesty]

My 2 cent worth for how it should be written.....

This version of Buletruck is better. Identifying specific ways in how to reunify spouses is more constructive than just saying IRCC needs to do something about spouses being separated. By saying that many are denied TRV's or get denied entry or approved for tourist visas less than 6 months by CBSA if they are from visa exempt countries, this petition would probably be taken more seriously if it looked like all considerations were taken into account with this issue.

BTW, you also excluded the category of people who are not married (i.e.. common-law couples and those in the conjugal class). If you add this, I would be more inclined to sign.

 

[majesty]

if people actually applied for TRV before getting married then you wouldn't even need a petition like this. Canada's immigration law and process is so streamlined compared to any other country. personally, i can't complain. i have been in the US and i was trying to get a permanent resident status, i waited for 8 years and i still haven't been granted one. i tried Canada, after one year, i'm a PR. like hell yeah, right? lol

so guys, just be smart, get a TRV for your fiance, or would-be husband/wife. get married, apply for sponsorship, go to Canada. and wait. ez as pie!

That would be ideal in a perfect world, but not everyone has so much foresight or organization! LOL

 

[ateja]

That is a smart move. I wish I knew that before applying for the family sponsorship

 

[ateja]

Also, if you are an aboard spouse of US citizen or green card holder, it is very difficult to obtain an visitor visa, because the US B1/B2 visitor visa will not allow dual intent, but TRV issued by Canada sometimes do allow the dual intent, please read the article below:
https://www.boundless.co/immigration-resources/when-can-i-visit-my-spouse-in-the-united-states/

And don't mention how US treat the misrepresentation, IT IS A LIFE BAN, and Canada only bans people who misrepresented for 5 years.

You go figure!

Thanks for the eye opener. I just went by few of the friends words. I guess will just have to suck it up and wait for it then!

 

[ateja]

Have at it, use it at your own discretion. If it works you and your spouse have to buy me dinner.....Your is more the reason why you signed the petition or add it as to why you started the petition. You want a specific outcome, but you have to be prepared for some give and take on the issue. If you sound like a complete loon, no one will pay attention to you.

Thanks a bunch! I added it towards the end and in the letter, and for the amount of help you did so far I would buy you dinner even right now haha! or a fancy wine bottle

 

[Buletruck]

I would change the last section to this on reflection

We would suggest that, in light of the process and difficulty in achieving a TRV in most circumstances, IRCC develop a class of visa specifically for spousal/family sponsorship that would permit the entry of the sponsored party during the process after an initial security and medical check, including, but not limited to, limitations of stay and benefits, financial agreements and bonds and pre-signed departure orders (should the application be rejected), hence alleviating the unwarranted stress the current process places on the applicant and sponsor, enhancing the Family Unification program whilst maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.

Why would you do this?

BTW, you also excluded the category of people who are not married (i.e.. common-law couples and those in the conjugal class). If you add this, I would be more inclined to sign.

Your petition needs to be aligned with Canadian law, in which common law and conjugal partners are considered spouses. If you exclude them, your petition will not carry the same weight and you start sounding like a bunch of self serving whiners. The idea is to change the requirements for spousal/family sponsorship. You can’t exclude half of the people it affects.

 

[majesty]

I would change the last section to this on reflection




Why would you do this?



Your petition needs to be aligned with Canadian law, in which common law and conjugal partners are considered spouses. If you exclude them, your petition will not carry the same weight and you start sounding like a bunch of self serving whiners. The idea is to change the requirements for spousal/family sponsorship. You can’t exclude half of the people it affects.

You have to realize that any petition they receive will probably go through a debate process .... not sure if it would be through committees or even in the House of Commons, before any changes will be instituted to issuance of visas for spouses who are being processed for PR under the family sponsorship program. If you just send a petition without researching facts, it will be doomed from the start. Just focusing on the emotional hardship without stats etc. will make for a weak case. You may want to run this by your MP first who would be more versed in how to channel the petition into the right hands within the government.

 

[ateja]

You have to realize that any petition they receive will probably go through a debate process .... not sure if it would be through committees or even in the House of Commons, before any changes will be instituted to issuance of visas for spouses who are being processed for PR under the family sponsorship program. If you just send a petition without researching facts, it will be doomed from the start. Just focusing on the emotional hardship without stats etc. will make for a weak case. You may want to run this by your MP first who would be more versed in how to channel the petition into the right hands within the government.

MP or local MLA? I guess that would go far beyond anything I imagined, but I am willing to continue the idea even if you all think its something that needs to change. I guess I wont get anything out of this.

 

[ateja]

I would change the last section to this on reflection




Why would you do this?



Your petition needs to be aligned with Canadian law, in which common law and conjugal partners are considered spouses. If you exclude them, your petition will not carry the same weight and you start sounding like a bunch of self serving whiners. The idea is to change the requirements for spousal/family sponsorship. You can’t exclude half of the people it affects.

I thought we are addressing this already! How can I make that clearer now!

 

[Buletruck]

Not following your question. I changed the end of the sentence to add a little more clarity. You don’t have to make anymore changes if you aren’t comfortable with them. It’s your petition.

 

[ateja]

Update it as per your suggestion. Thanks for the help. This is what I was hoping for infact and tried to get some wording help from fellow friends.

 

[majesty]

MP or local MLA? I guess that would go far beyond anything I imagined, but I am willing to continue the idea even if you all think its something that needs to change. I guess I wont get anything out of this.

I feel for people who are in this situation. I myself am lucky that my partner is from a visa exempt country so he just needs to obtain an eTA and show some ties back to his home country if he comes for a visit to Canada while we are still being processed. However, sometimes they do hassle these people or on rare occasions turn them back depending on what security agent you talk to when you enter the country.

Your petition's idea is a valid one. Obviously at least 400 people here feel the same way as you do, being separated from their spouses and unable to be together for whatever reason simply because they need a TRV and were denied. If you can determine why most people were denied and throw in some stats if possible, it would help lend credibility to your petition's cause. If you can't gather this info, maybe your MP can help you with that (MP's are your federal representatives and deal with immigration issues such as this).

Do they actually tell people the reason they are denied TRV's? If they do, then mention the reasons and why you think it is unfair. If not, maybe that is the problem, that they don't disclose why people are denied and this is an unfair practice that needs to be changed. Idk, I never had to go through this.

 

[Miraclejj]

You have to realize that any petition they receive will probably go through a debate process .... not sure if it would be through committees or even in the House of Commons, before any changes will be instituted to issuance of visas for spouses who are being processed for PR under the family sponsorship program. If you just send a petition without researching facts, it will be doomed from the start. Just focusing on the emotional hardship without stats etc. will make for a weak case. You may want to run this by your MP first who would be more versed in how to channel the petition into the right hands within the government.

You guys do realize that change.org is a private company right? I doubt it will have any impact on Canada immigration policy making.