Sponsorship breakdown - protecting both sides?

[rjessome]

Were you born a total jerk or did you have to work at it?

I know the message was harshly put. But the essence of it is the truth. That's WHY the Undertaking is there in the first place. A sponsor agrees to provide for the support of the sponsored person for the first 3 years they are in Canada. Full stop. If you sign the agreement, you pay. That's the bottom line and there is a TON of caselaw to back it up. Psychological abuse can be prosecuted as a criminal offence if it had been reported to the police. The expectation of the Canadian government is that if you sponsor them, you are taking them and all their parts, good, bad and ugly. As a sponsor YOU are supposed to KNOW the person you marry and everything that happens, at least financially, is your responsibility for the next 3 years.

Look, I'm NOT without empathy. This situation was awful and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. But the law doesn't have feelings. Love is blind and I hope that this poor woman's story WAKES UP sponsors to what "could" happen to them! I really, really, REALLY wish it would. Stories like this are NOT new on these boards. In fact, there have been even worse. The law was changed partially because of this type of thing because the man obviously used her to get to Canada and when he did, he couldn't hold back his true colors. Her best bet is to contact CBSA and report marriage fraud. They ARE doing more on this now given this Minister's mandate, even though she missed the provisions of the new law. However, even if they revoke his PR and deport him, if he gets social assistance while he's in Canada she will have to pay it back.

By the way, that agreement that was recommended by the lawyer - you know that would require civil legal action to enforce it. And civil legal action means hiring a lawyer to file a civil suit against the spouse who collected social assistance. AND you can't get blood from a stone so if the spouse is on welfare they would not get their money back. IRPA is an Act of Parliment and therefore would supercede any civil legal action in this regard. It would NOT overturn the obligation of the sponsor with respect to their Undertaking. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on this. So the sponsor would still be required the pay the money back to the government and the sponsor would be left chasing the scoundrel to try to get their money back. Good luck with that.

 

[JimM]

I know the message was harshly put. But the essence of it is the truth. That's WHY the Undertaking is there in the first place. A sponsor agrees to provide for the support of the sponsored person for the first 3 years they are in Canada. Full stop. If you sign the agreement, you pay. That's the bottom line and there is a TON of caselaw to back it up. Psychological abuse can be prosecuted as a criminal offence if it had been reported to the police. The expectation of the Canadian government is that if you sponsor them, you are taking them and all their parts, good, bad and ugly. As a sponsor YOU are supposed to KNOW the person you marry and everything that happens, at least financially, is your responsibility for the next 3 years.

Look, I'm NOT without empathy. This situation was awful and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. But the law doesn't have feelings. Love is blind and I hope that this poor woman's story WAKES UP sponsors to what "could" happen to them! I really, really, REALLY wish it would. Stories like this are NOT new on these boards. In fact, there have been even worse. The law was changed partially because of this type of thing because the man obviously used her to get to Canada and when he did, he couldn't hold back his true colors. Her best bet is to contact CBSA and report marriage fraud. They ARE doing more on this now given this Minister's mandate, even though she missed the provisions of the new law. However, even if they revoke his PR and deport him, if he gets social assistance while he's in Canada she will have to pay it back.

By the way, that agreement that was recommended by the lawyer - you know that would require civil legal action to enforce it. And civil legal action means hiring a lawyer to file a civil suit against the spouse who collected social assistance. AND you can't get blood from a stone so if the spouse is on welfare they would not get their money back. IRPA is an Act of Parliment and therefore would supercede any civil legal action in this regard. It would NOT overturn the obligation of the sponsor with respect to their Undertaking. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on this. So the sponsor would still be required the pay the money back to the government and the sponsor would be left chasing the scoundrel to try to get their money back. Good luck with that.

Harshly put? It was a 1/2 step up from a troll and that's what I was responding to, especially since they had made it clear they didn't want anyone else to "pay" they wanted him sent back to wherever he came from. And you know what? If that happened occasionally maybe more marriage fraudsters would pick a different country as their destination.

Maybe the 2 year rule will help, but if they didn't have the resources or interest to go after even obvious cases before I have my doubts they'll be checking real hard to make sure couples are still together. As it stands now somebody looking to scam their way out of a poor country knows they can come to Canada and they'll be left in peace while their victim is hounded by the authorities.

 

[gsize]

the 2 year conditional looks good on paper. I want to see how it will be enforced. As far as I can see, there are cutbacks everywhere !

 

[amikety]

the 2 year conditional looks good on paper. I want to see how it will be enforced. As far as I can see, there are cutbacks everywhere !

I have mixed feelings about the two year rule. While it does offer protection in essence, I think we're going to see the abuse claims spike. Then the courts will get drug further and further down. We're already facing budget shortfalls - even in Alberta, we're in the red now.

I think the five year ban on sponsoring a spouse if you yourself were sponsored is a better idea. Not going to say it's perfect either.

I only see more cutbacks as far as the services go because of the shortfalls I mentioned previously. I suspect slower services and longer waiting times are going to have to be something we accept as part of life - not just with immigration, but everything, from seeing the doctor to renewing your driver's license. Me think the "western" world is in for a shock... because they can't spend their way out of everything.

 

[gsize]

I have mixed feelings about the two year rule. While it does offer protection in essence, I think we're going to see the abuse claims spike. Then the courts will get drug further and further down. We're already facing budget shortfalls - even in Alberta, we're in the red now.

I think the five year ban on sponsoring a spouse if you yourself were sponsored is a better idea. Not going to say it's perfect either.

I only see more cutbacks as far as the services go because of the shortfalls I mentioned previously. I suspect slower services and longer waiting times are going to have to be something we accept as part of life - not just with immigration, but everything, from seeing the doctor to renewing your driver's license. Me think the "western" world is in for a shock... because they can't spend their way out of everything.

agreed ! as usual 8)

 

[gsize]

Just a word of advice: I would not put any pre-nup, or any agreement where the applicant agrees to pay back any welfare if the marriage fails, into the application package for the PR. I recently read an appeal case where they did include their pre-nup. I think the (male) sponsor was trying to prove that the woman was not marrying him for his money, and that therefore this was evidence the marriage was genuine. But the judge took it to mean the Canadian was doing all he could to ensure that if the marriage failed, he wouldn't have to pay anything. The judge's reasoning was that in a genuine marriage, financial affairs are supposed to be shared; the sponsor's efforts to make sure their financial affairs were not shared made the marriage look fake. They lost the appeal.

thanks for sharing. This is where a lawyer/Immigration consultant would (hopefullY) advised against doing it.

I still say, if you have the $$ hire an Imm consultan or lawyer (I know most dont agree)

 

[ronaldoyaronaldo]

Where is he from?

 

[JimM]

I have mixed feelings about the two year rule. While it does offer protection in essence, I think we're going to see the abuse claims spike. Then the courts will get drug further and further down. We're already facing budget shortfalls - even in Alberta, we're in the red now.

I think the five year ban on sponsoring a spouse if you yourself were sponsored is a better idea. Not going to say it's perfect either.

I only see more cutbacks as far as the services go because of the shortfalls I mentioned previously. I suspect slower services and longer waiting times are going to have to be something we accept as part of life - not just with immigration, but everything, from seeing the doctor to renewing your driver's license. Me think the "western" world is in for a shock... because they can't spend their way out of everything.

Well if Harper gets his way in Canada and the Republicans get back into power in the US there won't be much difference between the Western world and the Third world. Both will be made up of a few ultra rich families and a horde of starving poor.

 

[rjessome]

Harshly put? It was a 1/2 step up from a troll and that's what I was responding to, especially since they had made it clear they didn't want anyone else to "pay" they wanted him sent back to wherever he came from. And you know what? If that happened occasionally maybe more marriage fraudsters would pick a different country as their destination.

Maybe the 2 year rule will help, but if they didn't have the resources or interest to go after even obvious cases before I have my doubts they'll be checking real hard to make sure couples are still together. As it stands now somebody looking to scam their way out of a poor country knows they can come to Canada and they'll be left in peace while their victim is hounded by the authorities.

The law is often heartless. And given the current global economic situation and all of the rights and freedoms as well as social programs enjoyed in Canada, it will be a long time before Canada is NOT number 1 as a destination country. These things happen in the USA, UK, Australia, NZ, and just about every first world nation, especially where English is predominantly spoken. So Canada is not alone in this.

We have an immigration Minister who is VERY enforcement minded. I'm not sure if you keep up with all aspects of Canadian immigration or just the family class but there have been sweeping changes to the refugee process and there are more significant changes coming regarding misrepresentation (changing the current 2 year ban to a 5 year ban). This Minister does NOT abide liars. So I respectfully disagree with your prediction about how hard they will be "checking" to see if couples are still together at the 2 year mark. I think it will be the opposite, that the checks will be instrusive and could be somewhat overwhelming. None of us know yet what it will actually look like but I predict "harsh".

 

[frankinto]

I only see more cutbacks as far as the services go because of the shortfalls I mentioned previously. I suspect slower services and longer waiting times are going to have to be something we accept as part of life - not just with immigration, but everything, from seeing the doctor to renewing your driver's license. Me think the "western" world is in for a shock... because they can't spend their way out of everything.

No, but we can ensure a reasonable level of taxation so services we do need are provided - a definite problem in Alberta, and to a lesser extent in Ontario, as governments have become allergic to tax increases. The GST cut a few years ago is also part of the problem.

 

[anticipation]

I have mixed feelings about the two year rule. While it does offer protection in essence, I think we're going to see the abuse claims spike. Then the courts will get drug further and further down. We're already facing budget shortfalls - even in Alberta, we're in the red now.

I think the five year ban on sponsoring a spouse if you yourself were sponsored is a better idea. Not going to say it's perfect either.

I only see more cutbacks as far as the services go because of the shortfalls I mentioned previously. I suspect slower services and longer waiting times are going to have to be something we accept as part of life - not just with immigration, but everything, from seeing the doctor to renewing your driver's license. Me think the "western" world is in for a shock... because they can't spend their way out of everything.

Yes, you'll see true and false claims of abuse spike. Unfortunately probably resulting in innocent people being charged with abuse so the spouse can stay in Canada. All gets very tricky.

 

[amikety]

Yes, you'll see true and false claims of abuse spike. Unfortunately probably resulting in innocent people being charged with abuse so the spouse can stay in Canada. All gets very tricky.

Yup, I'm not envious of the people that have to deal with it. I suspect it will also make true abuse cases harder to prove. I would like to think there's a better way, but I haven't learned to read minds yet.... :'(

 

[cempjwi]

The rule only applies to couples that have not cohabitated for at least 2yrs when they have no children together.

Applying the rule to scenarios where the sponsor decides 23 months into it that "well, you know what? it does not work, I am not feeling it, go back to China!" seems really harsh. If the applicant has been a loyal partner, why on earth remove him/her?

This rule is to deter marriage fraud, not to deter short marriages or encourage to extend their duration. If they want to deter short marriages, well, maybe they should exclude sponsorships for common-law and conjugal partner while outlawing divorce! Without either, marriages will last!

As an applicant I would be terrified, which in a way means that CIC is directly meddling with the sponsor's chances to find a foreign partner willing to agree to enter into a relationship with a Canadian citizen knowing that it can be removed if once in Canada the Canadian citizen leaves the person before the 2yr requirement is met. Possible? Absolutely.

Does anyone see my point?

 

[QuebecOkie]

The rule only applies to couples that have not cohabitated for at least 2yrs when they have no children together.

As an applicant I would be terrified, which in a way means that CIC is directly meddling with the sponsor's chances to find a foreign partner willing to agree to enter into a relationship with a Canadian citizen knowing that it can be removed if once in Canada the Canadian citizen leaves the person before the 2yr requirement is met. Possible? Absolutely.

Does anyone see my point?

No, not really. I suppose part of this is that I'm American, so I come from another affluent country. I didn't come to Canada for Canada. I came because my best friend and lover is employed by the Canadian government, and I had two choices: let him walk away from me, or go with him. I didn't know much of anything about immigrating when we decided all of this, and the two year rule (which we beat, by a whole two days) doesn't affect my feelings about any of this in the slightest.

I do see the potential for some problems, such as PRs staying in abusive relationships to avoid being sent back to their home country, or PRs making false claims of abuse to try to get out of a relationship without being sent back to their home country. However, at this early stage, I support the change. I think it poses an initial deterrence to those thinking about fraudulently obtaining PR through the family class and, later on, some room for recourse if the sponsored person was only in it for the ticket to Canada.

 

[cempjwi]

No, not really. I suppose part of this is that I'm American, so I come from another affluent country. I didn't come to Canada for Canada. I came because my best friend and lover is employed by the Canadian government, and I had two choices: let him walk away from me, or go with him. I didn't know much of anything about immigrating when we decided all of this, and the two year rule (which we beat, by a whole two days) doesn't affect my feelings about any of this in the slightest.

I do see the potential for some problems, such as PRs staying in abusive relationships to avoid being sent back to their home country, or PRs making false claims of abuse to try to get out of a relationship without being sent back to their home country. However, at this early stage, I support the change. I think it poses an initial deterrence to those thinking about fraudulently obtaining PR through the family class and, later on, some room for recourse if the sponsored person was only in it for the ticket to Canada.

Americans hardly would see the point. They only have to cross the border, they enjoy that closeness to Canada. No offense meant. In the US the 2yr rule has been in place for years. People from other regions of the world may see it differently.

Your case is not uncommon and not exclusive to American Citizens. Australians, Britons, Japanese, etc, just to name a few, enjoy of economies very similar to that found in Canada so you could say that they go to Canada exclusively to keep their relationship.

Again, my point was made refering to legit applicants whose relationships end because of the sponsor, a situation that makes them disposable.