Start reading here:galaxyviz said:She is Citizen . and 3 times she has visited me and now we are husband and wife. in Pakistan Canadian high commissions is not operational and for Quebec from CIC website they are asking me to contact Canadian consulate in Sirya . what should i do now
Gemini1 said:Does anyone know if it makes a difference whether the person being sponsored is employed in their own country? My husband is employed in Serbia, but doesn't have records of it...so in that case will it make a difference if he writes unemployed on his visa application form?
Why exactly doesn't he have records of his employment? If he's an employee, he must have an employer, and said employer must pay taxes on his behalf. Or, if he is self-employed, does he not issue invoices to customers?Gemini1 said:Does anyone know if it makes a difference whether the person being sponsored is employed in their own country? My husband is employed in Serbia, but doesn't have records of it...so in that case will it make a difference if he writes unemployed on his visa application form?
Inland processing is a two stage process. Stage one is currently taking 10-11 months to complete (you won't hear anything from CIC until stage 1 processing is complete). The official time for stage 2 is listed as 8 months.fwmello said:I'm sponsoring my husband; we are living together since December 2009 and finally got married on October 29, 2011.
We live in Toronto and made application inland.
Anyone knows how long the processing time for the family class in Canada?
We are so excited and waiting for the news.
Humm, so it's something around two years or less right?scylla said:Inland processing is a two stage process. Stage one is currently taking 10-11 months to complete (you won't hear anything from CIC until stage 1 processing is complete). The official time for stage 2 is listed as 8 months.
A sponsor does NOT have to show they have sufficient savings or income to last for 3 years.magpie said:He will have to show CIC that he can support the person he sponsors. Savings account sufficient to survive 3 years, maybe a co sponsor like his parents or if he is able to secure an employer in Canada who will write him a letter that he has employment when he returns to Canada. I believe that it is a requirement if he is sponsoring you while not living in Canada. Check out the CIC Website as they do give more details regarding this matter.
Maybe some more senior members on this forum will have a different answer for you but I do know that he will have to prove to CIC that he can support you throughout the sponsor period of 3 years for the spouse and 10 years for the children. This is not using welfare as if he uses welfare he will be refused.
Do not lie on the application forms. You are just asking for trouble. He is not asked to provide prooof of employment.Gemini1 said:Does anyone know if it makes a difference whether the person being sponsored is employed in their own country? My husband is employed in Serbia, but doesn't have records of it...so in that case will it make a difference if he writes unemployed on his visa application form?
Just a note about A39. It's not used often in spousal sponsorship cases and the circumstances must convince an officer "based on the balance of probabilities" to refuse based on this section of the Act. Read this case and it will give you and idea of what kind of circumstances will be considered.CharlieD10 said:Why exactly doesn't he have records of his employment? If he's an employee, he must have an employer, and said employer must pay taxes on his behalf. Or, if he is self-employed, does he not issue invoices to customers?
He should NOT misrepresent his employment status on the visa application. For one thing, the sponsorship agreement requires that he make every effort to become self-sufficient when he comes to Canada. If he states he is unemployed, and your income is on the low end (below the LICO for two persons of ~$27,000) HE COULD BE REFUSED under Section A39. I am certain you don't want that to happen.
Yes, well, I've got a friend (rathika) whose English-speaking, grade 12 educated, business-running husband was turned down on the basis of A39 (from all accounts of his interview) because the IO felt her income was inadequate to support them, AND without ever asking for proof of his willingness or ability to become self-supporting when he was convoked for the interview. I don't know what that IO was on, but unless Section 4 is also on that refusal letter, I'm thinking not every IO knows the legal test is balance of probabilities, or cares if they do.Just a note about A39. It's not used often in spousal sponsorship cases and the circumstances must convince an officer "based on the balance of probabilities" to refuse based on this section of the Act. Read this case and it will give you and idea of what kind of circumstances will be considered.
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=refused+AND+income+AND+spouse+AND+39&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/irb/doc/2010/2010canlii94380/2010canlii94380.html
The legal test is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it would be in a criminal proceeding.
I read the same account that she wrote in another thread. I wonder if they submitted proof of his employability or savings? She has good grounds for appeal. Yeah, it ain't perfect by any means. A39 is not about whether or not the sponsor can support the applicant, it's grounds for financial inadmissibility of the applicant because they would be unwilling or unable to financially support themselves. If they are actually refused, the Program Manager should take a look at that decision because from her account, it's a refusal based on the sponsor receiving social assistance for a disability which is incorrect in law.CharlieD10 said:Yes, well, I've got a friend (rathika) whose English-speaking, grade 12 educated, business-running husband was turned down on the basis of A39 (from all accounts of his interview) because the IO felt her income was inadequate to support them, AND without ever asking for proof of his willingness or ability to become self-supporting when he was convoked for the interview. I don't know what that IO was on, but unless Section 4 is also on that refusal letter, I'm thinking not every IO knows the legal test is balance of probabilities, or cares if they do.