Hi everyone,
CPC-Ottawa as the secondary office has agreed that we meet all requirements in LICO and host family composition to sponsor mother-in-law. However, local office has disagreed based on the following:
- Insufficient documentation regarding family ties and ties to home country
- Not clear if LICOS met for Host due to insufficient documentation on family composition for host
- Officer has considered applicant's purpose of travel, family ties and hos's documentation against current political, economical, and security situation and how it relates to application and is not satisfied they would depart Cnaada at the end of authorized stay.
Seems that the local officer has over looked assessment from CPC-Ottawa on family composition. Our sworn letter did mention our family size and both our Tax Assemenets were submitted. No pay stubs as our accountant provided letter for our business revenues.
Applicant is leaving husband behind and few couple brothers and sisters behind + 2 married daughters which makes the case very in favor of returning. We just submitted their family composition on form and not passport or anything was filed for them.
So, my questions are for re-submission:
1- What can we provide to show family ties to family back home? everyone's passports? husband's passport?
2- What else can we submit for LICO?
3- How is the purpose of travel not accepted? it is to be a Super Visa. What is a good purpose of travel for Super Visa?
4- Is fingerprint required again for re-submission of application?
5- This was filed online, it seems that officers don't read online apps as they should and paper apps are favored as they review the whole thing. I never understood who reads what between the so many documents uploaded so that you can summarize the situation on one piece of paper and submit it.
6- Since this will be a re-submission, what else is needed to be submitted? explanation letter?
I am also, wondering what the process is to writing to minister and trying to re-open the case as this case is really clear cut and I see ATIP notes as to how the local and Ottawa office contradict each other.
Thanks,
CPC-Ottawa as the secondary office has agreed that we meet all requirements in LICO and host family composition to sponsor mother-in-law. However, local office has disagreed based on the following:
- Insufficient documentation regarding family ties and ties to home country
- Not clear if LICOS met for Host due to insufficient documentation on family composition for host
- Officer has considered applicant's purpose of travel, family ties and hos's documentation against current political, economical, and security situation and how it relates to application and is not satisfied they would depart Cnaada at the end of authorized stay.
Seems that the local officer has over looked assessment from CPC-Ottawa on family composition. Our sworn letter did mention our family size and both our Tax Assemenets were submitted. No pay stubs as our accountant provided letter for our business revenues.
Applicant is leaving husband behind and few couple brothers and sisters behind + 2 married daughters which makes the case very in favor of returning. We just submitted their family composition on form and not passport or anything was filed for them.
So, my questions are for re-submission:
1- What can we provide to show family ties to family back home? everyone's passports? husband's passport?
2- What else can we submit for LICO?
3- How is the purpose of travel not accepted? it is to be a Super Visa. What is a good purpose of travel for Super Visa?
4- Is fingerprint required again for re-submission of application?
5- This was filed online, it seems that officers don't read online apps as they should and paper apps are favored as they review the whole thing. I never understood who reads what between the so many documents uploaded so that you can summarize the situation on one piece of paper and submit it.
6- Since this will be a re-submission, what else is needed to be submitted? explanation letter?
I am also, wondering what the process is to writing to minister and trying to re-open the case as this case is really clear cut and I see ATIP notes as to how the local and Ottawa office contradict each other.
Thanks,
