TRV Refused - Reapplying damaging?

[dagleykb]

I am a Canadian citizen and am trying to assist my girlfriend of three years in the Philippines in coming for a 3-4 week visit so she can finally meet my family and see where I grew up. We tried applying for a visitor visa (which we are told has to be a temporary residence visa) and were denied back in July of 2017 much to our shock. We never guessed this would be so difficult for just a tourism venture.

The application returned the following from the embassy in Manila (ONLY the RED was grounds for refusal):

Following an examination of your application, I am not satisfied that you application meets the requirements of
the Act and the Regulations for the reasons explained below. Please note that only the grounds that are checked
off apply to the refusal of your application.

You have not satisfied me that you would leave Canada at the end of your stay as a temporary
resident. In reaching this decision, I considered several factors, including:

-travel history
-immigration status in country of residence
-Family ties in Canada and in country of residence
-Length of proposed stay in Canada
-Purpose of visit
-Employment prospects in country of residence
-Current employment situation
-Personal assets and financial status
-Having a legitimate business purpose in Canada
-any history of contravening the conditions of admission on a previous stay in Canada.

-I am not satisfied that you have sufficient funds, including income or assets, to carry out your stated
purpose in going to Canada or to maintain yourself while in Canada and to effect your departure.

-You have not provided sufficient documentation to support your / your host's income and assets.

-You have made an application for a temporary resident visa in the transit visitor category. As you are
planning to remain in Canada longer than 48 hours, you do not meet the requirements of this
category. You must make an application for a temporary resident visa in the visitor category and pay
the associated cost recovery fees.

-You have submitted documentation which lacks authenticity as part of your application. This has
diminished the overall credibility of your submission.

-I am not satisfied that you have answered all questions truthfully, as required by subsection 16(1) of
the Act. Specifically, I am not satisfied that the following information is truthful:

etc.


My girlfriend is scared that a second application being refused might seriously harm any attempts at immigration in the future should we wish to pursue this avenue let alone being allowed to simply visit at all.

Point One: We have taken steps to mitigate the concerns the immigration officer has pointed out. My girlfriend had no previous travel experience outside her country but plenty within. Since the date of refusal she has now completed a five day trip to Hong Kong as a tourist and later a six countries in six days Southeast Asia Tour (DIY ASEAN Tour) as part of a 3-part "Spartan" marathon visiting Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam Thailand and Cambodia.

As to the second and third points:

Included in the application was the following:
-History of our relationship (communications logs, gift receipts, etc) going back nearly three years.
-Detailed Trip Itenerary
-Parks Canada 150th Pass (for tourism and camping discounts)
-Personal Earnings Statements, Bank Account Balances, Savings & Investments Statements, etc (from us both)
-Multiple Identification Documents (from both of us) passport, licenses, etc.
-Purpose of Travel Letter
-Family Information in the Philippines
-Visa Invitation Letter (documenting my intent to sponsor her trip)
-Canadian Lawyer Notarized Letter (legally saying I would be sponsoring her expenses while in Canada)
-Letter from her employment company stating her approved vacation time, return to work date, several meetings, projects, and training dates, etc that she would be attending to upon return and their dates, etc.
-Letter from her employer stating her work history, recent promotions, etc.
-Copies of airfare tickets between her place of residence in the Philippines and her family home dated shortly post trip.
-Copies of receipts for being entered in mountain climbing and marathon events, post trip, back in the Philippines.


Point Two: There is little else we can think of that she could have received as supporting documents from her employer to remove any concerns. The immigration officer though states "NO EVIDENCE OF EMPLOYMENT / INCOME, MODEST PERSONAL SAVINGS" yet on the other hand clearly lists her as being "Employed: (Her Company Name and Position)" There workers do have signed contracts for which hers was up in a year (well past the trips allotted time) but she had just received several promotions and had a lot of projects and work listed that she was returning too.

Point Three: It is true she does not a have many physical assets (car, home) and has been renting apartments for some time, however her dream is to eventually immigrate elsewhere (not necessarily Canada) and tying up money or getting into a long term housing contract does not make things easier to achieve that. Does she really have to buy a house just to be able to come to Canada as even an occasional tourist? In terms of finances I legally said I would be covering the entirety of her expenses for the stay. I definitely have the means to cover a stay much much longer than 3-4 weeks. Now, I could have placed the saved funds into her accounts but would that really make a difference in her financial status? Wouldn't they just see this as having been just transferred in anyway?


We did apply through the ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PERSONAL INFORMATION (ATIP) Act to get the records and
the electronic notes of the immigration or citizenship officer(s) for her temporary residence file application.

The file we received is very cryptic and doesn't really seem to elaborate any more than what we had already deduced.


Seeking advice...

 

[canuck78]

Unfortunately she is likely to be refused again. Even though you have said you will cover the cost you could stop covering her costs at any time even with a legal document. Her travel history is limited to places where she didn't need a visa to travel or where visa is easily obtained. They want to see travel to US, UK, Australia or are able to get Schengen visa.

 

[dagleykb]

Unfortunately she is likely to be refused again. Even though you have said you will cover the cost you could stop covering her costs at any time even with a legal document. Her travel history is limited to places where she didn't need a visa to travel or where visa is easily obtained. They want to see travel to US, UK, Australia or are able to get Schengen visa.

Ok. But with a legal document I am on the hook for the expense, clearly they wouldn't let her visit if they thought I didn't have the funds, but when I clearly have a large enough pool of them if I tried to retract not only would I have to pay for the expense (cause the was the purpose of the legal document anyway guaranteeing I would) but I would face legal action as well.

Also this seems a vicious cycle...if she needs a travel history with a country that requires a particularly credible visa just to get a particularly credible visa what is to stop Australia, US or UK from having those same requirements? Which one is easier to apply for (rhetorical)?

 

[Bryanna]

Hi,

Unfortunately, IMO, the biggest contributor to her TRV refusal was declaring that you've been in a relationship since the last 3+ years. IRCC would see her application as someone who would most likely not return to the Philippines (and who could possibly extend her stay/get married and file an inland PR application).

That being said, it is always best to be honest in any communication with IRCC especially from a long-term perspective.

Also, a visit of 3-4 weeks would indicate weak employment ties, unless you had indicated that her visit was planned around national holidays in the Philippines.

Ok. But with a legal document I am on the hook for the expense, clearly they wouldn't let her visit if they thought I didn't have the funds, but when I clearly have a large enough pool of them if I tried to retract not only would I have to pay for the expense (cause the was the purpose of the legal document anyway guaranteeing I would) but I would face legal action as well.

The issue is not about you financially supporting her visit. It is about her being able to afford the visit with her own finances.

The legal notarized letter stating you will sponsor her trip/sponsor her expenses has worked against her getting a TRV approval. Your invitation letter stating you will cover accommodation and her living expenses would have sufficed.

It is a big no-no to transfer money/deposit cash which cannot be accounted for and/or which does not add up to a TRV applicant's declared income.

The greater her financial dependence on you (Read: You will pay for the entire visit) = Indicates her weak financial situation = Greater chances of overstaying her visit = Higher chances of a TRV refusal

Also this seems a vicious cycle...if she needs a travel history with a country that requires a particularly credible visa just to get a particularly credible visa what is to stop Australia, US or UK from having those same requirements? Which one is easier to apply for (rhetorical)?

The countries she has visited are liberal in issuing visas or else don't require visas to visit. Plus, the super fast 6 countries in 6 days' visit did not add any value to her passport. Such a visit is untypical of a typical tourist.

IRCC would like to see a consistent travel history of short visits to visa-required countries (US, UK, Schengen, etc). This type of travel history would indicate she has a history of returning to the Philippines.

For visas to any other country, she would need to fulfill similar requirements as those for a Canada TRV: A genuine purpose of visit + finances to pay for the visit and airfare + strong reasons to return home after short visit(s).

I doubt if GCMS notes will reveal any new information as it's pretty obvious why she was refused


Cheers

 

[Buletruck]

Simply having a notarized letter doesn’t require you to fund the trip if you choose not to. There is no signed agreement between you and IRCC to be responsible for any potential costs incurred and no way for IRCC to enforce it.

A couple of other things from the VO notes:

1. Seems you applied for a transit visa. That would be grounds for refusal after asking for 3-4 weeks.
2. 3-4 weeks is to long a time frame for someone with no travel history. In her circumstance, 2 weeks maximum would have been more appropriate. Her trips to SE Asia won’t improve her travel history, as they are primarily ASEAN countries and don’t require a visa.
3. Most concerning, they have Identified some of the documents presented not being authentic or accurate. Given that comment and the one following, I would say she narrowly missed being banned for misrepresentation. You would need to review the documents submitted that they feel are questionable. Failure to do so and resubmitting them could result in a 5 year ban from Canada. Never lie to IRCC. They take an exceptionally dim view of it.
4. Her employment seems to be through, what seems to be, a temp agency. Having a contract for a year + does not mean that she isn’t willing to abandon the job and remain in Canada illegally. Not having fixed employment makes her application weaker. The fact you have identified yourselves as a “couple” further increases the risk of an overstay.
5. Despite your letter of invitation and support, a TRV will be assessed on her ability to support herself. If her bank balances and deposits are insufficient or don’t match her salary (I.e. you sent her money), they will refuse her. Rule of thumb is about $1,000/wk CDN plus airfare.

You would need to apply for the correct visa next time. A trip to Australia would be beneficial if you can arrange it. I would also post the gcms notes. Despite being cryptic, there are forum members who are very astute at deciphering them.

 

[Bryanna]

1. Seems you applied for a transit visa. That would be grounds for refusal after asking for 3-4 weeks.

That's a good point. I missed the fine print

 

[Bryanna]

The application returned the following from the embassy in Manila (red was grounds for refusal):

I would also be seriously concerned about these two points from the TRV refusal letter:

-You have submitted documentation which lacks authenticity as part of your application. This has
diminished the overall credibility of your submission.

..... and

I am not satisfied that you have answered all questions truthfully, as required by subsection 16(1) of
the Act. Specifically, I am not satisfied that the following information is truthful:

Your girlfriend must ensure that every document she submits is true and correct in all aspects. IRCC can run checks on any document/any information, including her employment (past and present).

IMO, and I agree with Buletruck, she has narrowly missed being banned for misrepresentation. She is lucky to have just received a TRV refusal.

I recommend you post the GCMS notes before you reapply

 

[dagleykb]

1. Simply having a notarized letter doesn’t require you to fund the trip if you choose not to. There is no signed agreement between you and IRCC to be responsible for any potential costs incurred and no way for IRCC to enforce it.
   
   A couple of other things from the VO notes:
   

   1. Seems you applied for a transit visa. That would be grounds for refusal after asking for 3-4 weeks.
   2. 3-4 weeks is to long a time frame for someone with no travel history. In her circumstance, 2 weeks maximum would have been more appropriate. Her trips to SE Asia won’t improve her travel history, as they are primarily ASEAN countries and don’t require a visa.
   3. Most concerning, they have Identified some of the documents presented not being authentic or accurate. Given that comment and the one following, I would say she narrowly missed being banned for misrepresentation. You would need to review the documents submitted that they feel are questionable. Failure to do so and resubmitting them could result in a 5 year ban from Canada. Never lie to IRCC. They take an exceptionally dim view of it.
   4. Her employment seems to be through, what seems to be, a temp agency. Having a contract for a year + does not mean that she isn’t willing to abandon the job and remain in Canada illegally. Not having fixed employment makes her application weaker. The fact you have identified yourselves as a “couple” further increases the risk of an overstay.
   5. Despite your letter of invitation and support, a TRV will be assessed on her ability to support herself. If her bank balances and deposits are insufficient or don’t match her salary (I.e. you sent her money), they will refuse her. Rule of thumb is about $1,000/wk CDN plus airfare.

   You would need to apply for the correct visa next time. A trip to Australia would be beneficial if you can arrange it. I would also post the gcms notes. Despite being cryptic, there are forum members who are very astute at deciphering them.

   
   I believe you have mis-read my initial post not all of the items I listed are why she was refused, just nearly the three highlighted in red, nothing transit related and certainly nothing about misrepresenting documents!
   
   She had built up a long history with this company 7+ years at least across three departments and a recent company name change. They are on contract but it is for 3-4 years, I simply stated just here that it was up for renewal in 1 year.
   
   Also the company clearly stated she had a lot of unused vacation time and was granted more as a bonus.
   
   The ASEAN trip was post fact anyhow.

 

[Bryanna]

1. I believe you have mis-read my initial post not all of the items I listed are why she was refused, just nearly the three highlighted in red, nothing transit related and certainly nothing about misrepresenting documents!

Nothing to worry about if that's the case. The fine print/font you used for the TRV refusal excerpt makes it a bit difficult to read. Anyways

 

[dagleykb]

Nothing to worry about if that's the case. The fine print/font you used for the TRV refusal excerpt makes it a bit difficult to read. Anyways

I only did that to contrast my own writing with the document. Thanks, thank you all.

 

[Buletruck]

Sorry for the confusion. I’d definitely post the gcms notes anyway.

 

[dagleykb]

Sorry for the confusion. I’d definitely post the gcms notes anyway.

I will when I get home, thanks.