Ungenuine marriage vs marriage of convenience

[mikeymyke]

New rules are that a VO can refuse an application if the marriage is not genuine OR was entered to gain status (convenience), meaning if either one of the two applies, the application will be refused.

What's the difference between the two? Can you give an example of a non genuine marriage that was not done to gain status, or a genuine marriage that is used to gain status?

 

[Melisaa]

New rules are that a VO can refuse an application if the marriage is not genuine OR was entered to gain status (convenience), meaning if either one of the two applies, the application will be refused.

What's the difference between the two? Can you give an example of a non genuine marriage that was not done to gain status, or a genuine marriage that is used to gain status?

The ungenuine relationship means the couple either common low, conjugal, or spouse have not combined their affairs well enough, they are not aware of each anothers details of life, do not have continous contact or ongoing relationship, etc... For instance if a common law applicant couple are in a MARRIAGE- LIKE relationship, as CIC refers to it, and that they are merely typical girlfriend- boyfriend, or fiance per say, CIC sees the relationship not genuine enough.

Marriage of convenience means either both persons or only one of them is entering a relationship/ getting married for obtaining PR status. In many cases fraud is involved, usually from the applicant side without the sponsor's knowledge. They begin a relationship, and once they get admitted to Canada they leave the sponsor, but with new conditional PR law, this is no longer an easy option.

 

[scos]

From what I have read it seems to deal with whether one or both parties are committed to the relationship. So lets say one person pays another to marry and then they try to apply as a married couple that would be ungeniune. Both parties know the marriage is a sham just for immigration purposes. After arriving they have a quick painless divorce, whatever remaining payment is made, and go their own ways.

In a ons-sided marriage (one that is being used to gain status) only the partner trying to get status knows the marriage is a sham. The other partner believes the marriage to be real and may have real feelings and commitments tied up into the marriage. This is your typical marriage fraud where the spouse skips out soon after arriving in Canada leaving the other partner devastated.

From: Keo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2011 FC 1456, the Federal Court

A marriage might have been entered into in accordance with all of the statutory formalities, but, nonetheless, the visa officer or the panel may refuse to recognize [it] if they find that the marriage did not occur in “good faith”, even if the expression “non-genuine marriage” is not used in their reasons for decision… In fact, what the immigration laws do not recognize are situations where the two spouses are complicit to duplicity (a non-genuine marriage) and/or where the intention of the spouses or of one of the spouses is primarily to acquire a status or privilege (even if the other partner may benefit from it). In other jurisdictions, these unions are sometimes described as “sham” or “white” marriages, whereas in Canada, the manual.. uses the expression “marriage of convenience”.

In the matter at bar, the Immigration Appeal Division did not explicitly take issue with the evidence of the genuineness of the marriage, but concluded that for both spouses (although to a greater extent for the applicant’s husband) the marriage was primarily entered into for the purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Act. In other words, the IAD viewed the marriage (or the relationship) as being one-sided. The applicant subscribed to an insurance policy in which she designated her husband as the beneficiary, she visited her husband several times in Mexico and paid for all of her expenses, she paid for a trip with her husband and his son, she sends him money on a monthly basis, she pays his bills, etc.