Urgent!!!

[soblue3]

I have my appointment next week with my mp, it's the earliest I could get in. And believe me I will make it very very clear that the insinuation that I'm committing fraud from a government official is completely wrong and absolutely unacceptable thank you very much for this advice

Tamineka, its good you going to see the mp and immigration consultant. Your next step is to reapply or file and appeal. Dont despair.. most people who file appeals win. If your relationship is genuine you will win just it may take a little time.

 

[profiler]

Without trying to rub salt into a wound you are right. The mp does not have any special authority to reopen the case. Telling people that is not correct and misleading. The mp can only ask that they are sure they followed all procedures.

Not entirely true. The MP has the ability to raise the issue directly with the Minister of Immigration. There are other avenues they can explore within the framework of Parliament. So, the inference was not that the MP can directly re-open the case, but they certainly have the ability to get more done, than a consultant or a lawyer normally would.

 

[canadalover4987]

This is very interesting topic. I learn something from this. I really hope that everything goes well to you should you decide for an appeal. Pray and trust that your goal will happen it may take longer but it will happen. Think that there are other tougher situations compare to you.

In your case, you got an opportunity to get married and you did.

In my case i applied for a conjugal application because we cannot get married since same sex marriage in not allowed in my partner country. We tried getting Visitors visa for my partner but was denied in Canada and US. We cannot go into common law too because we think its discriminatory. Im a Canadian citizen and my partner is a trangender woman from the Philippines. Common law for both heterosexual couples and same sex is not recognize and supported by their country. Currently im wondering what would be my options if my application for my partner is denied. (I discussed this on my thread) So i know exactly how you feel. Dont feel despair. Have a strong faith for one another.

You see, yours are much easier. I know that you got to prove that your marriage is genuine. And i have all the confidence that you can prove it with rights documents. Follow what you think is right.

Smile and dont worry. God is good all the times.

 

[jomz]

Not entirely true. The MP has the ability to raise the issue directly with the Minister of Immigration. There are other avenues they can explore within the framework of Parliament. So, the inference was not that the MP can directly re-open the case, but they certainly have the ability to get more done, than a consultant or a lawyer normally would.

An MP can only intervene if there was an administrative error which led to the refusal. A refusal based on the officer believing the marriage is a MOC is not an administrative error, it's a decision based on facts in front of the officer. The Sponsor can appeal the decision with IRB and that's pretty much the only option aside from reapplying. I personally know many people who dealt with the Rabat visa officers, including my husband and refusals are common if the following conditions are present:

Mixed marriage
Moroccan male applicant younger than the sponsor
Applicant never married and sponsor divorced or with kids from prior relationships
Met online
Little time spent in person before marriage
No proper traditional wedding ceremony (Moroccan weddings are really big)
Sponsor's culture different than that of applicant
Sponsor's religion different than that of applicant or sponsor converted to applicants religion just for marriage purposes but don't share the same religious views

 

[Tamineka]

If the information is wrong, then that insinuation is actually pretty serious. As I suggested, the MP would know that, and, if there is legitimate proof to the contrary, the MP can sort that out. If they have proof, and the OP does not have proof to the contrary, that's a different story. Understood it's their job, but crossing the line is crossing the line. Sounds like they did to me.

As I said, MP can sort it out. I would be requesting GCMS notes today as well.

What are gcms notes and how do I request them

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Not entirely true. The MP has the ability to raise the issue directly with the Minister of Immigration. There are other avenues they can explore within the framework of Parliament. So, the inference was not that the MP can directly re-open the case, but they certainly have the ability to get more done, than a consultant or a lawyer normally would.

An MP can contact IRCC and request an app be re-opened in situations such as a mistake by IRCC or a miscommunication between IRCC and the applicant.

However, in this case, the couple has numerous HUGE red flags (and given that they haven't shared much about themselves, there may very well be more) that form a very solid basis for the refusal. The MP will not be able to get their app re-opened but may assist in the appeal process.

What are gcms notes and how do I request them

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/index.asp

GCMS notes will show the details of how your application was processed.

 

[profiler]

An MP can only intervene if there was an administrative error which led to the refusal. A refusal based on the officer believing the marriage is a MOC is not an administrative error, it's a decision based on facts in front of the officer. The Sponsor can appeal the decision with IRB and that's pretty much the only option aside from reapplying. I personally know many people who dealt with the Rabat visa officers, including my husband and refusals are common if the following conditions are present:

Mixed marriage
Moroccan male applicant younger than the sponsor
Applicant never married and sponsor divorced or with kids from prior relationships
Met online
Little time spent in person before marriage
No proper traditional wedding ceremony (Moroccan weddings are really big)
Sponsor's culture different than that of applicant
Sponsor's religion different than that of applicant or sponsor converted to applicants religion just for marriage purposes but don't share the same religious views

Actually, it's the job of the MP to represent the constituent in any matter where the constituent believes there is a problem. That's what pays their salary. And it's for anything relating to federal agencies and laws. If they did not represent the person as requested, they can be "fired". When you request assistance, you'll find they provide lots of proof how they worked for you. That's the tules of Parliament. You may want to check them out.

In our personal case, they became involved even before a DM. And they still are. No administrative error, as there is no DM.

 

[profiler]

An MP can contact IRCC and request an app be re-opened in situations such as a mistake by IRCC or a miscommunication between IRCC and the applicant.

However, in this case, the couple has numerous HUGE red flags (and given that they haven't shared much about themselves, there may very well be more) that form a very solid basis for the refusal. The MP will not be able to get their app re-opened but may assist in the appeal process.


http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/index.asp

GCMS notes will show the details of how your application was processed.

Interesting the response focuses on the statement regarding re-opening. However, see my comment above. I will point out, that it's their job to represent the constituent. And the direct statement I made was to listen to their advice carefully.

 

[jomz]

Interesting the response focuses on the statement regarding re-opening. However, see my comment above. I will point out, that it's their job to represent the constituent. And the direct statement I made was to listen to their advice carefully.

Their file is considered closed as a decision has been made. Their file will not be processed further therefore this is why we would be referring to re opening. And as mentioned before, to reopen a refused file with assistance of an MP can happen if there was an administrative error ie application denied because visa office didn't get additional documents they may have asked for and the applicant/sponsor did not receive the request due to wrong address recorded by CIC.

In the case of OP and sponsor their only avenue of recourse is an appeal with IRB or taking chances and re-applying.

Yes MPs work for us, however they cannot influence decisions made by visa officers. They can assist in getting information, helping in getting response from visa office on behalf of the sponsor, escalating file if visa office is outside of processing times.

 

[profiler]

Their file is considered closed as a decision has been made. Their file will not be processed further therefore this is why we would be referring to re opening. And as mentioned before, to reopen a refused file with assistance of an MP can happen if there was an administrative error ie application denied because visa office didn't get additional documents they may have asked for and the applicant/sponsor did not receive the request due to wrong address recorded by CIC.

In the case of OP and sponsor their only avenue of recourse is an appeal with IRB or taking chances and re-applying.

Yes MPs work for us, however they cannot influence decisions made by visa officers. They can assist in getting information, helping in getting response from visa office on behalf of the sponsor, escalating file if visa office is outside of processing times.

If you look at your GCMS notes, there is a section for Ministerial Directives. That's for directions from the Deputy Minister up to the top. Those can override officer decisions.

Not that I am suggesting they are commonly used. It's pretty hard to get a directive. However, there is only one place you are going to get one, and really only one way to get it.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

The MP likely can have the case re-opened and re-examined.

Interesting the response focuses on the statement regarding re-opening. However, see my comment above. I will point out, that it's their job to represent the constituent. And the direct statement I made was to listen to their advice carefully.

I have quoted your statement I was responding to. I focused on that particular statement because it was irresponsible advice and really, just plain mean to get their hopes up the their app will "likely" be re-opened.

I wanted to make sure that OP understood that their MP will not be able to get the case re-opened.

Regarding the role of the MP in helping constituents, I'll point out that I never stated anything to the contrary and said that the MP's office may be able to help with the appeal.

 

[profiler]

I have quoted your statement I was responding to. I focused on that particular statement because it was irresponsible advice and really, just plain mean to get their hopes up the their app will "likely" be re-opened.

Good to know. Thanks for that. By the way, when was the last time you contacted your MP out of curiosity??

 

[browning911]

Thank you so much. I just got off the phone with the office and my appointment is next Tuesday at 11. I also have an appointment At an immigration consultant for a conciltation tomorrow at 12:30 to see what all my options are. I will be preparing for my appointment with my mp all this week. Thank you so much I hope he can help

Best of luck to you! Please let us know how it goes.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Good to know. Thanks for that. By the way, when was the last time you contacted your MP out of curiosity??

I have never had any real need to contact my MP.

 

[profiler]

I have never had any real need to contact my MP.

Hey good to know. So you're not sure what they can do for you actually. I have recently been in contact with them regarding an ATIP matter, and they explained what they can do WRT CIC.

Perfect. Thanks for clearing that up .