Urgent!!!

[canuck_in_uk]

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 .

Yes, because the fact that I've never needed to contact an MP means I don't know what they can and can't do. Very logical.

Have you ever had an application refused for being an MOC and then had the app re-opened by the MP's office? Oh, you haven't? Well, thanks for clearing that up...

 

[profiler]

Have you ever had an application refused for being an MOC and then had the app re-opened by the MP's office? Oh, you haven't? Well, thanks for clearing that up...

Interesting that you've drawn that conclusion without all the details. Bit irresponsible of you to do that.

 

[jeffporfirio1]

I would be hard-pressed to believe that an MP can change a decision already made by a CIC official, it sounds like something that can happen in a third world country, where having "connections" in government can get you favors, not likely to happen in Canada.
Can an MP get you more information on your case? probably.
Can they get your case reversed? not a chance.
Anyways, OPs case is most probably immigration fraud.

Good luck though

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Interesting that you've drawn that conclusion without all the details. Bit irresponsible of you to do that.

I found all the necessary details to draw that conclusion from reading your previous posts. My conclusion is based on your own words. Have you lied?

 

[profiler]

I found all the necessary details to draw that conclusion from reading your previous posts. My conclusion is based on your own words. Have you lied?

I was speaking about what you've stated regarding MOC -- what would that have anything to do with the OP's situation? Moreover, your insinuation of same. That insinuation, be it the truth or not, is an irresponsible thing to assume. And that's the truth.

 

[Rob_TO]

If it was me personally, I would take what the officer said as a personal attack, and I would make the MP very aware that I don't appreciate the insinuation from a government official that I was committing fraud.

It's not a personal attack. In practically all cases where a PR app is refused, there is no direct proof of a MOC. It's the visa officer seeing red flags that causes them to suspect a MOC and then make a final decision based on their suspicions. For this reason many genuine couples are refused, simply because their real relationship had too many red flags. Creating a process that would be 100% foolproof (so only reject actual MOCs and never reject a genuine couple) is impossible.

If visa officers weren't allowed to insinuate people were committing fraud, then there would be no more rejections of a family class PR app, ever. There are some interview stories I've read in which the visa officer is outright aggressive and hostile from the beginning, refusing to even listen to the applicant. From how it was described here, that doesn't seem to be the case and while the visa officer may reach the wrong conclusion, it didn't seem like they acted inappropriately.

 

[Rob_TO]

Are these interviews video recorded? Sorry out of topic, just curious.

I don't think so, as all info is in written form on case notes. Stories I've heard are just from people describing the interview.

 

[browning911]

What I do not get is how a decision like that can be made about someone else's life without the officer being 100% sure this is fraud. IMHO, if you cannot find definitive evidence how can you decide that this relationship is not real.

I understand that they have the right but I feel like unless you "catch" them, for example, you interview someone who is a friend/family/work colleague and the person says they have never told them they were married (outland application) or if you pay a home visit and there is just one person's life at the residence (inland application).

But those so called "red flags" like age difference, mixed race, mixed religion, elope and get married, actually happen. Each of us in our lives have seen genuine couples with these so called red flags.

I cannot fathom how someone feels 100% comfortable making a decision on someone's future.

 

[TANMEX]

What I do not get is how a decision like that can be made about someone else's life without the officer being 100% sure this is fraud. IMHO, if you cannot find definitive evidence how can you decide that this relationship is not real.

I understand that they have the right but I feel like unless you "catch" them, for example, you interview someone who is a friend/family/work colleague and the person says they have never told them they were married (outland application) or if you pay a home visit and there is just one person's life at the residence (inland application).

But those so called "red flags" like age difference, mixed race, mixed religion, elope and get married, actually happen. Each of us in our lives have seen genuine couples with these so called red flags.

I cannot fathom how someone feels 100% comfortable making a decision on someone's future.

Race , Religion , age difference are not red flags , people here in the forum called it red flag , I don't know where they got that from .
you can be from the same race , age group , same religion and same country and be a big red flag and fraud .

The Real red flags are misrepresentation and the lack of evidence .

 

[jeffporfirio1]

What I do not get is how a decision like that can be made about someone else's life without the officer being 100% sure this is fraud. IMHO, if you cannot find definitive evidence how can you decide that this relationship is not real.

I understand that they have the right but I feel like unless you "catch" them, for example, you interview someone who is a friend/family/work colleague and the person says they have never told them they were married (outland application) or if you pay a home visit and there is just one person's life at the residence (inland application).

But those so called "red flags" like age difference, mixed race, mixed religion, elope and get married, actually happen. Each of us in our lives have seen genuine couples with these so called red flags.

I cannot fathom how someone feels 100% comfortable making a decision on someone's future.

I feel immigration officers are like "the ultimate judges", there is no "burden of proof".
It's like the opposite of regular courts/judges, you are ineligible (guilty/lying) until you prove otherwise 100% without a reasonable doubt.

I imagine it's a very difficult job, you have to be constantly doubting everything and everyone, everyone is lying, until they prove otherwise without a doubt.

But as a Canadian, I'm thankful for the job they do, as they screen those that have no business immigrating to Canada.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I was speaking about what you've stated regarding MOC -- what would that have anything to do with the OP's situation? Moreover, your insinuation of same. That insinuation, be it the truth or not, is an irresponsible thing to assume. And that's the truth.

The truth is that OP and spouse have massive red flags and unless they have withheld pertinent information, the refusal is most likely under IRPA R4(1), a marriage was entered into for the purpose of status or is not genuine, i.e. an MOC. I haven't stated that their marriage is an MOC. However, from what information they have provided, it can be reasonably inferred that IRCC has determined it to be such.


The truth is that you made this statement:

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

You can post other things, question my statements and dodge around it as much as you want but that is what you said and it was an irresponsible thing to say.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

But those so called "red flags" like age difference, mixed race, mixed religion, elope and get married, actually happen. Each of us in our lives have seen genuine couples with these so called red flags.

I cannot fathom how someone feels 100% comfortable making a decision on someone's future.

Yes, many genuine couples have red flags. They need to properly address them in the app and have solid proof of a genuine relationship to overcome the red flags. Many do this successfully and don't even get called for interviews.

As Rob said above, it is impossible to make a foolproof system, so a VO must look at the balance of probabilities when making a decision. Sometimes that decision is wrong and that is very unfortunate but that is how the system weeds out the non-genuine couples.

 

[jeffporfirio1]

The truth is that OP and spouse have massive red flags and unless they have withheld pertinent information, the refusal is most likely under IRPA R4(1), a marriage was entered into for the purpose of status or is not genuine, i.e. an MOC. I haven't stated that their marriage is an MOC. However, from what information they have provided, it can be reasonably inferred that IRCC has determined it to be such.


The truth is that you made this statement:

You can post other things, question my statements and dodge around it as much as you want but that is what you said and it was an irresponsible thing to say.

Very true.
Add to that, we don't know if money has changed hands between applicant and sponsor, plus the Sponsor has a history of marrying people on a whim and sponsoring whilst later divorcing them. Major Red flag, repeat offender or as Russians say "compulsive marrier"

 

[TANMEX]

Very true.
Add to that, we don't know if money has changed hands between applicant and sponsor, plus the Sponsor has a history of marrying people on a whim and sponsoring whilst later divorcing them. Major Red flag, repeat offender or as Russians say "compulsive marrier"

what else do the Russians say LOL .

 

[jeffporfirio1]

what else do the Russians say LOL .

ohh..Russians say many things..Russians are wise people