Is CSQ before the background check or CSQ means that background check already completed?
WARSAW TIMELINE-Join here !!
- Thread starter Diana-Armenian
- Start date
SA means for sponsor's eligibility, not applicant eligibility.
This immigration system, I have no words for this. You go through all the hoops in Sydney worrying about AOR1,SA,Med(your spouse travels to see doc, spends more $$$ and more nervewracking ) then waiting time to transfer to Visa Office...then you endure radio silence from VO for many more months worrying, ordering gcms notes, sending in more docs if asked and worrying they got it or not, analyzing, sleepless nights, crying on phone with spouse, praying, doing remedical if asked again (spend more $$$ and time).....and then BAM out of the blue you might get a letter saying - I'm not satisfied your marriage is genuine...have a nice life.
I mean is this bordering psychological torture?
Yes. Yes it is. The process needs to be more transparent. There needs to be someway to allow spouses to be together while the applications are processing. Most countries in the G7, if not all, have financé visas but Canada. There are easier solutions to this catastrophe of an immigration system.
Yesterday I got two emails saying there are two messages in my account. I got DM a week ago and naively thought it was Pre-Arrival and PPR. No, it was a refusal letter and something about an option of appealing the decision. I was shocked and devastated, well, I still am. The thing is we never received any additional proof request nor PFL nor an interview invitation. The reason of denial is simple. They didn’t believe we’ve lived together for at least one year which is the main thing for CL applications. So these people didn’t even give us a chance to provide more information, explanations, docs, letters, whatever. We recently ordered the notes, received it on September 5th, there were nothing about their concerns about our application. I got DM on around September 9th. We have waited for the decision more than 11 months, stressed out and suffered without each other due to travel restrictions and look what we got. Just wanted to point out that our app had like 200+ pages and a lot of different kind of proofs. We already contacted MP and he said that it would be hard to appeal the decision under a CL application. We are in process to get help from lawyers if they would find our case credible. Prices are terribly expensive! All the lawyers we called said that it’s ridiculous we didn’t receive PFL before refusal. I’m still in denial, thinking it’s just a nightmare, I only need to wake up...Just imagine you happily lived together, traveled together, had fun, spent time in hospital to support one who got there, went shopping together, cooked dinners together, your friends always came over for drinks, you both met your partner’s family, and so on and so on and once you decided you want to continue this but the only possible way is to immigrate to Canada. One day you get a letter saying that a dude didn’t believe you had all of this.
P.S. Thank you again for your kind words and support those who PM me. I really appreciate this. If anyone knows a reputable lawyer or has some thoughts, ideas, please PM me, it’s too painful to discuss this not privately. Thank you for understanding.
P.P.S. I wish those two letters were Pre-Arrival and PPR...
P.S. Thank you again for your kind words and support those who PM me. I really appreciate this. If anyone knows a reputable lawyer or has some thoughts, ideas, please PM me, it’s too painful to discuss this not privately. Thank you for understanding.
P.P.S. I wish those two letters were Pre-Arrival and PPR...
That is ******* preposterous, what kind of visa officers treat human beings in this way?!...
Family class immigration needs a complete overhaul. This is wrong on so many levels, completely unacceptable. Have you tried contacting Warsaw asking if you can provide more proof? There has to be a way to rectify this. I don't understand why they didn't send a procedural fairness letter. I'm so sorry @passenger19
Last edited:
Maybe it looked suspicious to the officer that you have such a great relationship but for some reason never got married?
Have you not considered getting married?
First point, order the GCMS notes today if you haven't done so already. There's a small hope that in those notes you'll find an actual error. (Like they got dates wrong or something)
I have a specific question about what you asked lawyers - which is are there any procedural grounds or processes to challenge the fact that they did not send you the procedural fairness letter. I believe the operating manual/guidelines that are out there say they are supposed to / have to do this. You should also try pushing this with MPs office - it's one thing they didn't believe you but clearly whoever examined your file did it quickly and then didn't even bother to do the PFL. You should have been given that chance. (If your MP raises a stink also a small chance somebody higher up would look at it and ... well magic solutions unlikely but it won't be any worse than what happened)
Next: don't miss the appeal deadline. I think all you have to do is send the form/letter back saying you wish to appeal. You don't want to miss that deadline. (You can always drop it later). I don't think you have to provide more detailed info at that point, that comes later.
Next: lawyers. Try to get a consultation from a lawyer first before even thinking about hiring them for the appeal process. This may cost a couple of hundred dollars. Before you do even the consultation, try to read everything about the appeal process you can. The key point is you don't have to hire a lawyer for the appeal. The first step if I remember correctly is that they can (have to?) offer you an alternative dispute resolution mechanism (basically a meeting where you get a chance to state your case simply and it's possible the IRCC people will just fold on this). If you want lawyers to do everything for you and attend your hearings, it will cost a lot of money. You may be able to make much better use of lawyers for the money if you just get consultations on steps and strategies and do all yourself. Again, you can drop your appeal during the process if you decide it's above what you are able to do yourselves or afford.
The biggest wildcard is how long all of this may take. Scheduling is completely screwed up, like so much other stuff, because of covid.
Another real specific question: can you keep appeal process going while starting a new application? (Not that this would usually make much sense but if you get lucky on appeal..and because timing of all processes are bad now)
If I understand your situation, you're out of country and your spouse in Canada. If it were as simple as meeting up and getting married, you could then just re-apply (leaving your appeal to run or not). With covid, don't know.
Sorry these are kind of not well ordered thoughts but perhaps they help.
I have a specific question about what you asked lawyers - which is are there any procedural grounds or processes to challenge the fact that they did not send you the procedural fairness letter. I believe the operating manual/guidelines that are out there say they are supposed to / have to do this. You should also try pushing this with MPs office - it's one thing they didn't believe you but clearly whoever examined your file did it quickly and then didn't even bother to do the PFL. You should have been given that chance. (If your MP raises a stink also a small chance somebody higher up would look at it and ... well magic solutions unlikely but it won't be any worse than what happened)
Next: don't miss the appeal deadline. I think all you have to do is send the form/letter back saying you wish to appeal. You don't want to miss that deadline. (You can always drop it later). I don't think you have to provide more detailed info at that point, that comes later.
Next: lawyers. Try to get a consultation from a lawyer first before even thinking about hiring them for the appeal process. This may cost a couple of hundred dollars. Before you do even the consultation, try to read everything about the appeal process you can. The key point is you don't have to hire a lawyer for the appeal. The first step if I remember correctly is that they can (have to?) offer you an alternative dispute resolution mechanism (basically a meeting where you get a chance to state your case simply and it's possible the IRCC people will just fold on this). If you want lawyers to do everything for you and attend your hearings, it will cost a lot of money. You may be able to make much better use of lawyers for the money if you just get consultations on steps and strategies and do all yourself. Again, you can drop your appeal during the process if you decide it's above what you are able to do yourselves or afford.
The biggest wildcard is how long all of this may take. Scheduling is completely screwed up, like so much other stuff, because of covid.
Another real specific question: can you keep appeal process going while starting a new application? (Not that this would usually make much sense but if you get lucky on appeal..and because timing of all processes are bad now)
If I understand your situation, you're out of country and your spouse in Canada. If it were as simple as meeting up and getting married, you could then just re-apply (leaving your appeal to run or not). With covid, don't know.
Sorry these are kind of not well ordered thoughts but perhaps they help.
yeah that's what I was thinking too...just get married and reapply, so that these heartless agents have zero excuse to deny. I have no knowledge on appeals, but I think appeal during Covid will take an eon of time.
I think in the immediate that they should still begin the process of appeal while considering options. (As well as pursuing explanation of why there was no PFL, MPs office, etc).
But (to me) this confirms a point we've seen on the board many times: common law status is not so easy. There are specific tests they apply, and some judgment involved about certain aspects like what constitutes a true household, shared financials, etc. And some countries (like Russia) can present additional hurdles - for example joint bank accounts are rare and may be impossible or impractical for foreigners, formal registration often does not correspond to de facto address, etc.
It's still up to each couple whether they have some objection to marriage and really don't want to get married. But make no mistake: applying common law has additional risks of being refused (or PFLs and delays etc).
*caveat that marriage on its own isn't sufficient either, and there may be country or culture specific factors for some applicants that make a simple "civil marriage" problematic vis a vis IRCC. I'm more familiar with Europe/North America where civil marriage and religious/cultural/ceremonial weddings are separate (for Canada often combined in one ceremony with religious officiant acting as an agent of civic authorities but still technically distinct) - ie couples can have a civic marriage and a separate wedding ceremony whenever and wherever they wish.
A useful link is to look at the operational guidelines and operating manual:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html
Relevant to this case:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/non-economic-classes/family-class-decisions.html
If you scroll down you can find the section on refusal. I'm still taking a look.
But (for example) in the section on refusals there is the following section:
"Reconsideration and enquiries after refusal
Applicants or their representatives often submit information after a refusal and request that an officer reconsider the decision. If an office receives a request to reconsider a decision, an officer must consider the request and decide whether or not to exercise their discretion to reconsider the previous decision."
Read carefully, as there is language in there that states such reconsideration is more of an exception. But the officer must consider the request.
But it gives @passenger19 the opportunity to (in parallel to appeal) request the file be looked at again and provide additional information; it's possible also (for example) that MPs office inquiry will mean someone more senior looks at it, and not all reviewing officers will see the same thing. (And like any system, sometimes the squeaky wheel does get the grease). It also makes sense to attempt to provide some additional information, whatever can be found, to respond to the reasons of the determination that you weren't common law. (Even if you think you provided everything, additional information has to be considered)
Another key quote from this same section:
"A (non-exhaustive) list of factors that may be relevant to consider:
Note: I would not get overly 'legalistic' in this, in that I'm not 100% certain that the procedural fairness letter is required by the operations guide, but refer to the principle of procedural fairness, that they certainly could have given the applicant a chance to respond and instead jumped directly to refusal. (Although covid not a direct justification, given delays in processing new applications, appeals, and others, it is particularly unfair and arguably uncompassionate to go direct to refusal in cases where judgment of the reviewing officer was the deciding factor, and not some obvious non-admissibility criteria like actually living together for less than the required 12 months.
I really suggest @passenger19 that you and spouse look at this guide to get insight, for example I'm sure there's a section on evaluating common law and you can buttress your arguments by 'borrowing' language from the guide wherever possible. (I'm going to look myself but I'm not an expert)
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html
Relevant to this case:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/non-economic-classes/family-class-decisions.html
If you scroll down you can find the section on refusal. I'm still taking a look.
But (for example) in the section on refusals there is the following section:
"Reconsideration and enquiries after refusal
Applicants or their representatives often submit information after a refusal and request that an officer reconsider the decision. If an office receives a request to reconsider a decision, an officer must consider the request and decide whether or not to exercise their discretion to reconsider the previous decision."
Read carefully, as there is language in there that states such reconsideration is more of an exception. But the officer must consider the request.
But it gives @passenger19 the opportunity to (in parallel to appeal) request the file be looked at again and provide additional information; it's possible also (for example) that MPs office inquiry will mean someone more senior looks at it, and not all reviewing officers will see the same thing. (And like any system, sometimes the squeaky wheel does get the grease). It also makes sense to attempt to provide some additional information, whatever can be found, to respond to the reasons of the determination that you weren't common law. (Even if you think you provided everything, additional information has to be considered)
Another key quote from this same section:
"A (non-exhaustive) list of factors that may be relevant to consider:
- whether the decision-maker failed to comply with the principles of procedural fairness when the decision was made
- if new evidence is submitted by an applicant, is the evidence based on new facts (i.e. facts that arose after the original decision was made and communicated to the applicant) and is it material and reliable. Decide whether that evidence would be more appropriately considered in the context of a new application"
Note: I would not get overly 'legalistic' in this, in that I'm not 100% certain that the procedural fairness letter is required by the operations guide, but refer to the principle of procedural fairness, that they certainly could have given the applicant a chance to respond and instead jumped directly to refusal. (Although covid not a direct justification, given delays in processing new applications, appeals, and others, it is particularly unfair and arguably uncompassionate to go direct to refusal in cases where judgment of the reviewing officer was the deciding factor, and not some obvious non-admissibility criteria like actually living together for less than the required 12 months.
I really suggest @passenger19 that you and spouse look at this guide to get insight, for example I'm sure there's a section on evaluating common law and you can buttress your arguments by 'borrowing' language from the guide wherever possible. (I'm going to look myself but I'm not an expert)