Why is this bad?

[mikeymyke]

http://visalawcanada.blogspot.ca/2013/04/inconsistencies-doom-sponsorship.html

VO refused application, one of the reasons was that the evidence she provided to the interview seemed to be "for the purpose of a PR application", so why would that be a bad thing? Aren't we all preparing our proofs for that same purpose?

24 Finally, the Officer noted the correspondence between Ms. Tong and Mr. Wang, as well as telephone bills indicating calls from Ms. Tong to Mr. Wang while on training. The records begin in 2010 and conclude with the permanent residency application in May of 2011. The Officer concluded that:



· ... the evidence of their relationship has been purposely kept in such fashion as to be presented for the specific purpose of a permanent residency application.

 

[NicAnn]

Hi Mikeymyke,

If the emphasis is on wanting to have permanent residency it will look like all they are interested in is residing in Canada. They want to be sure that you want to be with your husband/wife wherever he or she is. The emphasis is what may have been wrong. It may seem like a minor point, but not for the officers who have dealt with people who forged or staged stuff just to live in Canada.

 

[Luckyman]

According to that.... The records ended at the time of PR application.

So that's bad. Did they ask for extra proofs?
At time of interview the most important thing is maintained contact... Not contact before application.

 

[McDutch]

Yeah, the program is intended to "Be with your loved one who happens to be Canadian" not "Find a loved one in Canada so you can move there"

 

[papirico]

It's bad because it means in the eyes of the official, they are trying to obtain PR for convenience purposes.
It's called misrepresentation.

 

[Farfelu]

It's bad because it means in the eyes of the official, they are trying to obtain PR for convenience purposes.
It's called misrepresentation.

Ditto. Sufficient grounds for refusal.

 

[Rob_TO]

http://visalawcanada.blogspot.ca/2013/04/inconsistencies-doom-sponsorship.html

VO refused application, one of the reasons was that the evidence she provided to the interview seemed to be "for the purpose of a PR application", so why would that be a bad thing? Aren't we all preparing our proofs for that same purpose?

I think you need to read the whole case. There were lies and inconsistencies throughout the entire thing, by both applicant and sponsor. So the above statements is probably not so significant on it's own, but taken into account with the massive amount of other red flags... and it turns into a key point.

 

[gsize]

will you appeal ?

 

[mikeymyke]

Hahah, this is not me