Poor people. I feel sorry for them and I hope he can find a good lawyer in Regina!
Thanks for the link wongn!
This story dovetails precisely into the other thread about changes to the law itself (substantive law embedded in the budget, which was similar to a tactic perfected by the Bush admin in the U.S. -- attaching changes to law in legislation that practically would be very difficult to vote down) and is a pretty good indicator of the direction things are headed.
Part of this proposed change, though, may be because of appeals relying on the Canadian Court's ruling that technically it did not matter if the "motive" or purpose for the marriage was to facilitate attaining PR status in Canada if the marriage was otherwise "genuine." In practice, as everyone has long known, CIC tended to look at the motive, this motive in particular, and rule on the genuineness of the marriage based in part on it . . . in other words, a so-called "marriage of convenience" entered into so that a person could get into Canada was "not genuine" and did not qualify for spousal sponsorship. The Court ruled this was wrong. That CIC should FIRST determine if the marriage is genuine and only then, ONLY IF THE MARRIAGE WAS NOT GENUINE, could it ask whether it was entered into for the purpose of obtaining PR status in Canada. And BOTH conditions had to exist in order to refuse an applicant based on not qualifying for spousal sponsorship. (In practice, obviously, if CIC perceived gaining status in Canada was a motive to marry, that tended to prove a MOC, not a genuine relationship -- and I suspect there has been a flood of appeals of these decisions based on the high Court's decision a couple years ago.)
The CTV article suggests a different reasoning, which also may be part of it . . . i.e. that CIC (in this administration) is looking for ways to be more selective.
Quote:The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act currently states that a spouse can be denied entry to Canada if the union "is not genuine and was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the act."
"The policy change that's under consideration is to change the 'and' to an 'or', so that either of those criteria would be the basis for consideration as opposed to both of them," said Karen Shadd, a spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Immigration officials would be able to subjectively determine a marriage was not genuine, without having to also make a case on the motives for the union. For instance, a marriage based on dowry -- not permanent residency -- could be rejected.
I think on this the article may be accurate (although I think their example may not be), and it is only slightly different than what I think the primary reason was . . . but not as important as the primary reason (my opinion) which is that with this change, they can look at the motive and deny PR status based on that alone (not vice versa, as the article suggests).
A KEY to this, though, is the impact of changing just one word. This is also true for the impact of the broad new discretionary power CIC has under the recent changes to the law. It is clear, there is some intent to stem the tide of spousal class immigration. How much, to what effect, and so on, still to be determined.
A background note: I suspect that the explosion of international relationships facilitated by the Internet in the last decade has had a huge impact on the net numbers of spousal sponsorship applicants seeking PR in Canada. The dramatic drop in overseas telephone costs likewise has probably had an impact. How much are the proposed (perhaps already partially implemented in practice) changes a response to the burgeoning numbers?
I agree that 2 yrs of translated letters is not a proof of genuine marriage.I might be harsh but I've been living with mu husband under the same roof for 3 years , we have 2 babies,we have everything together , a life shared every minut and still it took 2yrs and half for CIC to aprove our marriage as genuine.You need more than letters to prove your marriage .
in some cases, an applicant would not qualify for immigration any other way than by having a Canadian vouch for them. That is really what this is. A Canadian using their status to allow someone else in the country. In a perfect world, people would not abuse that opportunity but unfortunately, our world is not perfect and there is much to gain by having Canadian PR status.
I am in a situation where I am in a long term legitimate relationship and I know darn well that CIC would toss out our application in a heart beat or I would be fighting in an appeal court. So we have gone the skilled worker route to avoid the agony. The process takes twice as long but he will be arriving on his own merits and we will not have to endure CIC's scrutiny.
Having been around this immigration stuff for a while, I would strongly favour the US system. Conditional PR for 2 years after landing.
There is a difference between marriage fraud (and so far as I can discern, the gov't isn't releasing any concrete numbers, if they even have any) and marriages with limited prospects for success. My impression is that the "marriage fraud" problem is not nearly as great as some cry -- there are so many other, cheaper, easier, faster, more reliable ways to get around immigration limitations if one is willing to engage in fraud.
On the other hand, I don't doubt that a lot of international marriages are a long shot (marrying the next door sweet heart seems to be a long shot) that do not last long. The "conditional" PR status would address this issue, but it also raises a wide range of other issues -- not the least of which is the profoundly disadvantaged position the immigrant spouse is then in during the conditional period, which is fertile ground for extreme abuse. Enforcement expense is no slight matter either.
I recognize that it is not just about stemming the tide of undeserving, unqualified applicants, but about maintaining a reasonably prompt process for legitimate, deserving family members -- that even a relatively small number of "fraud" cases can tend to skewer the allocation of resources in CIC and slow everyone down.
Not easy policy decisions. But, frankly, I suspect the current government is interested in feeding big business a larger (and in turn, less expensive) work force at the expense of family class immigration (and also at the expense of the current work force), and that this latest proposal is an extension of their effort to wield far greater discretion toward that end.
While I agree that it is a good idea to demand a sustained level of commitment in a relationship before recognizing it as one qualifying for sponsored immigration, the realities of people escaping loneliness and finding life partners via the Internet should not be denied. If a person with permanent status in Canada is willing to sponsor someone as a spouse, their choice should be respected so long as the evidence supports a genuine effort and commitment to one another. Canadians should be encouraged to be responsible and cautious before sponsoring someone, but not discouraged from finding love and companionship.
Seems to me that any basis for immigration into Canada will subject the applicant to extensive screening by CIC. The focus for skilled workers is education, work history, and other qualifications, rather than their familial/marital relationship . . . but otherwise, one has to undergo a lot of the same background, medical, and security scrutiny.
I had a client in the US who was being beaten and abused on a daily basis by her husband but refused to get help until her 2 years were up. She viewed it like an indentured servitude. That's one divorce I didn't charge for.