spousal sponsorship

[Riley Haas]

Of course I can only speculate. This is all the more true because you are always asking hypothetical questions.

There is IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which you can read here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/
There are operations manuals.
And then there is the peculiar fact of Canadian law that not every eventuality is spelled out. It's not like the US. And so things are left up to interpretation.
The denial would be based on all of these things.

 

[richard.williams]

so if the deciding officer said no then where would someone go about finding from what manual or handbook their decision was finally based upon? would it be something in writing assuming we could even call it that at best???????? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

I have not seen a rejection or an Access to Information request about a rejection so I couldn't tell you that

 

[richard.williams]

but lets assume that my assumption is correct, where in writing then would the officers notes/denial be found in guidelines? i understand what youre saying about things being left to interpretation but im referring to things that can be looked up in writing as to base that officers final decision. rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

The notes wouldn't be in the guidelines. The notes are made wherever their made (I don't remember the new name of the system) and you can see them with an access to information request, if they aren't made public with the rejection.
The guidelines can be found by googling the operations manual.

 

[richard.williams]

so regardless of what the reason why the appeal would be denied then there would be something to backup that officers final decision then and in writing to your knowledge or opinion????????????????????? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

I really, really doubt that an officer would deny an application without having a basis in the law and standard operating procedure. I can't fathom why that would happen.

 

[richard.williams]

if someone told you that they would give you their word, wouldnt you want that in writing than just verbal or oral without any other proof? if any officer denies the appeal that were talking about im almost certain that there would be some law or guideline that would back him or her up on this one, does this make sense and in writing. im talking about the law here and nothing else. look at this, https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2013/04/29/marriage_fraud_canadian_immigration_officials_tread_thin_line.html

However, the officer also wrote: ?(The wife) is the second of six children; the elder sibling is married, but the younger ones would be dependent children of her parents. This provides a potential benefit for the family, were a child to become a permanent resident of Canada.?

this is what i mean about the officers notes, would his notes be done accordingly some guidelines or rules in some handbook or manual or government regulations?

its like saying interracial dating between men and women is taboo, but where in the law does it say this then just for the sake of argument then? is this now making sense? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

I am guessing The Star did an Access to Information request here.

The officers have to follow the rules. Can you be a little more direct in your specific question?

 

[richard.williams]

ok, this, However, the officer also wrote: ?(The wife) is the second of six children; the elder sibling is married, but the younger ones would be dependent children of her parents. This provides a potential benefit for the family, were a child to become a permanent resident of Canada.?

were in writing in a handbook/manual/guidelines were the officer be basing his decision then? do i need to be even more specific then? where can his decision be found in writing in law? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

I doubt that this is referencing IRPA, but rather an operation manual. Try googling "IRCC operations manual spousal sponsorship" or something like that.

 

[Riley Haas]

In fact, here they all are: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/

 

[richard.williams]

i guess what im driving at here is this. obviously the officer has the final say even if its assuming that an appeal has been denied. its kind of like playing a game of cards you know like spades where we dont know what cards the officer has vs. our cards, does this make sense? kind of like someone having the answers to a written exam for a drivers license who is cheating vs. someone who doesnt. rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

No, if you appeal (if you are eligible to appeal), someone else makes the decision. I don't believe it's the same officer who initially made a decision on the file.

 

[richard.williams]

it seems to me that if an officer, any officer feels that the marriage is not legit even if its only suspicion then they will deny the spousal sponsorship application, but shouldnt they have like substantiating evidence to back up what they feel is not right in the marriage? it comes across that if an officer can come up with an excuse and not a valid, legit reason thats good enough at least by canadian standards to deny the application. shouldnt the burden of proof be on the officer and vice versa on the applicants if the officers feels that he has something to complain about regarding that particular marriage? some flaw to find? sometimes i think that the officer making the final decision is like watching a game of poker cards on tv where you know youre cards but not the other guys cards which would be the officers king vs. your queen assuming he has the upper hand in any given case! rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

it seems to me that if an officer, any officer feels that the marriage is not legit even if its only suspicion then they will deny the spousal sponsorship application, but shouldn't they have like substantiating evidence to back up what they feel is not right in the marriage?

You are correct about the suspicion part. But the burden is on the applicants to prove the situation, not the other way around.

t comes across that if an officer can come up with an excuse and not a valid, legit reason thats good enough at least by canadian standards to deny the application.

Why would someone do this? Anyway, this is why there is an appeal process.

shouldnt the burden of proof be on the officer and vice versa on the applicants if the officers feels that he has something to complain about regarding that particular marriage?

Why should the burden of proof be on the officer to prove that your marriage is a marriage of convenience? I don't understand that.

 

[richard.williams]

have you ever seen poker on cable tv where there are people playing cards just to see who has king and who doesnt? well between the applicants and the officer/s it exactly that! the main problem i see here is not knowing if the officer has a king and i have a queen instead assuming that is to be the case! rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

That analogy makes no sense. This is not a poker game.
If you were in a real relationship with a Canadian citizen and a permanent resident, you would be able to document that relationship. If you provide that documentation to the officer, they should not have reason to suspect its a relationship of convenience. Where people get into trouble is when they think they don't need to provide evidence, or they forget to, or they otherwise omit evidence, or the evidence is inconsistent (for example, claiming a marriage date in your letter which is not the date of the marriage certificate). That's why applications get rejected. It's not because the officer is trying to one-up the applicants somehow.

 

[richard.williams]

so then is there really a black box or not like in this link, http://canadianimmigrant.ca/slider/a-rare-look-inside-the-black-box-of-canada-immigration-marriage-fraud or not? does the officer makes a final decision based on a black box or is it just intuitive thinking? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

The article is not saying there is a "black box" that is being used (whatever that even means...). The use of the term "black box" means that the reasons for rejection are not made explicitly clear, that's all. And that's what I've been saying to you. They do not tell you why usually unless you petition for the notes. But the reason to reject an application is usually because they believe the marriage only exists to get the non-Canadian into Canada.