spousal sponsorship

[richard.williams]

do you remember the case about a couple from either india or pakistan that i showed you where the officers notes said that he felt that the marriage was fake because he felt that they might end up sponsoring more people from their countries of origin? if this is the case then shouldnt the officers notes be backed up by something in writing which in turn is being backed up by immigration law and in writing? its like your word against mine and vice versa but in writing things kind of change now assuming that whats in writing can be backed up by law! even if what the officer wrote in that case is true, what backs up his decision assuming it can be found in writing then? its kind of like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggravated_felony it clearly tells you what are the deportable offenses and in writing. i have to assume that any officers notes would be backed up by something that can be found online at least................... rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

do you remember the case about a couple from either india or pakistan that i showed you where the officers notes said that he felt that the marriage was fake because he felt that they might end up sponsoring more people from their countries of origin?

No, I don't. But there's a limited number of people any one person can sponsor, so I'm not sure how that would have happened anyway.

if this is the case then shouldnt the officers notes be backed up by something in writing which in turn is being backed up by immigration law and in writing?

To an extent, but the officer has discretion under the law, and intuition can be a reason, though it can be challenged in an appeal, if an appeal is allowed for a given case.

its like your word against mine and vice versa

No, it's not. I don't know how I can be more clear about this.

The US has a different approach to law than in Canada, and that's just something you'll have to accept. In the US, to try to write parts of their laws for every eventuality that can be foreseen. That's not what happens in Canada. In Canada, we allow that we cannot foresee every eventuality and allow for interpretation. It's just the way it is.

 

[richard.williams]

then it seems to me that the officer will always have the upper hand in any given case even when its a genuine marriage! this is what i mean, 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.?

where could i find this officers notes in some operations manual even if youre saying that its under the law and at his discretion because even at that it has got to be based on intuition but based on something? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

then it seems to me that the officer will always have the upper hand in any given case even when its a genuine marriage!

Richard, for the nth time, the burden of proof is on the applicants. It is not about who has the upper hand or who doesn't. It's not a fight. If you were in a legitimate relationship with a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, the burden would be on the both of you to prove this. Accept this. It is reality. It may not be reality when you are finally eligible to immigrate (provided you've legitimately got a relationship with a Canadian person, which would definitely be doubted, given your 18 pages of posts about this on a public forum...) but it is reality now. Okay? I don't know how else to explain this to you. The burden of proof is on the applicants. It's just the way it is.

where could i find this officers notes in some operations manual even if youre saying that its under the law and at his discretion because even at that it has got to be based on intuition but based on something?

Officer notes are not the operations manual and vice versa. The officer has the law and whatever current operations manuals are applicable. They use their discretion to make a decision. The application is refused or approved. They make notes during this process. That's the end of it. Reframing your question yet again is not going to change my answer or reality.

 

[richard.williams]

so basically what youre saying is that its the officers discretion to do as they see fit when they feel something isnt right in a particular marriage that theyre analyzing? the officer is given leeway to make this their call basically. how many marriages are initially denied in your opinion percentage wise? it doesnt have to be something in writing and in law for the officer to feel that there maybe something fishy about a marriage then? the officers discretion is something apart from the law then? i think i get your point in this case. its one of those things that are interpreted on a case by case basis and even then it might now be something be clear cut. the officers discretion doesnt have to be based on a clear cut or cut and dried immigration law, am i right? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

so basically what youre saying is that its the officers discretion to do as they see fit when they feel something isnt right in a particular marriage that theyre analyzing?

It's not "as they see fit," it's in accordance with the law and the operations manual(s), which allows them to use their judgment.

how many marriages are initially denied in your opinion percentage wise?

I have no idea. I read somewhere that it was as high as 50% for some countries back in 2009, but no idea what it is now.

it doesnt have to be something in writing and in law for the officer to feel that there maybe something fishy about a marriage then?

Exactly: they are given the discretion within the law to decide if something doesn't seem right. That's what the operations manual is for.

the officers discretion is something apart from the law then?

It's an interpretation of the law.

its one of those things that are interpreted on a case by case basis and even then it might now be something be clear cut. the officers discretion doesnt have to be based on a clear cut or cut and dried immigration law, am i right?

Yes, it's completely case by case basis, which is why nobody can answer hypotheticals.
Their decision has to be based on the law and standard operating procedure. That's why there's an appeals process. If their decision isn't based on the law and standard operating procedure, an appeal (if allowed) could overturn it.

 

[richard.williams]

you dont need to get angry riley! i understand everything that youre trying to tell me. if an officer feels that something isnt right in a marriage kind of like a hunch then they can use their discretion/judgment to deny the sponsorship and their hunch is something which is based on law but not necessarily in writing. dont know why youre getting angry? but lets say that i were an officer and my case was in review. im gonna give you my hunch or decision but merely what i think i would do or might do as an officer but only because this is what i think an officer would or might do in a certain case. the wife is trying to sponsor the husband but the husband has a record of being deported from the united states for drug possession. the officer in return would deny the sponsorship because in the notes it would say, husband having previously been deported from the united states for a crime involving drugs makes me believe he married wife only so he could enter canada. if these are the officers notes, where in the operations bulletins or manuals or other thing that you mentioned might one find this loophole in the law then assuming we could call it that? could the officers discretion be a loophole in the law that allows him this discretionary power? lets assume that the officer wrote this being the main reason why he denied the sponsorship, where would be basing this on what the law is allowing him to use his discretion assuming these were the notes? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

the wife is trying to sponsor the husband but the husband has a record of being deported from the united states for drug possession. the officer in return would deny the sponsorship because in the notes it would say, husband having previously been deported from the united states for a crime involving drugs makes me believe he married wife only so he could enter canada. if these are the officers notes, where in the operations bulletins or manuals or other thing that you mentioned might one find this loophole in the law then assuming we could call it that? could the officers discretion be a loophole in the law that allows him this discretionary power? lets assume that the officer wrote this being the main reason why he denied the sponsorship, where would be basing this on what the law is allowing him to use his discretion assuming these were the notes?

As I have said multiple times: first, you need to resolve your inadmissibility by applying for and getting criminal rehabilitation.
If you have been criminally rehabilitated, your issue of your drug charge has been addressed. (I do not know whether or not that would address the deportation in the eyes of IRCC, as that might be considered a separate violation of different laws, but that's a question for a consultant or lawyer.)
So, my understanding is that, if you have been criminally rehabilitated in the eyes of the Canadian government, the officer cannot deny your immigration application (whether it be sponsorship or something else) because of your criminal history (unless, of course, you have committed new crimes...). If your outland sponsorship application was denied because of your criminal history after you have been criminally rehabilitated, I believe this would be grounds for an appeal (though that is a question for a consultant or lawyer) because the officer is not supposed to be concerned with this issue that has been satisfactorily resolved, but rather whether or not your marriage is legitimate (which is another question).
Does that mean an officer couldn't have suspicions that your marriage isn't legitimate because of something related to your past (the deportation, the posting questions about how to get into Canada through marriage on public forum before you've met someone...)? No, of course it doesn't.

 

[richard.williams]

so then what youre saying is that the two things are very apart from each other then? http://www.marriagevisahelp.com/canada/possible-problems/ do you think that they way they describe in the link it would simply be best to talk to a lawyer or consultant than just get the opinion of other people in general? wanna show you something else, http://www.mapleleaffoods.com/news/salvadorian-workers-celebrate-one-year-anniversary-at-brandon-facility/ notice on how the bottom it says that 40 of those workers applied for pr status! on what grounds would they be able to apply for pr status if you dont mind me asking? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

Well, you should only hire a lawyer or a consultant if you are in the situation. They're not going to want to speak to someone about spousal sponsorship if you do not have a spouse/partner in Canada.

As to your other question: just because someone applies doesn't mean they're even eligible. But I assume this is through the Manitoba PNP, rather than through a federal application because, unless they are doing skilled work at this plant, they are not eligible for the federal program.

 

[richard.williams]

but under manitoba pnp if the workers from el salvador who more than likely are not skilled workers, then under what category would they be qualifying for then? rsvp

 

[richard.williams]

look at this, The employees are hired for an initial two-year period under a temporary foreign worker programme. Following this, Maple Leaf Foods nominates those employees wishing to stay in Canada to the Provincial Nominee Programme. If approved, the temporary foreign worker is awarded permanent residence status and is able to bring their family to Canada.

http://hrbdf.org/case_studies/migrant-workers/migrant_workers/responsible_recruitment_of_foreign_workers.html#.V1YWUehriM9

if approved, what would get in the way of the approval getting denied? if approved, what requirements or conditions for it to be approved? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

but under manitoba pnp if the workers from el salvador who more than likely are not skilled workers, then under what category would they be qualifying for then?

Manitoba must have a semi-skilled workers stream then. I haven't looked at it in a while, so they might.

if approved, what would get in the way of the approval getting denied?

I don't know what you mean, that statement doesn't make any sense. The approval cannot be denied. Did you mean 'application'?

 

[richard.williams]

how did the lawyer determine that im technically inadmissible to canada for ten years? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

Your conviction makes you inadmissible.

 

[richard.williams]

look at this and tell me why new policy would be in effect in your opinion? http://www.marriagevisahelp.com/canada-to-introduce-new-permanent-residence-policy/

rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

My understand is that this just a reversal of the conditional residence rule, which wouldn't affect you anyway, since you're not being sponsored.

 

[richard.williams]

but is the two year waiting period done to deter those who want to commit marriage fraud and to weed those people out and only allow those who are really serious about their relationship? rsvp

 

[Riley Haas]

Yes, that was what it was intended to do. However, it will likely be repealed. The Liberals have said they will do so (as you pointed out) and they have 4.5 years left to do so before the next election.

 

[richard.williams]

if it does get repealed, what then? rsvp