Saw this on the news
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbi...fraud.html
I can see ups and downs to the issue. There is no perfect solution, but I hate to see people get by with fraudulent immigration while others in legitimate situations struggle. And of course, it's possible that one side is lying over the other. Either way, it does happen and it's a shame.
Dhaliwall said that no matter what her husband tells authorities, the fact remains he is not in Canada to be her husband and that should be enough to justify deportation.
"It's obvious. It's black and white. He didn't come to me when he got here."
It certainly seems to me - with all the cr@p that Immigration Canada has put plenty of genuine relationships/people through - they could at least institute some sort of hearing in situations like this to determine whether there are grounds to prosecute for misrepresentation. It's not fair that the applicant gets off scott-free while the sponsor is stuck not only with a broken heart but locked into a sponsorship agreement that's valid for three years. On the other hand, forcing these frauds to actually live with their sponsors once they get to Canada - either to ward off suspicion about misrepresentation or as a probationary condition - is potentially dangerous to the sponsors. The ONLY thing I've ever seen deter these people is an initial refusal - many bail when they don't get their visa the first time around. Maybe that's the way to do it - refuse them all and see if they wait around for the appeal hearing!
Unfortunate as it may be, the only person who can really prevent something like this from happening is the Canadian sponsor - by being aware of the red flags that spell risk. As politically incorrect as it may be to say this, it seems that there's a pattern here of Canadian women being preyed upon this way by young adult males from some specific countries. Canadian women who find themselves drawn into relationship with these "types" need to think with their heads, not their hearts. Even the woman in the story said when she first met this guy, she "didn't like him", but he pursued her and she fell in love??? Had she listened to her gut, she probably could have avoided a lot of heartache. What amazes me is that many of these frauds come from India, and yet ND is one of the fastest embassies as far as spousal sponsorship processing. Makes you wonder.
It was interesting reading the comments on the article page. One person suggested that people not be able to sponsor a spouse until they have lived together for 5 years. Easy for that person to say! Then what? Have the spouse live as a visitor and keep extending their visitor visa for 5 years? I think it would cause more illegal immigrants. I know I couldn't afford having my spouse living here and not work.
I wonder what the ratio is of real genuine relationships vs frauds? I'm willing to bet there has been more genuine than fraudulent, and in that case they don't need to change a thing -- other than deport the ones that are clearly frauds like the one in the article!
I'm a little confused. I thought the sponsor HAD to be with the applicant when they land? Shouldn't they have turned him back at the border when he landed?
This girl says she didn't even know he was in the country until they rang the border officials.
Granted, I'm not saying this would solve the problem because obviously he could have continued the facade until after landing and then taken off. However, I'm just wondering, in this case, how this could have happened?
(06-16-2010 08:21 PM)RobsLuv Wrote: [ -> ]The ONLY thing I've ever seen deter these people is an initial refusal - many bail when they don't get their visa the first time around. Maybe that's the way to do it - refuse them all and see if they wait around for the appeal hearing!
That's how they handle Social Security Disability claims in the US. They figure if you can work, you won't do without while waiting out an appeal, and if you truly can't work, then you still won't be when the appeal is heard.
(06-17-2010 01:11 AM)Charrr Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a little confused. I thought the sponsor HAD to be with the applicant when they land? Shouldn't they have turned him back at the border when he landed?
This girl says she didn't even know he was in the country until they rang the border officials.
Granted, I'm not saying this would solve the problem because obviously he could have continued the facade until after landing and then taken off. However, I'm just wondering, in this case, how this could have happened?
No, the sponsor does not have to accompany the applicant to the landing interview. The Confirmation of Permanent Residence is issued by the overseas visa office, to the applicant. All they have to do to activate their permanent residence is travel to Canada and "land" at a port of entry.
You're right, though, that requiring sponsors to accompany their family members at landing would not solve the problem. You know, I've had a thought, though, about requiring applicants to stay with their sponsors during a probationary period. It's possible that not allowing foreign nationals to come to Canada at all prior to granting them PR is helping them deceive their sponsors. Maybe if Canadians were given an opportunity to live together (at home) with their foreign national intended, some of these frauds would be weeded out and deported. But considering the threats made against many of these sponsors, having them come here could end up being a risk to the sponsor. I wonder how it's working in the States - this probationary period. Anybody have any stats?
I could certainly see ups and downs if something was implemented. If a probationary period what happens if someone immigrated and had a child then found out their spouse was abusive, I could see this as encouraging people to stay in a bad relationship. As well as false reports. It's really a delicate thing.
I still think in this case they SHOULD be able to deport him, or take away his PR since it was obviously obtained by fraudulent means. If he's made NO attempt to contact his "wife" since his PR was granted, that's pretty clear to me.
Even if he says the relationship just "didn't work out" or whatever... the thing is, there would have to be a point when that happened. Either it was before PR was granted, in which case he should have withdrawn the application, or it was after, in which case he would have had contact with his wife after it was granted. Since he hasn't, then obviously the relationship ended BEFORE PR was granted and he isn't entitled to it.
It's really frusterating that so many GENUINE couples are put through the ringer, and then this fraud is able to get through the systems no problems.
Actually, I think they ask the applicant at the landing interview if they are still in relationship with their sponsor . . . because that is a condition of approval. Seems to me that someone who answers, "Yes" to that, and then doesn't even meet up with their sponsor once they're finished with that landing interview, has lied . . . which I'd say could be easily be considered misrepresentation to acquire privilege under the Act. If that's punishable by refusal of the application during processing, why doesn't it have the same consequence at the landing interview? Isn't the landing interview part of the "process", too?
As we've said, though - if the government makes the sponsor take on more responsibility than they already do . . . like requiring a probationary period, requiring the sponsor to attend the landing interview, or reinstating a longer undertaking . . . it really won't solve the problem. It's clear that foreign nationals who cheat the system to get into Canada are willing to bide their time and do whatever it takes to achieve their goal, and the longer the "target" sponsor has to be involved, the greater the potential for damage. I do think, though, that an immigrant who never contacts their sponsor once they arrive in Canada clearly used the relationship for convenience and it should be normal procedure to grab those people and send them home, banned from ever entering Canada again. Eventually the word would get out and they'd find a way around it, but at least we'd get rid of a few of them in the process.
When I landed they only asked if I had been convicted of a crime and if the information on the COPR was correct, but that was not a question I was asked at landing if I remember correctly.
Even thought my sponsor was with me when I landed, I wasn't asked either if we were still together
They just explained was was listed on my COPR, what the different numbers were for & asked if if it was correct
Mr. DerbyGirl wouldn't have even had to been there, though he wouldn't have missed it for the world :)
I was the sponsor for our inland application and I was asked if we were still in a relationship and whether I had declared bankruptcy since filing the application. I agree, this bum should be deported immediately and given a lifetime ban on re-entry. It's hard, I don't really know how they should change the process to ensure those who commit fraud are found out, but that vulnerable women who come here and become victims of domestic violence can escape without fear of deportation.
(06-22-2010 03:30 PM)sponge362 Wrote: [ -> ]I was the sponsor for our inland application and I was asked if we were still in a relationship and whether I had declared bankruptcy since filing the application. I agree, this bum should be deported immediately and given a lifetime ban on re-entry. It's hard, I don't really know how they should change the process to ensure those who commit fraud are found out, but that vulnerable women who come here and become victims of domestic violence can escape without fear of deportation.
I was inland too, and asked the same thing, they also required my wife to be present at landing.
The law, the rules and regs, as well as the correspondence from CIC, all make it clear: there is an affirmative obligation to give notice of any change in family/marital status prior to landing, right up to the landing, whether or not one is asked (one is supposed to be asked if there has been any changes but it does not always get done). Failure to give CIC or the CBSA officer processing the landing notice of any material change constitutes misrepresentation by omission.
It is, of course, somewhat different if the relationship is based on a legal marriage, which is not "terminated" merely by a breakdown in the relationship and separation, but a reasonable interpretation of the requirements is that giving notice of such a breakdown is likewise an obligation.
As a matter of practice, it should be noted that CIC/CBSA have indeed been pursuing removal orders against some individuals in circumstances such as that reported by CBC linked above, and on even less strong evidence than what appears in that instance. Those processes take time however, and the appellate process in particular takes time. In the meantime, I doubt the sponsor has access to information about the case to any extent greater than the ordinary public. The landed PR remains a "PR" (and among entitlements, is entitled to privacy protections like anyone else) while the case is processed clear through the appeal up to the issuance of a formal and enforceable deportation order. So in the linked case things may very well be headed in that direction but will take time, but the government is not likely to publicly disclose the progress of the case in the meantime.
Quote:I wonder how it's working in the States - this probationary period. Anybody have any stats?
Nothing is good in the States with their probation period for spouses.
1. It opens ways to abuse a "foreign" spouse during that period.
2. It does not prevent from leaving a spouse as soon as permanent residency's gotten.