Thread for outland Buffalo applicants!

[eeeeeeeelectric]

Definitely the way to go with the volume we have to submit, eh?!

I have a digital copy. I filled all the forms on the computer, and all supporting docs were scanned. I didn't want to pay someone to photocopy the whole thing.. lol

[prophet3]

one more time

I love it...

[nhl1011]

Could anyone provide info about how to submit GCMS request notes via email (not via mail) plz?
I am having trouble with finding info from previous posts...
Thanks so much :p

[AmericaninQuebec]

Could anyone provide info about how to submit GCMS request notes via email (not via mail) plz?
I am having trouble with finding info from previous posts...
Thanks so much :p

I used the info available on this page http://immipedia.ca/Ordering_FOSS_and_CAIPS_notes and I sent an email with all of the forms scanned into one pdf file. I haven't gotten mine yet though, just an automatic acknowledgment that my email was received.

[ddobro2]

Doctorkb posted the ATIP email a few pages back

http://immipedia.ca/Ordering_FOSS_and_CAIPS_notes says:
atip-aiprp  @  cic.gc.ca

I've not tried e-mail -- I have a fax machine so have just used that, because it meant I could guarantee there wouldn't be questions about the signature.

I must say, the folks at the ATIP office seem to be the most friendly and get-'er-done people that CIC has on staff!

[mjh49783aa]

We've only had a small wedding ourselves, but we had a minister, and a church to do the ceremony. Some of her family was there, along with our closest friends. It was nice, intimate moment which was what we wanted. We didn't want anything to do with some big, gaudy, ridiculous affair. Nevertheless, I would've liked my family to be there, but they all live around 350 miles away from me so no one could make it.

I guess a simple, civil ceremony would look kind of fishy if the couple only met briefly before they got married. I don't know how long you were dating before you got married, but my wife and I were dating for just over two years before we got married, and we're already a month away from our first anniversary. I don't know what would pass the 'marriage of convenience' test, but I hope we'd be above and beyond the minimum passable criteria at least.

I don't think the size of the wedding should even matter, but I do believe that the time put into the dating process ought to. I would be highly skeptical of a marriage where a couple only dated a few weeks. But a year? Year and a half? Sounds more believable to me. Perhaps the longer, the better?

Well then my application must have gotted thrown into the MOC pile at Buffalo (is there really a MOC pile at Buffalo, and come on, how big would such pile be?), because not only did I have a "small civil ceremony," I never had a "big wedding to follow" like mcmasters. In fact, I bet I had the smallest wedding of anyone here. I don't think I agree with this rule/theory, even without the bias I have. Under this logic, Kim Kardashian's hypothetical immigration application would totally pass the "marriage of convenience test" (I think 8 million on your wedding would qualify as "big to-do"), whereas mine would fail miserably even though I have managed to stay married a lot longer than 72 days.

[Bargeld]

Well then my application must have gotted thrown into the MOC pile at Buffalo (is there really a MOC pile at Buffalo, and come on, how big would such pile be?), because not only did I have a "small civil ceremony," I never had a "big wedding to follow" like mcmasters. In fact, I bet I had the smallest wedding of anyone here. I don't think I agree with this rule/theory, even without the bias I have. Under this logic, Kim Kardashian's hypothetical immigration application would totally pass the "marriage of convenience test" (I think 8 million on your wedding would qualify as "big to-do"), whereas mine would fail miserably even though I have managed to stay married a lot longer than 72 days.

Indeed.

Some facts about us and our marriage and background:

- We did the bare ass minimum to get married in California. We married in a Santa Clara county government chapel with the officiator (a black lady wearing an Obama lapel) and the clerk recorder herself as a witness. So that would be 4 people in the room -- one of them taking photos and doing paperwork -- and you see my timeline.

- I could have invited my friends and family, well, the ones who could make it on such short notice, but I didn't think it would be fair at all to my wife's family, which is why it's going to be this next summer, well, the unofficial one.

- I'm 8 years older than my wife. Granted we're not that apart in age but there's a noticeable difference.

- She is Chinese (only by looks, through and through an extremely smart Canadian nurse), I'm a blue-green eyed French/German male. Her family speaks quite a different background of languages, from English to French to Mandarin to Lao to Taiwanese. I only speak some English, French, Spanish and German. We have a very different ethnic background but if you ever talked to her, she has no accent, very smart, very opinionated, and she acts as any other Canadian does.

- Some of the evidence we provided were pictures, including ultrasound images of our baby, cropped onto pieces of regular printer paper at a medium resolution to save cost of ink on photo paper. These are pretty easy to doctor given the crummy ink/paper used.

- Some other evidence we provided were phone call logs, skype history, Facebook messages on each others wall which included showing when the marriage was and family's surprise as we moved the date closer from December to October. These could have easily been doctored as well.

Without a doubt the Canadian government is biased depending on which country the applicant/ spouse sponsored is from. Someone who was trying to buy their way into Canada from the states (i.e committing immigrant fraud), it's easily within the window of likelihood one would certainly have the money to throw at a lavish ceremony. I don't see wedding size having much bearing as a litmus test of marriage validity. For other countries that are more high risk of fraud, without a doubt, it's a different case.

Talking to the Buffalo VO employees, the CBSA, CIC, and also just a general understanding of immigrant law, as a couple trying to prove a marriage is genuine, if you have a copy of your marriage license performed in either Canada or the U.S. (<- obviously the single biggest piece of verifiable evidence and requirement), have a couple pictures showing you together, a couple supporting documents like phone calls, there really isn't much reason for them to deny you. Provided one doesn't have a complicated marriage and criminal background this should generally (<- this is my escape from the outliers/exceptions/unexplainable delays) be a really straight forward thing.

[AmericaninQuebec]

Provided one doesn't have a complicated marriage and criminal background this should generally (<- this is my escape from the outliers/exceptions/unexplainable delays) be a really straight forward thing.

I don't really think there's a good explanation for why some people's applications take longer than other's. I say that as one of those who appears to be entering into that area of outliers/exceptions/unexplainable delays. I have no criminal history, a legal license in the U.S., married after a year of dating, and otherwise have what should be  straight forward application, yet am sitting here waiting while what feels like (and I could be wrong) the vast majority of March applicants have gotten their PPRs already.

[ddobro2]

I'm not sure that he was referring to the whole PR application process length when he was talking about relationship situation and history and criminal background.....I think he just meant as factors in judging the genuineness of the relationship (although criminal background really does not have to do with it and certainly affects the overall process). I think there are so many factors that determine the smoothness and swiftness of this process for any given person, factors both in our control and outside of it (ahem, efficiency of the IO looking at the file  ), that we undoubtedly don't know every single one of them from where we sit on the outside of this system.

I don't really think there's a good explanation for why some people's applications take longer than other's. I say that as one of those who appears to be entering into that area of outliers/exceptions/unexplainable delays. I have no criminal history, a legal license in the U.S., married after a year of dating, and otherwise have what should be  straight forward application, yet am sitting here waiting while what feels like (and I could be wrong) the vast majority of March applicants have gotten their PPRs already.

[Ichiro]

Congrats

So we've been tracking my husband's passport which left Fort Erie on Wednesday.  The post office said there was ZERO chance that we'd get it yesterday but suddenly the tracker said it was delivered!  Checked the mail and there it was!  So we decided right then to drive to the border.  We left within half an hour and my husband landed last night around 8:30!!

So thankful this is over for us, and hopeful for speedy processes for everyone else, especially for those who have been waiting longer than I did.

woo hoo

[ddobro2]

Indeed.

Some facts about us and our marriage and background:

- We did the bare ass minimum to get married in California. We married in a Santa Clara county government chapel with the officiator (a black lady wearing an Obama lapel) and the clerk recorder herself as a witness. So that would be 4 people in the room -- one of them taking photos and doing paperwork -- and you see my timeline.

That's funny how you can only remember the officator as "the black lady wearing an Obama lapel".....we too can't remember the name of ours.....and I guess one would recall if it were a clergy member one specifically picked out for the occasion....but oh well. There are more important things in life than remembering who married you  

- I could have invited my friends and family, well, the ones who could make it on such short notice, but I didn't think it would be fair at all to my wife's family, which is why it's going to be this next summer, well, the unofficial one.

I'm so happy that you noted why you did not have any guests, and am so with you on this - that it's not fair to one spouse if the other has guests from his or her side present but the other spouse has no one. I think it's better to just have no guests than to have a situation where it is not representative of your relationship. And really - a marriage is, when you get down to it, the two people in it, and no one else.

- I'm 8 years older than my wife. Granted we're not that apart in age but there's a noticeable difference.

- She is Chinese (only by looks, through and through an extremely smart Canadian nurse), I'm a blue-green eyed French/German male. Her family speaks quite a different background of languages, from English to French to Mandarin to Lao to Taiwanese. I only speak some English, French, Spanish and German. We have a very different ethnic background but if you ever talked to her, she has no accent, very smart, very opinionated, and she acts as any other Canadian does.

Believe me, the age difference rings nary an alarm bell for the folks at Buffalo. If you were a Canadian woman sponsoring a husband 8 years younger than you from a red-flagged country (Morocco, let's say....), okay.....but even that's not a deal-breaker for them; they'll move on to looking at other factors.

- Some of the evidence we provided were pictures, including ultrasound images of our baby, cropped onto pieces of regular printer paper at a medium resolution to save cost of ink on photo paper. These are pretty easy to doctor given the crummy ink/paper used.

- Some other evidence we provided were phone call logs, skype history, Facebook messages on each others wall which included showing when the marriage was and family's surprise as we moved the date closer from December to October. These could have easily been doctored as well.

Technically, CIC has this legal precedent where they determined that, "the birth of a child does not necessarily prove the genuineness of a marriage. However, it is strong evidence deserving of weight." In the case of an American citizen having a child with a Canadian citizen, it's a whole lot more weight than for someone from a country known for cases where people try to come in under pretenses that violate the Immigration Act.

Without a doubt the Canadian government is biased depending on which country the applicant/ spouse sponsored is from. Someone who was trying to buy their way into Canada from the states (i.e committing immigrant fraud), it's easily within the window of likelihood one would certainly have the money to throw at a lavish ceremony. I don't see wedding size having much bearing as a litmus test of marriage validity. For other countries that are more high risk of fraud, without a doubt, it's a different case.

Talking to the Buffalo VO employees, the CBSA, CIC, and also just a general understanding of immigrant law, as a couple trying to prove a marriage is genuine, if you have a copy of your marriage license performed in either Canada or the U.S. (<- obviously the single biggest piece of verifiable evidence and requirement), have a couple pictures showing you together, a couple supporting documents like phone calls, there really isn't much reason for them to deny you. Provided one doesn't have a complicated marriage and criminal background this should generally (<- this is my escape from the outliers/exceptions/unexplainable delays) be a really straight forward thing.

Indeed, for the first bit. Now this second paragraph, I'm not too sure about. There has been at least one person I know of (I want to say with Buffalo, but not sure) who kind of underestimated the importance of the evidence portion of the application, sent in their marriage license and that's it for that part, and then learned the hard way that that didn't constitute a convincing proof of genuine relationship. And I'm not sure that "a couple pictures" and "a couple supporting documents" is ideal either. But it's a given that Buffalo would be satisfied with a lot less evidence than some of the other VOs whose jurisdiction is in countries that people really want to get out of and they're willing to sucker a lonely Canadian lady or gentleman over the internet to do it. I mean we've had people with this visa office apply under common law and have a bit of a longer wait (chess and kerianne, I believe), presumably because CIC needed a bit more evidence, but when it comes to embassies such as Rabat, you better be married because that's the least of your evidence to convince CIC you are genuine.

[Ichiro]

Congrats what a great way to start off the week!! 

SO!  GUESS WHAT!!! PPR!!!!!!!!!!!!


AMAZING RIGHT!!!

So check this out-

We got the letter today, dated October 12th 2011.  We have 30 days to send in the passport. Uhm...that gives us until Friday.
So, instead of mailing it (we live in the freaking tundra-theres no way we could get the passport to LA by Friday via mail) SO, instead we
booked a flight to LA on Tuesday!! Ahhhh! Im so excited!!!!!!!!!!  Hubby will hand in his passport Thursday morning, and Friday he will land

What a battle, Im so happy we're almost done.

[ddobro2]

We actually met in a chatroom that was part of a viewer one downloaded to watch various international channels off your computer (it's called Livestation). We talked to each other there in the presence of others and then took our communication over to Facebook. In terms of face to face meeting time, it was two trips of 3 days (about half a year apart) each made my moi to him in Montreal. That's it before he flew to D.C. to get married. Yes, it looks ridiculous on paper, particularly given the fact that I'm Jewish and he's Muslim and those two groups do NOT typically get along. However, they do not play amateur cultural anthroplogist over at Buffalo like they do at some other embassies, thank God. The fact that we've been living together since August 14, 2010 should hold up on its own merit....if we were unmarried, we'd be able to qualify as common law since we've been living for over a year, so I can only hope that our application is not scrutinized too much over there in NY.

I guess a simple, civil ceremony would look kind of fishy if the couple only met briefly before they got married. I don't know how long you were dating before you got married, but my wife and I were dating for just over two years before we got married, and we're already a month away from our first anniversary. I don't know what would pass the 'marriage of convenience' test, but I hope we'd be above and beyond the minimum passable criteria at least.

I don't think the size of the wedding should even matter, but I do believe that the time put into the dating process ought to. I would be highly skeptical of a marriage where a couple only dated a few weeks. But a year? Year and a half? Sounds more believable to me. Perhaps the longer, the better?

[Eddy070]

Just too tired with my finger crossed for this whole process. It's really frustrating just can wait to get over it

[ddobro2]

What did your first set of GCMS notes say? Did you go ahead and email ATIP the next request?

Just too tired with my finger crossed for this whole process. It's really frustrating just can wait to get over it