Still would not agree that "Exception is going to be mostly inland applicants that were out of status at time of applying." That seems like a bold assumption for the `mostly' applicants without status, but...it's your valid opinion.
Recent inland Refusals
- Thread starter colgate1
- Start date
If your point is that I do not know precise ratio between in/out of status interviewed/not interviewed, you are correct.
But it certainly has nothing to do with interviewed after approval-in-principle, which should be close to zero (except maybe, I don't know, csis interviews or something).
Since background checks are done AFTER AIP, I suspect that more than one applicant (Inland, or not) may have been found to be inadmissible and thus refused PR.
Lord, give me strength.
Yes. But nothing to do with interviews for relationship bona fides.
LOL! I only mentioned that because of your CSIS comment. Even a bona fide partner or spouse can still have a rap sheet, right?
LOL! I only mentioned that because of your CSIS comment. Even a bona fide partner or spouse can still have a rap sheet, right?
I formally give up. Whatever.
There are cultural considerations already or else you would see arranged marriages, for example, being refused in large number. You tend to see interviews in cases where there is minimal in person contact before marriage. The refusals tend to be when there are other warning signs like very large age differences in addition to minimal time in person. There are also refusals when couples have not competed all the marriage rituals before applying for sponsorship so IRCC is actually very knowledgeable when it comes to various cultures. The majority of family sponsorships get approved.
Oh boy! We have dated for some time before we tied the knot and lived together under the same roof and together ever since we have started dating. But I dont think we have done all the rituals what not but just the basics.
Knowledgeable government employee?????? Lol
The comment about the rituals was, I believe, referring to cases where very important, like arranged marriages (although wasn't explicit that was what was meant). In cases where rituals not important, they know to ignore. Context. In many cases the marriage rituals are entirely irrelevant.
Which makes your "knowledgeable govt employee" snark sound just silly or worse.
They have a pretty good idea of which contexts it is relevant to.
Last edited:
IRCC is actually very knowledgeable when it comes to what is required to get married in different countries and cultures. Many are caught trying to pass off some rituals as full marriage and denied.
Different religions and cultures come with a variety of requirements to get married. If you’re a Western couple with minimal connections to religion that could be a court marriage but if you have a court marriage you tend to have more proof of in person dating or living together. When it comes to proof someone is married in cases when there hasn’t been much of a dating history for religious, cultural or distance issues it is important that rituals/ceremonies need to be completed to prove people are actually married and the type of marriage be consistent with how couples have met. For example we have seen couples who have had an arranged marriage have a large engagement ceremony and party with 500 people but then a court wedding with just the parents a few days after. This would signal to IRCC that the marriage was likely just to start processing sponsorship and they are likely planning a large wedding in the next year.
My apologies bud. Not quite sure what you mean by :
you’re a Western couple with minimal connections to religion that could be a court marriage but if you have a court marriage you tend to have more proof of in person dating or living together.
What is a court marriage? Why you need to go to a court to get married?
Court marriage just refers to a civil marriage whether at city hall or with a judge or whatever. As opposed to a religious or 'traditional' marriage.
In many countries the traditional one is more important and meaningful.
Also in most countries* the civil and religious marriages are split, civil being the main legal one. So people who have only the civil marriage might be gaming the immigration system - they have a legal but not 'real' marriage in the eyes of many.
*Most countries that I know of. I could be wrong. Canada is weird in that almost all of the time, religious marriages are carried out by officiants (eg priests rabbis etc) who are deputized by the government to do civil marriages - but technically only the civil one has legal force.
That said, for most people in Canada USA and Western Europe anyway the civil one alone is fine. Depends on context.
Repeat, for arranged marriages following the complete traditional path may be critical.
Similar threads
