TRV for spouse and dependant

[comarxx]

Your opinions duly noted with a grain of salt. So you never told us what grand ideas I inspired your mind to conjure up. Could you enlighten us with your imagination.

Likewise with your idea my friend. To my point, if you look up at IRCC website, never did they mentioned that affidavit is required or necessary. They gave a format for letter of invitation. It even mentioned notarization is optional. Do you see my point? Notarized or not it does not even matter. What more for affidavit that they did not even mentioned.

At the end of the day it is up to your proofs and documents and how likely your PR application will get approved. Hence, for faster family reunification according to the new announcement.

Actually, I am not arguing with your idea, with matching links, don’t care actually. Like what I said, if it will make you more comfortable submitting your application with “affidavit”, go ahead my friend.

I’ve proven otherwise that a simple application such as letter of invitation for sponsor and applicant and documents is what is just needed. I would think that some of the applicants here would agree with meso far.

 

[Mgillanders]

I did. #1 quashes the refusal (doesn’t approve the TRV) but #2 then say she can reapply with new or existing supporting documentation with another officer, if she chooses. .

The period for which the temporary resident visa was sought has expired; however, should Ms. Agidi wish a temporary resident visa to visit Canada, she may refile her application with the existing or new supporting information and it is to be considered by another officer on an expedited basis;

 

[Mgillanders]

Likewise with your idea my friend. To my point, if you look up at IRCC website, never did they mentioned that affidavit is required or necessary. They gave a format for letter of invitation. It even mentioned notarization is optional. Do you see my point? Notarized or not it does not even matter. What more for affidavit that they did not even mentioned.

At the end of the day it is up to your proofs and documents and how likely your PR application will get approved. Hence, for faster family reunification according to the new announcement.

Actually, I am not arguing with your idea, with matching links, don’t care actually. Like what I said, if it will make you more comfortable submitting your application with “affidavit”, go ahead my friend.

I’ve proven otherwise that a simple application such as letter of invitation for sponsor and applicant and documents is what is just needed. I would think that some of the applicants here would agree with meso far.

They do mention notarizing . The key is legal binding. That is my point legal binding. Okay in your mind your correct great move along buddy.

 

[Naturgrl]

The period for which the temporary resident visa was sought has expired; however, should Ms. Agidi wish a temporary resident visa to visit Canada, she may refile her application with the existing or new supporting information and it is to be considered by another officer on an expedited basis;

Correct but she has to reapply and the judgement gives no statement that it will be approved. A judgement would use stronger language that a TRV must be approved, and it uses language of “is to be considered.”

 

[Mgillanders]

Correct but she has to reapply and the judgement gives no statement that it will be approved. A judgement would use stronger language that a TRV must be approved, and it uses language of “is to be considered.”

That is not the role of a judge in judicial review here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/claim-protection-inside-canada/after-apply-next-steps/refusal-options/federal-court-review.html and here https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/op/op22-eng.pdf and if you want to https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/representing-yourself/practice-guides/how-to-file-an-application-for-leave-and-for-judicial-review-immigration

 

[armoured]

They do mention notarizing . The key is legal binding. That is my point legal binding. Okay in your mind your correct great move along buddy.

"Legally binding" is not some magic wand you wave and all troubles go away.

I don't know what you think an affidavit is or in what way it means 'legally binding', but it's clearly not what you think it is. In this context, it's about the same as notarization - it adds a little bit of certainty that the person stating it (the affiant) actually did do so, and swore it in such a way that (hypothetically) a court could say they'd committed perjury if not true or they denied they'd said it in future.

And for the most part, in this context, if they doubt the content of the letter or the people behind it, it is too late and the affidavit form will do absolutely zero to convince them. (I'll be harsher: in most of the contexts I'm aware of, unnecessary affidavits - compared to just having normal letters, signed - would, I believe, raise more questions than they would answer.)

Not much more. After that, depends on circumstances. And the "I take responsibility for ..." is a nice-sounding formula, but it doesn't automatically happen. (Amongst other things, you can't usually take responsibility for another adult if they don't agree). And any monetary compensation you might get would be less than 100% certainty and expensive to make it happen (execute).

Or in more simple terms: having some hypothetical 'legally binding' thing doesn't do the government any good if it's going to take them two years and cost $100k to exercise it. Otherwise, they can wipe a tiny portion of the government bum with that affidavit, for all the good it will do them.

At any rate: by all means, go ahead with your affidavit idea. Let us know how it works.

I've a fair amount of experience dealing with government, lawyers, and contracts, and all i can say is @Kaibigan is (from my experience) exactly right and if anything understating the case. Affidavit adds very little except in cases where the other party requires it, or where it's going to be used as actual evidence in court.

 

[armoured]

That is not the role of a judge in judicial review here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/claim-protection-inside-canada/after-apply-next-steps/refusal-options/federal-court-review.html and here https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/op/op22-eng.pdf and if you want to https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/representing-yourself/practice-guides/how-to-file-an-application-for-leave-and-for-judicial-review-immigration

This page says: "If the Court returns your case to the IRB, your case will be reconsidered. This does not mean the IRB will reverse the original decision."

This seems to me exactly what @Naturgrl said - the judgment does not say the request will be approved (original refusal reversed), but rather that it will be (re)considered.

 

[Mgillanders]

"Legally binding" is not some magic wand you wave and all troubles go away.

I don't know what you think an affidavit is or in what way it means 'legally binding', but it's clearly not what you think it is. In this context, it's about the same as notarization - it adds a little bit of certainty that the person stating it (the affiant) actually did do so, and swore it in such a way that (hypothetically) a court could say they'd committed perjury if not true or they denied they'd said it in future.

And for the most part, in this context, if they doubt the content of the letter or the people behind it, it is too late and the affidavit form will do absolutely zero to convince them. (I'll be harsher: in most of the contexts I'm aware of, unnecessary affidavits - compared to just having normal letters, signed - would, I believe, raise more questions than they would answer.)

Not much more. After that, depends on circumstances. And the "I take responsibility for ..." is a nice-sounding formula, but it doesn't automatically happen. (Amongst other things, you can't usually take responsibility for another adult if they don't agree). And any monetary compensation you might get would be less than 100% certainty and expensive to make it happen (execute).

Or in more simple terms: having some hypothetical 'legally binding' thing doesn't do the government any good if it's going to take them two years and cost $100k to exercise it. Otherwise, they can wipe a tiny portion of the government bum with that affidavit, for all the good it will do them.

At any rate: by all means, go ahead with your affidavit idea. Let us know how it works.

I've a fair amount of experience dealing with government, lawyers, and contracts, and all i can say is @Kaibigan is (from my experience) exactly right and if anything understating the case. Affidavit adds very little except in cases where the other party requires it, or where it's going to be used as actual evidence in court.

okay for sure https://supremecourtbc.ca/civil-law/before-trial/affidavit-basics no argument here but if you were going to do a judicial review after a refusal then having a affidavit could be construed to weigh positive on ones side as it shows in federal court decisions

 

[Mystogan]

Just received BVL today for TRV, it seems like people are getting BVL/PPR on the same day, should that be expected?
Timeline in signature

 

[armoured]

okay for sure https://supremecourtbc.ca/civil-law/before-trial/affidavit-basics no argument here but if you were going to do a judicial review after a refusal then having a affidavit could be construed to weigh positive on ones side as it shows in federal court decisions

You over-interpreted that judicial statement in my view. The court said 'ample' supporting docs, but the affidavit was listed as one of twelve items that supported (more than that actually, since point (a) had two other supporting docs).

For comparison, the distinction is whether the affidavit had substantially greater weight than the non-oath version, a letter. And the affidavit appearing on a list of 12+ other items does not provide ANY dispositive evidence that the affidavit in this case was substantially better or more useful than a simple signed letter (or indeed any of the other 12+ items listed).

 

[Mgillanders]

You over-interpreted that judicial statement in my view. The court said 'ample' supporting docs, but the affidavit was listed as one of twelve items that supported (more than that actually, since point (a) had two other supporting docs).

For comparison, the distinction is whether the affidavit had substantially greater weight than the non-oath version, a letter. And the affidavit appearing on a list of 12+ other items does not provide ANY dispositive evidence that the affidavit in this case was substantially better or more useful than a simple signed letter (or indeed any of the other 12+ items listed).

Im not saying and never implied that a affidavit secures everything just it adds to it nothing else nothing more. You guys dont want to try it that is your prerogative, you saying it wont help with all the information that is your opinion nothing more

 

[Naturgrl]

Im not saying and never implied that a affidavit secures everything just it adds to it nothing else nothing more. You guys dont want to try it that is your prerogative, you saying it wont help with all the information that is your opinion nothing more

There are cases on this forum where people applied for JR, the judge returned it to IRCC for review and the applicant was still refused the TRV. JR doesn’t guarantee anything. I was just pointing out the case link you provided from 2013 where only the refusal was quashed. The applicant still had to reapply for a TRV which was not guaranteed to be approved.

 

[comarxx]

They do mention notarizing . The key is legal binding. That is my point legal binding. Okay in your mind your correct great move along buddy.

There is no right or wrong my friend. Let me ask you this. Did you apply for trv? Or are you planning to apply trv? And thinking that it will help if there is an affidavit? Are you looking for someone here that will agree with you?

 

[armoured]

Im not saying and never implied that a affidavit secures everything just it adds to it nothing else nothing more. You guys dont want to try it that is your prerogative, you saying it wont help with all the information that is your opinion nothing more

We understand your point. Our point is that the amount it 'adds to it' is minimal, effectively approaching zero.

Your original case, as stated, was this: "Why not as the sponsor and husband make a affidavit sworn in front of the rcmp that I take full legal responsibility of the visitors departure financial and medical? Then if they refuse launch a judicial review and go public !"

Okay. But we are contending that an affidavit (sworn in front of whomever) as compared to a simple letter has very little or zero effective influence on either the likelihood of refusal or the likelihood of success in a judicial review (which, repeat, does not mean the applicant is guaranteed approval of the TRV anyway).

And if so, the 'why not' in your question is "it costs money and time for precious little or no purpose whatsoever." Let the applicants decide, of course.

You say "it's your opinion, nothing more." Likewise - your point is an opinion.

And a small point: there are others here with some or even substantial experience, one of whom's experience is as a lawyer. Yes, a lawyer's opinion is still an opinion, but relevant experience and training means that the opinions of some are more valuable and likely to be correct than that of those without the experience and training.

[Side note: thanks for the information that RCMP officers can act as commissioners of oaths. The relevant point, however, is whether they provide this service upon request, as you seem to suggest. Have you ever tried this?

My belief is that they do not generally provide this as a service to the public (or possibly, if so, only in very rare situations such as isolated detachments and communities that may from time to time have no other available commissioners). The context in which an RCMP officer might need to have this power is in conducting criminal investigations, i.e. collecting statements from witnesses for the purposes of specific court proceedings. Possibly also in some civil proceedings but I don't know about that.

Please do try, though - go to an RCMP detachment and ask, or call them.]

 

[Mgillanders]

There are cases on this forum where people applied for JR, the judge returned it to IRCC for review and the applicant was still refused the TRV. JR doesn’t guarantee anything. I was just pointing out the case link you provided from 2013 where only the refusal was quashed. The applicant still had to reapply for a TRV which was not guaranteed to be approved.

Totally agree the JR does nto guarantees anything and the system is flawed as illustrated in https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/CIMM/Reports/RP12060621/cimmrp12/cimmrp12-e.pdf