SPOUSAL Sponsorship PAKISTAN @ London Visa Office

[Noorulabdeen]

HEY, ANYONE FROM JULY 2023. I AM DONE WITH BIOMETRICS AND MEDICAL. STUCK ON BG SINCE 2 MONTHS.

Same situation.

Just received rejection for visit visa application for my spouse today. Visit Visa communication came from Visa office in UAE.

Hoping to get some update by Friday this week on the Sponsorship application.

 

[ruqhat]

Same situation.

Just received rejection for visit visa application for my spouse today. Visit Visa communication came from Visa office in UAE.

Hoping to get some update by Friday this week on the Sponsorship application.

This is sad news. But I suppose this dual intent TRVS are just in saying unfortunately.
Well lets hope for a positive news on Sponsorship Application very soon.

 

[agentorange_]

Same situation.

Just received rejection for visit visa application for my spouse today. Visit Visa communication came from Visa office in UAE.

Hoping to get some update by Friday this week on the Sponsorship application.

Same, my spouse got rejected with the lamest reason ever after 3.5 months of waiting. The reason well, gather around folks, this one is good, "not convinced you will leave Canada" YES genius that is WHY we applied under dual intent. Honestly Abu Dhabi VO is whack and potentially racially biased. Sad to see that IRCC has no consistency, they introduce new measures and have no transparency to inform the public they scrapped it (talking about Sean Frasers TRV announcement in May 2023)

 

[armoured]

Same, my spouse got rejected with the lamest reason ever after 3.5 months of waiting. Tge reason well, gather around folks, this one is good, "not convinced you will leave Canada" YES genius that is WHY we applied under dual intent.

"Dual intent" is not a magic wand that gets one out of having issues. The bottom line for what intent does - which is absolutely minimal - is that IRCC officers cannot use "has a PR application process in process" as a reason to refuse. As you've seen they can still use the 'not convinced you will leave Canada' as a reason. (Yep, in practice, it pretty much serves as a guide to officers how to write a refusal in such a way that it won't be overturned in appeal process).

To the extent there is an 'answer' to this when applying, it's showing that one has the will, capacity etc to leave IF REQUIRED. Even better is plans to leave (that can then subsequently change).

This doesn't tell anyone much what they can do to get it approved - again, unfortunately. I can say that if one is writing anything about intent and the spousal app, and certainly if one mentions dual intent (which I wouldn't), make sure to make clear either that WILL leave or WILL leave IF REQUIRED.

Still, no guarantees.

The announcement of the new measures was doomed from the start in over-promising, though.

Good luck.

 

[agentorange_]

"Dual intent" is not a magic wand that gets one out of having issues. The bottom line for what intent does - which is absolutely minimal - is that IRCC officers cannot use "has a PR application process in process" as a reason to refuse. As you've seen they can still use the 'not convinced you will leave Canada' as a reason. (Yep, in practice, it pretty much serves as a guide to officers how to write a refusal in such a way that it won't be overturned in appeal process).

To the extent there is an 'answer' to this when applying, it's showing that one has the will, capacity etc to leave IF REQUIRED. Even better is plans to leave (that can then subsequently change).

This doesn't tell anyone much what they can do to get it approved - again, unfortunately. I can say that if one is writing anything about intent and the spousal app, and certainly if one mentions dual intent (which I wouldn't), make sure to make clear either that WILL leave or WILL leave IF REQUIRED.

Still, no guarantees.

The announcement of the new measures was doomed from the start in over-promising, though.

Good luck.

Ofcourse applicants do their darnest to prove that they will leave. Turns out, employment, proof of family ties, property, finances, extensive travel history all pale in contrast to having your own spouse in Canada. It is not enough. "Dual intent" not being magic wand is well understood by literally everyone, therefore applying for a TRV is a risky undertaking from the get go while having a PR application in progress/your spouse present in Canada. Let's just admit there are some misleading archaic provisions IRCC had created but doesn't follow through with them.

 

[armoured]

"Dual intent" not being magic wand is well understood by literally everyone

It is not my experience, alas, that everyone understands this.

 

[InfoSeeker12]

Ofcourse applicants do their darnest to prove that they will leave. Turns out, employment, proof of family ties, property, finances, extensive travel history all pale in contrast to having your own spouse in Canada. It is not enough. "Dual intent" not being magic wand is well understood by literally everyone, therefore applying for a TRV is a risky undertaking from the get go while having a PR application in progress/your spouse present in Canada. Let's just admit there are some misleading archaic provisions IRCC had created but doesn't follow through with them.

100% agreed that there is a WILL-FULL / INTENTIONAL dubious design for the May 26th announcement by previous immigration minister Sean Fraser. The new minister - has also NEVER ANNOUNCED ANY CANCELLATION of this program. So how come you see most members on this specific thread getting rejections? Are the officers so stupid, or so unware that their minister allows applicants to enter Canada and live with their family while their PR application is completed?? Why are they still using 'person will not leave canada' as a reason to reject? i'll explain...

As per Sean's announcement, this TRV was for a Spousal Applicant. Its only common sense to know that financial ties and return tickets SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR A SPOUSAL APPLICANT...cuz CIC is suggesting to this applicant to use TRV to get into Canada and wait for their PR card! Its CIC who is giving this option, through that announcement. Hence, Dual Intent has no place in this case. Nobody needs to show dual intent in this case. (unless of course someone has dual intentions about their marriage.)

From the start, they did not CLARIFY specifically what stage/document will qualify a Spousal PR applicant to get TRV. Why did not they clarify, cuz they wanted a wiggle room for......i'll explain.

Initially, some said it was AOR, after which you apply for TRV and boom you get it...then based on some other members' experience we thought its AOR + Sponsorship approval.

From my own experience, I was told by MP it was those 2 docs, plus ELIGIBILITY on Spousal PR application to be completed, only then the applicant can get TRV.

All the while, we are seeing some other nationalities getting their TRVs simply after AORs (as was initially announced).

So there you go. That's the MAGIC WAND which the CIC officers want to keep in their hand and wave on applications of certain origins - and NOT SHOW IT to the public, otherwise, it will be labelled DISCRIMINATION.

And yes, i forgot to add the most lucrative aspect of all of this. The visa fees. CIC is earning in millions of dollars.
If they announce that they wont be issuing TRVs to all Spousal applicants, none of us would have applied. We would have just waited ....and waited to get the application completed. But then CIC would loose money.

 

[skizzle]

Seems like there is NO consistency. My cousin applied TRV for his wife with an active PR application, and in his letter he openly wrote that he is awaiting her PR and that they're taking way too long so he'd like her to come on TRV.

They gave it to him in 60 days, I believe this was in 2021.

Others are being rejected for being too open about the same fact, seems like a very complicated issue..

Regardless, as soon as I get my AOR I will be applying for TRV for my wife in Pakistan as well. I should start drafting a letter now -- showing that almost all her family is in Pakistan (except me, her bloody husband), and maybe koi fall ka course mein isko enroll karde te hai, to show ke "wapis ja rahi hai"...

 

[r4ngerer]

Seems like there is NO consistency. My cousin applied TRV for his wife with an active PR application, and in his letter he openly wrote that he is awaiting her PR and that they're taking way too long so he'd like her to come on TRV.

They gave it to him in 60 days, I believe this was in 2021.

Others are being rejected for being too open about the same fact, seems like a very complicated issue..

Regardless, as soon as I get my AOR I will be applying for TRV for my wife in Pakistan as well. I should start drafting a letter now -- showing that almost all her family is in Pakistan (except me, her bloody husband), and maybe koi fall ka course mein isko enroll karde te hai, to show ke "wapis ja rahi hai"...

my wife has a job, all her family, everything in Pakistan, except of course me. But ya been 2 months no response for TRV. My PR was after biometrics when I applied, and I mentioned the PR application and everything and mentioned that we want to wait it out.

According to my MP, background check is done, but eligibility is pending. Eligibility is where they decide if the person will leave or not. So ya, I dont think it will go through.

After talking to my MP, who says there's nothing they can do, they told me to submit a webform, so I sent in another webform yesterday. With a letter document from me stating change of plans (as previously we said we wanted to spend our anniversary together, but anniversary has now passed).

So honestly, while you should apply, but if it gets delayed more than a month, just ask for a refund so you get your money back at least, because if it goes that long, it probably means they are not going to accept it.

This doesn't tell anyone much what they can do to get it approved - again, unfortunately. I can say that if one is writing anything about intent and the spousal app, and certainly if one mentions dual intent (which I wouldn't), make sure to make clear either that WILL leave or WILL leave IF REQUIRED.

For this, I just want to mention, though it might not be same as what you are saying. In the initial TRV application, my wife mentioned that she will leave if TRV time expires and PR hasn't been approved by then. I mentioned the same in my letter of invitation.

This time, so far, we are planning to go back to Pakistan in June (as I will have some free time by then), so I mentioned in the new document that she will be going back in 2 months time.

 

[armoured]

All the while, we are seeing some other nationalities getting their TRVs simply after AORs (as was initially announced).

So there you go. That's the MAGIC WAND which the CIC officers want to keep in their hand and wave on applications of certain origins - and NOT SHOW IT to the public, otherwise, it will be labelled DISCRIMINATION.

"Discrimination" is used as a bad word, but not all forms of discrimination are forbidden or even bad.

We already have 'discrimination' based on nationality: some require visas, some do not. Perfectly legal, constitutional (by Canadian constitution anyway), and accepted in every country of the world. This is public, it's not a secret.

Because simple fact: there is very little reason or need for eg a Norwegian to undertake a fictitious marriage for immigration purposes. Many other countries: very many incentives.

That's not going to disappear with whatever announcement is made (and why many said it was premature). At best/at most they are going to speed up the assessment of 'real relationship or not' (likely based on some triage into easy/hard cases, easy get quick-assessment and others will be subjected to full assessment that takes much longer). That will, for fairly obvious reasons, most likely consign certain classes of applicants - eg arranged marriages, which are harder to assess against immigration fraud criteria - into the 'full assessment' basket.

 

[skizzle]

Seems safer to make a 2 week plan, show funds for it, show they have vacation from school/work, and that they’re going back regardless. Shouldn’t even mention PR except that it’s in process but they don’t plan to move to Canada until 2025 or something…

 

[Noorulabdeen]

In my circumstances, there's no hard feelings, we know the ties to the home country weren't strong enough so it makes sense. However, we're optimistic on our sponsorship application - I know how it used to be up to 2-3 years for some people, so if it all works out within the 12 months - I'm happy with that.

 

[InfoSeeker12]

This response is for members of this thread who have a dog in this fight -- meaning they have applied or they are Sponsors.

Anyone who cites ficitious marriage in this thread, is living in 1990s or simply not trying enough to bring useful insight. Fictitious marriage is statistically proven to be the highest among applicants of a country, who are already entering Canada in Droves. not just Canada but US, UK as well ....and illegally. We are seeing their visas being given in 5 MONTHS. So the ones who quickly come here to defend CIC, your reasons and logic for visa rejections are mostly based on thin air.

The fact is, there are compromised officers within CIC inside Canada and specially in international offices like Abu Dhabi and London. They are involved in blatant racial bias and are dishing out visas to applicants from their own country of origin. If this was legal as suggested by someone, then they would have also announced it.

ACTION POINT:

VOICE YOUR CONCERN.

Find out who is giving most donations to your local MP. They usually show their pics in facebook. Approach those donors and share your concern. Ask them to bring it up to the leaders.
Approach your MPs. Dont selfishly focus on just your application. Tell them you are seeing this happening in multiple cases. You have this website - collect your evidence!

-5MONTHS: Demand them to research how certain offices are able to clear applications in 5 months, when they are also the same visa offices getting the most no. of applications. First let's audit that visa office. What protocols are being skipped there?
-Ask MPs to Demand no. of visas issued in the past 6 months - and see which ones are the highest visa issuing hubs. Who got the visas and who are the visa officers in those offices. Are they of same ethnic origin?
-Assign equal resources, capabilities and work loads on other offices like Dar-es-Salam, London UK....which are notorious for 2-3 year back logs. There is criminal negligence occurring where department leaders are allowing back logs.
-the magic wand: If you are passionate about TRV issue, discuss it. Why is there is NO CLEAR CRITERIA about TRV for Spousal Applications? Why officers are still quoting reasons for rejections - that DO NOT MAKE SENSE....CIC has announced that Spouses will be given TRV to enter Canada and stay till they get their PR. Why are they being asked to convince the officer that they will leave?? Why should they leave? Unless ofcourse their is some criminal or other grave reason, which is common sense, but officers should not be able to cite that reason for rejection.

these are some actions i can think of that will lit fire under someone and make them to fix their act. Im sure you can think of others that will help activate some progress on the applications.

As long as we will continue to suffer in silence, this will continue to happen.

 

[agentorange_]

This response is for members of this thread who have a dog in this fight -- meaning they have applied or they are Sponsors.

Anyone who cites ficitious marriage in this thread, is living in 1990s or simply not trying enough to bring useful insight. Fictitious marriage is statistically proven to be the highest among applicants of a country, who are already entering Canada in Droves. not just Canada but US, UK as well ....and illegally. We are seeing their visas being given in 5 MONTHS. So the ones who quickly come here to defend CIC, your reasons and logic for visa rejections are mostly based on thin air.

The fact is, there are compromised officers within CIC inside Canada and specially in international offices like Abu Dhabi and London. They are involved in blatant racial bias and are dishing out visas to applicants from their own country of origin. If this was legal as suggested by someone, then they would have also announced it.

ACTION POINT:

VOICE YOUR CONCERN.

Find out who is giving most donations to your local MP. They usually show their pics in facebook. Approach those donors and share your concern. Ask them to bring it up to the leaders.
Approach your MPs. Dont selfishly focus on just your application. Tell them you are seeing this happening in multiple cases. You have this website - collect your evidence!

-5MONTHS: Demand them to research how certain offices are able to clear applications in 5 months, when they are also the same visa offices getting the most no. of applications. First let's audit that visa office. What protocols are being skipped there?
-Ask MPs to Demand no. of visas issued in the past 6 months - and see which ones are the highest visa issuing hubs. Who got the visas and who are the visa officers in those offices. Are they of same ethnic origin?
-Assign equal resources, capabilities and work loads on other offices like Dar-es-Salam, London UK....which are notorious for 2-3 year back logs. There is criminal negligence occurring where department leaders are allowing back logs.
-the magic wand: If you are passionate about TRV issue, discuss it. Why is there is NO CLEAR CRITERIA about TRV for Spousal Applications? Why officers are still quoting reasons for rejections - that DO NOT MAKE SENSE....CIC has announced that Spouses will be given TRV to enter Canada and stay till they get their PR. Why are they being asked to convince the officer that they will leave?? Why should they leave? Unless ofcourse their is some criminal or other grave reason, which is common sense, but officers should not be able to cite that reason for rejection.

these are some actions i can think of that will lit fire under someone and make them to fix their act. Im sure you can think of others that will help activate some progress on the applications.

As long as we will continue to suffer in silence, this will continue to happen.

Agree with you, I feel so sorry for IRCC apologists. So we cannot ask for transparency and fairness when there are some glaringly obvious problems, that not only cause personal anguish to authentic cases but also hurt their own credibility?

Thank you for compiling the list of actions, I will be contacting my MP and looking into raising this issue.

 

[mahmadbcs]

Any Updates?