These are shortcomings and lackings in the current legislation that they have found no solution to this problem. When new immigrant is being protected from abusive relationship, the sponsor also needs to be protected with whom marriage fraud has happened because not all cases are the same.
Marriage Fraud
- Thread starter define
- Start date
Yes, I agree with these points. From my experience, I would say that there is a big scam going on. Even the families are involved in such marriage frauds as they want their son/daughter to obtain PR in Canada through marriage and after they are sponsored, they change all together and abuse the sponsors. These families are crazy about going abroad and can do just anything for that to happen; their son/daughter do not feel ashamed of sleeping with someone and having sex after marriage to show the sponsor that marriage is legit but they leave the relationship as soon as they get PR. In some cases, women were pregnant when their spouse deceived and left the marriage after getting PR
Immigration fraud is a crime in Canada. It is unclear if you are saying he shared sexual pictures with others without consent. If he did that is a crime. Lying about your sexual history or that you’ve had consensual sex for pleasure with others is not a crime in Canada and will never be a crime as long as you not did not purposely infect someone with a communicable disease. It is up to a spouse to find a partner and vet them properly. When sponsoring someone without having spent significant time with them you are putting yourself at risk of being financially responsible for a spouse. That is a private matter and has nothing to do with criminal activity or the government. I do empathize with your situation but your major complaint is that you’re spouse lied to you. The government is not gonna do anything about that. I would focus on the fact that he left soon after arriving, proof that there was a sexual assault (hopefully you’ll have a police report and a sexual assault exam) which would, if convicted, make him ineligible for citizenship and move on with your life. I do realize that sadly divorced women are treated differently in some cultures but there are good men who will overlook that. I would suggest trying to find a partner with PR or citizenship in Canada so immigration is not an issue.
I'm not a cop or a judge, but just another anonymous person voluntarily posting my opinion here.
I agree that anyone can be a victim of fraud, but honestly, it bothers me a lot to see sponsors looking for ways to "deport" their spouses after becoming frustrated with the relationship. Your post is very similar to many others I have seen: after a deep frustration, the sponsor believes they have the power to kick their spouse out of the country. It's a mix of naivety, misinformation, and a sense of revenge.
In my post, I was more interested in helping people who are considering sponsoring their spouse and opening their eyes to the responsibility that this decision carries for their lives. When you sign the IRCC forms to sponsor someone, yes, you take on a huge responsibility. The government does its part by requesting sufficient evidence and assessing the application, but the rest is up to the person who chooses to sponsor someone. I don't believe in a paternalistic government. We are adults, and we must take responsibility for our own lives.
I don't blame you at all if you were a victim of any type of abuse, but this forum is not the appropriate place to seek that type of help. There are many organizations that help women in vulnerable situations. I'm not sure if you have looked into those organizations for help with your trauma. If not, you should.
You came to this forum because you know that we talk about immigration, sponsorship, refused applications, and... deportation. For you, it seems that your case is not something for the local police to resolve, but for CBSA. You were asked if you contacted the local police. You said: "yes, but the police is not the one who can deport him and revoke his PR". It's clear for me that you are not looking to see him arrested because of the supposed sexual abuse (a real crime), but deported due the "marriage fraud".
What moves you? It’s revenge, madame. It’s the frustration of a failed marriage, probably because he was cheating and left on you. Honestly, it shouldn’t be our business to get involved in this.
This forum should not be a place for this type of “help.”
Last edited:
There are ALWAYS shortcomings and gaps, in any society and legal system. Government simply cannot do everything; and civil courts are always imperfect as due process imposes restraints.
We can look at and analyse the gaps that you imply exist here - and from your perspective they are gaps - but they exist because of contradictions in what (some) people want, priorities that conflict, and what a reasonably fair legal and administrative system (criminal, the deportation and immigration processes, and the civil courts).
And it ALWAYS boils down to the fact that first and foremost, adults must take responsibility for their actions to reduce risk to a reasonable level.
What are these contradictory and conflicting priorities? Here's a few:
-We have decided (collectively) to respect 'cultural differences' in treating most types of marriage (including arranged marriages) similarly and as valid. This increases the risk of some types of marriage fraud, whereas we could - hypothetically - require applicants to reside together for, say, a year beforehand.
-We have prioritised that allowing anyone to be 'held hostage' by the threat of revocation of residency status in a marriage they do not wish to be part of - for reasons of abuse or really any reasons at all - and rightfully so. This means that yes, any sponsored spouse can 'walk away' any time they wish, including - hypotehtically - the day after arriving in Canada. (Caveat that IRCC might investigate and decide this was for purposes of immigration fraud, and a next day separation will give them some serious grounds - this is not advice to do so unless of course unsafe)
-Due process: all 'solutions' that some people want are subject to due process - and due to the nature of a marriage being (at heart) private, and unfortunately even sexual abuse, very often the evidence to support claims of fraud, abuse, criminal behaviour, etc., is simply not available, or not to the level that even a criminal, administrative, or civil procedure would require to be enforceable. Deportation in particular is a difficult procedure legally and administratively, and prioritisation will always rank the obvious and feasible cases higher. Not all fraud can be shown to even the lowest legal standards to be fraud.
The issues with potential marriage fraud are clear, and news articles cover it.
Again - while the government can do SOME things to reduce the incidence - bottom line is that it is primarily the responsibility of the sponsors to vet their spouses, or to choose not to enter into marriages where the risk is higher. As I said elsewhere - due to the conflicting priorities (and yes, incl weaknesses of the system), the government's priorities and interests are not yours, and no-one should rely principally on government to protect themselves from such fraud.
While I don't agree everything that was stated on the topic, I think the point made by @James Russo above is correct: sponsors should NOT expect that the government's interest or capability to deport their sponsored (ex)spouses/partners will meet their desires. Almost all of the time, they should forget about their spouse and their immigration status/deportation (after cutting themselves off and protecting themselves, including after reporting what evidence they have of immigration fraud or criminal activity). Once separated / divorced, the immigration status of their ex is no longer their business.
I believe I responded in substance to most of this but again: provide what evidence you have to police and immigration, and then it is no longer your business.
I referred to government interests and priorities being different from yours: as soon as you claim that immigration fraud is a 'public matter', it enters the domain of public policy, and government/governments get to decide between competing priorities, enforcement costs, etc - both in general and in specific cases.
In other words: yes, they get to decide whether the evidence provided is sufficient, whether the likelihood of finding such evidence, the difficulty and cost of deportation is worth pursuing, as well as in general how to ensure the integrity of the immigration system against these other competing priorities.
I can have a different view than you (or anyone else) as to what the priorities should be and how well those priorities are implemented, of course. You're welcome to express your views on it. But once you claim it's not a private matter, it's not really your choice any longer.
"Lying" in these contexts is rarely a crime, nor even proof of immigration fraud, unless it can be shown - with direct evidence - that this was the intent.
And to repeat a point: government literally does not care whether your spouse was a virgin or not, slept with dozens of people, etc, nor whether they lied about it, except in a very limited set of cases (such as endangering others).
The alternative is FAR more government intrusion into private lives, or outright bans/severely restricted access to spousal sponsorship for arranged marriages and other short-term relationships. I doubt either of those will happen.
Perhaps I'm biased: I was with my spouse for >5 years of cohabitation and children before sponsorship. Requiring five years cohabitation prior to sponsorship would greatly reduce marriage fraud for immigration purposes. I'm realistic, though - I recognise that would never be accepted by the public, and everything's a trade-off.
You do realize that there are con-artists who play the long game, years, just to get PR. People who victimize sponsors are good at the game. There are forums/groups teaching people how to victimize sponsors.
IRCC knows it's a real problem. Recourse - that's another story. But assuming everyone who is a victim as a sponsor just didn't do their "due diligence" is harsh. If you haven't been a victim of the fraud from the PA - then you don't understand at what great lengths they go to prove their "genuine" love. It's easy to view it from the cheap seats.
Best response.
What has happened, has happened, now do your best to protect yourself. The most important step you have taken is reported the SA to the police.
I am really sorry for the SA. Unfortunately, him misrepresenting his sexual history to you is in no way, shape or form a misrepresentation for IRCC.
I agree with this.
However, just to present the other side: what IS a misrepresentation to IRCC is if the partner was ACTUALLY in another relationship at the same time as to the original poster and INTENDED to leave the 'main' relationship (I'm using main here only to mean the one upon which the sponsorship was based) after arriving. If there's such intent, that would be misrepresentation, and serious (material enough to lead to consequences).
The problem here is whether there is sufficient evidence for IRCC to pursue it - and it's on this point that (as far as I can tell) the majority of such cases/allegations of marriage fraud come short. Ideally there would be something like actual evidence (eg correspondence) where the unfaithful partner makes plain the plan to leave the main relationship after getting PR status in Canada.
Now, I'm not a lawyer and not going to opine on what level of evidence IRCC actually needs - they make enforcement and investigation decisions based, in part, on resources and likelihood of getting somewhere with the investigation (i.e. getting a decision), as well as what they perceive to be the severity of the issue and any ancillary judgments about the danger the individual may represent to society and any other bnefits of pursuing the case. [Side note - secret for those who are not aware - the police and prosecutors make the same types of judgments and trade-offs all the time about resources, likelihood of success, seriousness, etc.]
But that doesn't mean that IRCC won't look at patterns and circumstantial evidence, too - and eg a sponsored-PR leaving their spouse almost immediately after arrival in Canada/becoming a PR, that's at least a flag that may lead to at least some investigation. So may other evidence/facts the OP mentioned.
That said, closing the circuit: in most cases, sponsors who report their sponsored partners/ex-spouses may not ever find out whether an investigation occurred, and what was the result (except eg finding out a deportation took place). Privacy rules apply - and the sponsor for the most part does not have any special right to find out much about the status or investigations or other aspects of their ex-partner's immigration case. (Remember: IRCC often requires consent even to share info with the sponsor and vice-versa for a spouse during an actual ongoing sponsorship case)
[There may be cases where one could get access to some info, but possibly only with a lawyer's assistance. At any rate, not legal advice, just reiterating that their immigration status is mostly not your business any more, they have that status as an indvidual.]
This exactly why a potential spouse needs to do their due diligence, potentially consider dating/marrying people with PR or citizenship in Canada or a spouse who has nothing to gain by obtaining Canadian citizenship, etc. There are also plenty with Canadian citizenship or PR who also use the potential of sponsorship for their own gain so there is nefarious activity on both sides. IRCC does put a lot of trust in adults to determine whether they are in a genuine relationship. If you have not lived with someone for an extended period of time before sponsoring them you know you are taking a risk that the relationship may not work out because you don’t truly know them.