A non-genuine relationship: stereotypes?

[Idrissrafd]

Throwback Thursday to an ATIP of an IRCC Training Manual written in 2007 which taught visa officers that an indicator that a marital relationship might not be genuine includes when a Chinese national, particularly an international student, marries someone non-Chinese.

Nearly half of my Canadian friends would not have met these requirements. Small weddings, backyard receptions, married by a retired judge, non-traditional rings, etc.

The funniest one : Not kissing your spouse on the LIPS (publicly/for pictures) ...How can you judge the genuineness of a relationship based on your own “culture” ? So if you don’t kiss you spouse on the lips, publicly or for pictures, because of your culture/religion/proper intimacy/etc, it’s considered as an indicator of a non-genuine relationship?
What’s next ? Interracial couple (“Black-White” for example) as an indicator ?

 

[Homotope]

A lot of this still rings true today. In 2018 my Chinese spouse (of 4 years at that time) and I were told at our interview that we were sitting too far apart during the interview so we couldn't be in a genuine relationship. The officer also said within the first 5 minutes of meeting us that we were not outgoing enough to possibly meet by chance in public, which was genuinely how we met. Amazing how the officers can completely figure people's entire lives out from a couple photos and sentences.

 

[armoured]

Throwback Thursday to an ATIP of an IRCC Training Manual written in 2007 which taught visa officers that an indicator that a marital relationship might not be genuine includes when a Chinese national, particularly an international student, marries someone non-Chinese.

Nearly half of my Canadian friends would not have met these requirements. Small weddings, backyard receptions, married by a retired judge, non-traditional rings, etc.

The funniest one : Not kissing your spouse on the LIPS (publicly/for pictures) ...How can you judge the genuineness of a relationship based on your own “culture” ? So if you don’t kiss you spouse on the lips, publicly or for pictures, because of your culture/religion/proper intimacy/etc, it’s considered as an indicator of a non-genuine relationship?
What’s next ? Interracial couple (“Black-White” for example) as an indicator ?

While I'm not going to defend all of the content of this, nor of how it is used in all cases, taking a single page from a handout out of context is also pretty indefensible.

First: I would say that close to zero of my Canadian friends would have 'met these requirements' in full. But that's a pretty lame comment, because ... zero of my Canadian (PR, citizen) friends present any risk of immigration fraud. They have no motive, no need - it simply does not apply.

But more so: you misunderstand and misstate - these are NOT requirements. They are 'indicators' of potential non-genuine relationship, i.e. for purposes of immigration fraud.

And the way risk factors (or looking at indicators) is applied in practice is NOT that you must meet these tests or requirements - but consider them balanced against other factors.

Or in more simple terminology: 'red flags' as these are sometimes termed are not red cards as in football, but a bit more like yellow cards (or points, if you prefer) - accumulate enough of them and it triggers more detailed examination.

So: while very few of my Canadian friends would not have some of these 'indicators', I can state that absolutely all of them would pass full examination (including those Canadian friends who sponsored their foreign national spouses - all of them successfully) because they had one VERY strong factor in support of their relationships. That factor? They all had lived together prior to their marriages, mostly for several years. I literally do not know of a case in my circle of those who did not live together for lengthy periods beforehand - and several cases where the only people who did not know that were parents, because cultural stuff. (My own sponsorship of my spouse would hit four or five of the indicators on that slide - no problems whatsoever; but then we've lived together for years).

The other part of context that you're living out: there does exist an entire network of 'consultants' and online resources, etc., that specifically recommend to applicants EXACTLY HOW to apply - what types of pictures to send, what types of honeymoon pictures, etc.

The point being: it's quite likely and probably that this training material was tailored to a particular point in time and ACTUAL FRAUD patterns (some of which were responsive to previous cases of detected fraud and information that those 'consultants' found out were cited as reasons for refusal).

And while I'm not going to get caught in some endless stream of "but they mentioned [nationality] by name!" - it's very much an established fact that waves of immigration fraud from some countries and regions occur commonly, and do to the nature of the 'immigration consultant' business, the patterns of how these cases are presented (by the consultants or applicants) also follow in waves with tactics/techniques repeated and reutilized over and over (until they catch on, and then they adapt again).

So it is possible that this particular mention was driven by some actual pattern of immigration fraud prevalent at the time and hence why some things that were mentioned seem rather odd (now).

It still boils down to: immigration fraud is a real thing; IRCC is obliged by law to take all reasonable efforts to keep immigration fraud 'down' (tolerance / willingness to devote efforts to it is in Minister's hands, by law); Canada is mostly pretty liberal in accepting a lot of forms of marriage, some of which are vulnerable to immigration fraud; once PR status has been granted, there is very, very little Canada can do to revoke that status. (I'd characterize - very loosely - the way they approach this as 'risk-based' - the more points that seem to present higher risk, the more investigation, etc.)

But to turn the tables: how would you propose government approach this? Ignore such factors?

I have A Modest Proposal* for spousal sponsorship reform that I guarantee would reduce immigration fraud by marriage by 95% or more: allow spousal sponsorship only in cases where the couple is legally married and has resided together for three years or more (two years or more with biological children, DNA tests required). Documentation requirements would be strict. No exceptions whatsoever for 'difficulties' residing together, nor special allowance (eg TRV or work permit extensions) to permit couples to meet the residence test, no work permits for this purpose either. If the foreign national cannot get status in Canada to live together, the Canadian national can move abroad to do so (and if a PR is in this situation, the PR must get citizenship first because PRs cannot sponsor from abroad).

Of course, my proposal would be absolutely unacceptable politically, culturally, and socially. But it's simple, would require very few subjective tests or 'fraud risk detection' (mostly that would be a question of proper documentation). There would be very few 'appeals' of merit, because it's a simple test and mostly a question of whether the couple can prove they've met the strict requirements.

Does that work for everyone?



*"A Modest Proposal" because I'm referencing Swift, and in case anyone missed the point, this is NOT a serious proposal on my part. I'm underlining: having a quite-open immigration system with spousal sponsorship the way it exists now means there will be a system of detecting immigration fraud that has some subjectivity to it. The alternative might be quite a lot worse.

 

[Idrissrafd]

You said : «But more so: you misunderstand and misstate - these are NOT requirements. They are 'indicators' of potential non-genuine relationship, i.e. for purposes of immigration fraud.».

I never said that these are requirements. Never. I clearly emphasised the fact that they’re indicators, but that doesn’t change the fact that those might be considered as stereotypes.

But to turn the tables: how would you propose government approach this? Ignore such factors?

Context is everything, like we say. Those indicators are ridiculous and pathetic (and might even be racist/xenophobic) without taking into account the context (culture, religion, their mentality, psychology, etc). You can’t just come and judge a couple based on your own culture and put a yellow flag because the couple didn’t kiss on the lips (!) or because there are no diamond (!) rings.
Would you find it acceptable to consider an interracial couple as an indicator of a non-genuine relationship?

Edit: I would add another thing :fraudsters are playing a role. They will use all stratagems to make the marriage genuine. They will use diamond rings; they will kiss their spouse on the lips, they will touch each other, etc. At the end, only innocents are being affected by these pathetic indicators; in the other side, fraudsters will turn these indicators to their advantage.

 

[armoured]

You said : «But more so: you misunderstand and misstate - these are NOT requirements. They are 'indicators' of potential non-genuine relationship, i.e. for purposes of immigration fraud.».

I never said that these are requirements. Never. I clearly emphasised the fact that they’re indicators, but that doesn’t change the fact that those might be considered as stereotypes.

You wrote - direct quote - "Nearly half of my Canadian friends would not have met these requirements."

Evidently you didn't mean requirements when you used the word requirements.

Context is everything, like we say. Those indicators are ridiculous and pathetic (and might even be racist/xenophobic) without taking into account the context (culture, religion, their mentality, psychology, etc). You can’t just come and judge a couple based on your own culture and put a red flag because the couple didn’t kiss on the lips (!) or because there are no diamond (!) rings.

This comment makes no sense. You took a single slide out of context, and then say context is everything.

And I don't understand: you think these indicators 'are ridiculous and pathetic (and might be racist/xenophobic) without taking into account the context (culture, religion, their mentality, psychology, etc)."

Taking into account culture, religion, etc - that's in itself potentially 'racist/xenophobic.' You can't take these things 'into account' - or indeed consider them ridiculous and pathetic - without starting from some point of cultural reference. You consider them to be ridiculous - but they may in fact be important indicators in the cultural, religious, etc context in which they're being applied.

So yes: they may not make sense in all cases. But by using this single slide, you removed the context in which these indicators - indicators only, not requirements - are being used (which I don't know because ... no context).

As a simple example: IRCC clearly has expectations for the types of ceremonies for arranged marriages. It's not imposing the concept of eg a "Western European" marriage on applicants from cultures where those are the norm. But it is - or at least attempting to - 'take into account the cultural / religious context' by saying for an arranged marriage to be considered genuine, it should be internally consistent and follow those religious and cultural requirements.

Would you find it acceptable to consider an interracial couple as an indicator of a non-genuine relationship?

Would you consider an arranged marriage between two applicants of different faiths/cultures, where both/either faith/culture considers marriages with non-believers/outsiders to be unacceptable, an indicator of a non-genuine relationship?

 

[Idrissrafd]

You wrote - direct quote - "Nearly half of my Canadian friends would not have met these requirements."

Evidently you didn't mean requirements when you used the word requirements.

I apologise. I copy-pasted that part from Twitter and I forgot that the author used the word “requirements” which is incorrect, you’re totally right.

This comment makes no sense. You took a single slide out of context, and then say context is everything.

How is it out of context ? The text is clear. The context is also clear.

And I don't understand: you think these indicators 'are ridiculous and pathetic (and might be racist/xenophobic) without taking into account the context (culture, religion, their mentality, psychology, etc)."

Taking into account culture, religion, etc - that's in itself potentially 'racist/xenophobic.' You can't take these things 'into account' - or indeed consider them ridiculous and pathetic - without starting from some point of cultural reference. You consider them to be ridiculous - but they may in fact be important indicators in the cultural, religious, etc context in which they're being applied.

Judging a relationship and saying “it might not be a genuine relationship” because the couple do not kiss on the lips, is literally judging a whole culture. However, taking into account the cultural background of the couple help you to understand. In one side, they have no intention to understand, they have stereotypes and they throw yellow flags; in the other side, we try to understand .

But by using this single slide, you removed the context in which these indicators - indicators only, not requirements - are being used (which I don't know because ... no context).

The slide is self explanatory.

Would you consider an arranged marriage between two applicants of different faiths/cultures, where both/either faith/culture considers marriages with non-believers/outsiders to be unacceptable, an indicator of a non-genuine relationship?

Answer my question first.

I pointed another point, you might missed it.
I would add another thing :fraudsters are playing a role. They will use all stratagems to make the marriage genuine. They will use diamond rings; they will kiss their spouse on the lips, they will touch each other, etc. At the end, only innocents are being affected by these pathetic indicators; in the other side, fraudsters will turn these indicators to their advantage.

Ps. I do not know why my message is under control (moderation).

 

[armoured]

How is it out of context ? The text is clear. The context is also clear.

The context is the rest of the presentation/handouts and the training itself.

Judging a relationship and saying “it might not be a genuine relationship” because the couple do not kiss on the lips, is literally judging a whole culture. However, taking into account the cultural background of the couple help you to understand. In one side, they have no intention to understand, they have stereotypes and they throw yellow flags; in the other side, we try to understand .

Saying one indicator - potential - may be a sign is not to say that the lack of such evidence/presence of the indicator "means" refusal. It means an indicator they take into consideration.

The slide is self explanatory.

See above. You don't know, for example, whether they had other slides suggesting when such indicators may be misleading or should not be used or in which contexts. I.e. they may very well point out that for many relationships/individuals, these types of indicators may be not useful at all. Or, for example, whether these indicators are 'weighted' in some more or less formal way - compared to, for example, actually residing together for long periods of time.

Answer my question first.

What I have seen and I'm aware of is this: when applicants present reasons they could not provide some expected evidence (such as large marriage with all family present) for reasons such as being of different faith, sexual preference, or indeed being of different races, IRCC will take such factors into account. They will look at other evidence of relationship instead. They are (I believe) quite explicit about this - see for example the entire conjugal class of application. I support this and think it's appropriate even if it requires some judgment.

Now your turn: answer my question.

I pointed another point, you might missed it.
I would add another thing :fraudsters are playing a role. They will use all stratagems to make the marriage genuine. They will use diamond rings; they will kiss their spouse on the lips, they will touch each other, etc. At the end, only innocents are being affected by these pathetic indicators; in the other side, fraudsters will turn these indicators to their advantage.

I am aware of this. Indeed, I explicitly raised it as part of the 'context' of training done in 2007 vs perhaps now, or some other time - such strategems and techniques will change over time and the value of such indicators to detecting such immigration fraud.

Since you seem focussed on this particular one (the signs of phsyical affection in wedding photos): what context would be missing is (for example) a) whether this was referred to in some particular cultural context or not, and b) whether IRCC had identified this as a frequent recurring thing in a series of applications.

And no, it is not 'only innocents' that are affected - you seem to assume that others (such as IRCC) are stupid, and yet make this assertion without any evidence whatsoever. They see large numbers of applications and are quite capable of detecting when there are patterns, and I think it would be naive to assume that they are also not aware that the value of such indicators may change over time.

And there are repeated patterns that come up. Even reading through a handful of IAD appeals and decisions shows a fair number of them. While 'faking' information is possible, it is apparently not so easy that it is done without relatively common 'tells.'

 

[armoured]

As an example by the way of 'context matters' - I draw attention to the very last bullet point in that slide:

-Photos of activities together are often taken in the Niagara Falls area, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto. The couples may have lived in Niagara Falls, St Catharine's, Beamsville, Welland, Thorold, Grimsby, etc.

I underlined that second sentence because it is peculiarly specific - and in a way that is far more specific than the previous sentence (after all, activities for visitors in Toronto and Niagara are not at all uncommon). Now, I could speculate about the context and what was going on, but it would be a guess.

But I can say with relative certainty: this is not from a generic 'how to detect fake marriages' (across all cultures/countries etc) instruction manual.

It clearly relates (most probably) to inland applications, or outland-in-Canada apps - anyway applicants who were in Canada for marriage and honeymoon.

But these specific details (Beamsville? Grimsby?) are too specific to just be random - there was something going on (either in the context of something related to the training - like case studies - or a notable rise in cases of non-genuine marriages, the patterns I referred to). If there was something specific going on, identifying indicators that were common to a group of apps identified as suspicious is entirely natural (and participants would know that these screening characteristics were not to be blindly applied to all applicants regardless of where from/when filed etc).

Context matters.

[Of course I suppose it's possible that IRCC has some really negative stereotypes about Welland.]

 

[k.h.p.]

As an example by the way of 'context matters' - I draw attention to the very last bullet point in that slide:

-Photos of activities together are often taken in the Niagara Falls area, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto. The couples may have lived in Niagara Falls, St Catharine's, Beamsville, Welland, Thorold, Grimsby, etc.

I underlined that second sentence because it is peculiarly specific - and in a way that is far more specific than the previous sentence (after all, activities for visitors in Toronto and Niagara are not at all uncommon). Now, I could speculate about the context and what was going on, but it would be a guess.

But I can say with relative certainty: this is not from a generic 'how to detect fake marriages' (across all cultures/countries etc) instruction manual.

It clearly relates (most probably) to inland applications, or outland-in-Canada apps - anyway applicants who were in Canada for marriage and honeymoon.

But these specific details (Beamsville? Grimsby?) are too specific to just be random - there was something going on (either in the context of something related to the training - like case studies - or a notable rise in cases of non-genuine marriages, the patterns I referred to). If there was something specific going on, identifying indicators that were common to a group of apps identified as suspicious is entirely natural (and participants would know that these screening characteristics were not to be blindly applied to all applicants regardless of where from/when filed etc).

Context matters.

[Of course I suppose it's possible that IRCC has some really negative stereotypes about Welland.]

I mean, who doesn't have stereotypes about Welland. It's flat, depressing, and sucks in a thunderstorm.

But I agree - there is likely a LOT of context here - this is potentially a slide for "indicators of non-genuine relationships for inland applications from southern Ontario, south of the Golden Horseshoe area" or even "for applicants in Toronto."

Very few of these specific indicators would be useful in a Vancouver inland application context.