Totally possible that I'm missing your point. Another post annoyed me to no end today and I could have lost my ability to focus!
So regarding your points:
1, 2 and 3 - I think I said you could be right about that. My point is that you are not supposed to be right about it.
The language in the proposed legislation does not allow for this. But human nature being what it is, again, you could be right.
I was responding to your statement that the US fiance visa was "similar" to this proposed type of visa. And I was also trying to ensure that other readers of these posts are informed about what exactly is entailed in a US fiance visa. There have been others posting that they are hoping that it models the US, UK and Australia. So a lot of what I wrote wasn't written in direct response, just more of a general comment.
OK; worth doing.
And another general comment, I hope this proposed legislation is significantly re-worked if it is to become law. It would be great if it's purpose was at least partly to reduce processing times for this class of applicants. So I'm being literal in my interpretation of what I've read. Like you, I waited a REALLY long time. But if you read what was posted in the Gazette, it leaves one wondering (or at least me) how large the Canadian contingent of this "operation" would be (manpower), their scope of powers and responsibilities, and the methods they will employ to remove conditions. And how they are going to pay for this really puzzles me with this 5% cutback they have to put into place this year and continuing until the deficit is gone.
Right: the cuts will tend to slow the process down, which is why I hope that the conditional 2-years will have the effect of speeding up the VOs' decision-making process. However, Baloo points out that the voting public is more concerned with bad people getting into Canada, and so the VOs may well find themselves under equal pressure. That is, back to the slow process.
Since they won't add jobs, are they going to give inland officers more responsibilities? Will they move some overseas officers back to Canada? That reduces staffing in the missions outside of Canada leaving the same or more work for less people. There is really SO much left to be answered!
But here's a question for you. Let's say you are right, that this will decrease processing times for applicants because the VO's at the overseas missions will pass the buck to the inland officers to deal with. What about those applicants who are NOT subject to the conditional PR visas? The proposed legislation says this will only be applicable to applicants married or living together for less than 2 years. So will they create a 2 tiered system of assessment? I guess they must anyway because it would be two different visas being issued. And in my experience, those that have been married or living together for a significant period of time are not usually subject to the lengthy delays anyway so it may be a moot point.
So sorry if I didn't "get" you right away. I hope I have now.
Yes, we're on the same page. Only one small clarification: with less pressure on them, I hope the VOs will make more decisions themselves, and not "pass the buck" to the interview VO. When you refer to inland VOs getting the buck passed to them, if you mean that the inland VOs must make the final decision -- to remove the condition and make the visa permanent, or not -- then I understand your phraseology.
Sometimes discussion by Internet is arduous, is it not? It does not allow timely clarification and correction, so participants go off on tangents, until corrections are made belatedly.
, not pass the buck to anyone else -- unless by "pass teh buck" you mean that the final approval/rejection will rest t=with VOs in Canada who must review the marriage and then decide whether to waive the condition.dl make more decisions, quicker.
