- Sep 29, 2009
- 104
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Hong Kong
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- November 2009
- Med's Done....
- October 2009 and 15 April 2011
- Interview........
- 4 April 2011
- Passport Req..
- 4 April 2011
- VISA ISSUED...
- 7 July 2011
- LANDED..........
- 15 July 2011
Recently my wife was denied a TRV to visit my family in Canada -- for the most common reason: insufficient ties to her home country to convince the VO that she would return by the end of the visa period.
I got the CAIPS notes to get a better understanding of the VO's reasoning. Here are the factors the VO stated in his rationale:
She is unemployed.
(I had asked her to quit her job to allow us to travel; clearly we could not travel for 3 months if she were employed. I guess standard 3-week TRVs are safer to give out; anything different is worrisome for a VO to award).
There was no other evidence of our marriage relationship besides the marriage certificate.
(This is a ridiculous argument! The guide to the TRV application asks for a marriage certificate and nothing more. And what better proof of marriage can there be but a certified marriage certificate? To later suggest that she might have given more evidence (which the VO did not trouble himself to specify) is unreasonable, and indicates a prior intent to refuse the application, and then hunt around for any pretext to justify the refusal.)
The VO says he considered Dual Intent, then dismisses it without further ado, saying he doesn't think my wife would exit Canada if her permanent residency visa were denied. In other words, he ends up back at his starting point, a suspicion that she would not return to her home country. This is circular (faulty) logic, and it makes a mockery of the concept of Dual Intent. This circular logic even dismisses the very evidence the TRV Guide ask for -- a certified certificate of marriage. It shows a VO determined to refuse an application by fair means of foul.
This is one of the least attractive aspects of Canada: the unrestricted power these bureaucrats have over our lives.
I got the CAIPS notes to get a better understanding of the VO's reasoning. Here are the factors the VO stated in his rationale:
She is unemployed.
(I had asked her to quit her job to allow us to travel; clearly we could not travel for 3 months if she were employed. I guess standard 3-week TRVs are safer to give out; anything different is worrisome for a VO to award).
There was no other evidence of our marriage relationship besides the marriage certificate.
(This is a ridiculous argument! The guide to the TRV application asks for a marriage certificate and nothing more. And what better proof of marriage can there be but a certified marriage certificate? To later suggest that she might have given more evidence (which the VO did not trouble himself to specify) is unreasonable, and indicates a prior intent to refuse the application, and then hunt around for any pretext to justify the refusal.)
The VO says he considered Dual Intent, then dismisses it without further ado, saying he doesn't think my wife would exit Canada if her permanent residency visa were denied. In other words, he ends up back at his starting point, a suspicion that she would not return to her home country. This is circular (faulty) logic, and it makes a mockery of the concept of Dual Intent. This circular logic even dismisses the very evidence the TRV Guide ask for -- a certified certificate of marriage. It shows a VO determined to refuse an application by fair means of foul.
This is one of the least attractive aspects of Canada: the unrestricted power these bureaucrats have over our lives.
