Marriage Fraud

[Mrayti]

I have no idea which is more prevalent, but fully agree that the idea the problems are limited just to the applicants deceiving unsuspecting sponsors is obviously false.

And as a parallel note: the pressure to approve more/faster/better (from perspective of the applicants and sponsors) is constant and unending; everyone is insulted that the possibility could even EXIST that they are being deceived or are themselves guilty of deceiving their partner. Or indeed that both are working together to deceive.

We /mostly/ give the benefit of the doubt here on the board (and I mostly think that's the correct stance). But that doesn't mean eveyrone's innocent.

It's VERY rare here that anyone admits that IRCC denied their application - but were actually right. And of course those doing the deceiving or outright misrepresenting admit it - when they're called on it, they usually stop posting, or otherwise divert attention.

I do remember one case of a prominent poster (a couple of years ago) who was OUTRAGED when his spousal application was refused. Perhaps six months later came back and admitted that IRCC had saved him a world of trouble, because his erstwhile partner was a confirmed fraudster. I don't recall the poster's handle and don't want to call someone specific out, but the huge red flag waving in the wind was that they had no photos because the partner had a 'social anxiety problem' about being photographed (or something like that, supposedly with doctor's notes or something).

Anyway the specifics are not important, the point is just that we never here about the cases avoided.

There are abusers, there are fraudsters. Unfortunately, one and the other don't usually meet until the couple is reunited. That is a risk of having a relationship/marriage with someone from a country where it's difficult to obtain a visa from Canada.

That poster should consider himself blessed.

 

[armoured]

Honestly, I think there would be a benefit to using a system similar to what they use in England. You go on a spouse visa and you don't have an automatic PR. At least, for marriages that are arranged or Muslim where there is little communication beforehand it would give the parties a chance to see if their marriage works out. You can only apply for PR after 5 years. If the marriage fails, the spouse has an opportunity to switch to a different visa.

Perhaps it's possible to design a system that isn't open to abuse - but reality is that there is already abuse (with threat of "leave me and you'll get deported"), and when Canada had a program like this, it made the abuse worse. It's going to be a high bar to get over - and govt will also (inevitably) be accused of discrimination against those with different 'cultural practices' (based on country of origin).

Does that mean it's impossible to do? No. But I can see why sticking with current will be default for time being.

[Leaving aside any other issues with British immigration system - particularly on the spouse immigration side - as I don't want to shoot down comments on basis that they're done somewhere else. It's a different country. Suffice to say they have their own issues with immigration that wouldn't be considered acceptable here.]

 

[Mrayti]

Perhaps it's possible to design a system that isn't open to abuse - but reality is that there is already abuse (with threat of "leave me and you'll get deported"), and when Canada had a program like this, it made the abuse worse. It's going to be a high bar to get over - and govt will also (inevitably) be accused of discrimination against those with different 'cultural practices' (based on country of origin).

Does that mean it's impossible to do? No. But I can see why sticking with current will be default for time being.

[Leaving aside any other issues with British immigration system - particularly on the spouse immigration side - as I don't want to shoot down comments on basis that they're done somewhere else. It's a different country. Suffice to say they have their own issues with immigration that wouldn't be considered acceptable here.]

Obviously, we can't compare and I don't know all the details. I do know that if there is DV, there is a visa workaround - but of course, that doesn't mean that people don't falsely accuse the sponsor of that so they can move on without them.

But, just like there is a temporary visa for employment, study - there should be one for partnership. If there is an understanding that it's temporary than it is what it is - you're not a PR. I'm not suggesting it would be a simple resolution, but it's definitely something to look into. At the very least, make TRV easier for spouses PRIOR to sponsorship. Anyways, I suppose we are not the experts.

 

[CanGoldDigger]

Obviously, we can't compare and I don't know all the details. I do know that if there is DV, there is a visa workaround - but of course, that doesn't mean that people don't falsely accuse the sponsor of that so they can move on without them.

But, just like there is a temporary visa for employment, study - there should be one for partnership. If there is an understanding that it's temporary than it is what it is - you're not a PR. I'm not suggesting it would be a simple resolution, but it's definitely something to look into. At the very least, make TRV easier for spouses PRIOR to sponsorship. Anyways, I suppose we are not the experts.

TRV prior to sponsorship would be a kind of probation which is even a greater abuse, kind of be a doll or get out.

Sponsors are looking for free nurses, housekeepers, caregivers, "pets", sex dolls, whatever, for their specific needs which is really sad..

On the other side sponsors just need to take some responsibility which they are supposed to have and make an effort to verify if their relationships are genuine.

 

[Mrayti]

TRV prior to sponsorship would be a kind of probation which is even a greater abuse, kind of be a doll or get out.

Sponsors are looking for free nurses, housekeepers, caregivers, "pets", sex dolls, whatever, for their specific needs which is really sad..

On the other side sponsors just need to take some responsibility which they are supposed to have and make an effort to verify if their relationships are genuine.

I disagree on the TRV prior to sponsorship. It gives people a chance to live together and see how things work out. People end relationships every day. Obviously, the best time to be able to do this is prior to marriage - but the system kind of pressures the marriage for the spouses to be able to be together. This is 2026, many people meet online and it's probably the norm now.

I understand there is a great burden on sponsors to ensure they're bringing a quality person. But there are genuinely good, kind people that get fooled by someone that is really great at playing a long game to get the golden ticket they are in search of. There are bad on both sides and just blaming sponsors should know better is not the right answer. Most of us sponsor our spouses here because it's a better future in Canada vs. where our spouse lives.

I've mentioned before - I have a friend that brought her husband here and lived with him for 6 months in his country prior. 6 months after he got here, he returned home and got engaged to another girl - already planning to divorce my friend. In the end, it did come out that a lot of men from his country do the same - leave that country so they can return and bring a girl over because they've increased their status in life. My friend also had a massive wedding, hired professional singers, gorgeous gown, rented hall - the works, all paid for by him and the family. Sometimes, the scammers are just really good at their game.

I'll say it again - there is bad on both sides - not just sponsors.

 

[armoured]

I understand there is a great burden on sponsors to ensure they're bringing a quality person. But there are genuinely good, kind people that get fooled by someone that is really great at playing a long game to get the golden ticket they are in search of. There are bad on both sides and just blaming sponsors should know better is not the right answer.

It's not a question of 'blaming' the sponsor. It's simply a fact of life: you get married, you take responsibility for the decisions you make. There's a reason only adults are allowed to get married (generally).

That includes having your marriage fail, etc. The limits of what 'the government' can do when an individual enters into a marriage are mostly limited to enforcing criminal laws. In Canada, the federal govt has almost NO role in marriages (since most criminal law enforcement is at the provincial level). Between individuals, apart from criminal fraud and violence, it's on the individual (and recognizing that criminal statutes and enforcement are also imperfect).

Yes, the immigration system introduces more incentives for people to marry in bad faith, and the government has some level of checks to try to ensure that /the immigration system/ remains viable and to minimize harm to the Canadian public (note, NOT the individual). The interests they are protecting are those of society (writ large), not the individual.

Repeat: the choice to marry and sponsor a spouse is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the individual. Including the consequences.

And yes, that means that sometmes 'good kind people get fooled.' Happens for marriages in Canada as well.

 

[Mrayti]

It's not a question of 'blaming' the sponsor. It's simply a fact of life: you get married, you take responsibility for the decisions you make. There's a reason only adults are allowed to get married (generally).

That includes having your marriage fail, etc. The limits of what 'the government' can do when an individual enters into a marriage are mostly limited to enforcing criminal laws. In Canada, the federal govt has almost NO role in marriages (since most criminal law enforcement is at the provincial level). Between individuals, apart from criminal fraud and violence, it's on the individual (and recognizing that criminal statutes and enforcement are also imperfect).

Yes, the immigration system introduces more incentives for people to marry in bad faith, and the government has some level of checks to try to ensure that /the immigration system/ remains viable and to minimize harm to the Canadian public (note, NOT the individual). The interests they are protecting are those of society (writ large), not the individual.

Repeat: the choice to marry and sponsor a spouse is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the individual. Including the consequences.

And yes, that means that sometmes 'good kind people get fooled.' Happens for marriages in Canada as well.

I am absolutely not arguing that undertaking responsibilities are not diminished in the case of a failed marriage. My issue is with "well, it's all the sponsors fault, the sponsor is the abuser, the user." If my marriage fails, fine - I accept that I may have to support my spouse and that they are a PR. My first thought would never be to think about deportation. That's never been my issue with some of the responses.

 

[James Russo]

Honestly, I think there would be a benefit to using a system similar to what they use in England. You go on a spouse visa and you don't have an automatic PR. At least, for marriages that are arranged or Muslim where there is little communication beforehand it would give the parties a chance to see if their marriage works out. You can only apply for PR after 5 years. If the marriage fails, the spouse has an opportunity to switch to a different visa.

Haha, sorry, but this is the worst idea you could give, and you chose some of the worst examples of countries. England?! Really? A racist and xenophobic society that voted for Brexit because they didn’t want Europeans coming in and out of their country. Look at how England is still struggling with its economy and dealing with unstable politics, changing governments almost every two years. All because of a dumb decision based on a xenophobic thought.

Canada is a country that welcomes immigrants and has one of the greatest justice systems in the world. Your idea is basically to give the sponsor the power to abuse, to blackmail their spouse for five years.

“If the marriage fails, the spouse has an opportunity to switch to a different visa.”

This is a fallacy. We know how difficult it is to apply for any immigration program. You are building a life with your sponsor, and for whatever reason, the marriage ends. That could completely turn your life upside down because your sponsor can kick you out and find someone else. Is that fair to you?! For me, that sounds like a selfish way of thinking, focusing only on the sponsor’s well-being.

What England wants is basically: if the marriage fails, you lose your status and can be deported at any time. They do not want immigrants!

 

[James Russo]

In most cases it's more kind of abuse from a sponsor, as sad as it may sound.

The person who made this post it was more interested about deportation than see the spouse arrested due a supposed sexual assault lol. For me this is revealing! Could I take this seriously?! I don't think so.