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.

 

[Mrayti]

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.

 

[armoured]

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.

I have no idea what you're saying, then. FIrst you suggest it should be done the way the UK has it, where there's an interim status for a sponsored spouse. Now you say it's fine and the spouse that was sponsored can stay, no worries about deportation, etc.

So what is it you're talking about? You just don't want the sponsor to be 'blamed'?

No-one is saying all sponsors are abusers. The vast majority of cases where couples split are 'no fault' vis a vis IRCC, no accusations on either side, and they work out their civil issues on their own. (Some of those may still be fraudulent eg if both sponsor and spouse are involved but that's a separate issue)

 

[canuck78]

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.

Anyone involved in immigration has also seen cases where even when the government has concerns that marriages are for immigration purposes and sponsors still fight to be able to sponsor their spouse. Some are unwilling to see warning signs. Many also insist on marrying someone who isn’t already in Canada because they/their family will benefit and receive “gifts” from their future family, want to leverage their immigration status to marry someone they may not have been matched with if they didn’t have status in Canada, etc. Depending on the situation there are sponsors and people being sponsored that have used the immigration system to their own benefit.

 

[Mrayti]

I have no idea what you're saying, then. FIrst you suggest it should be done the way the UK has it, where there's an interim status for a sponsored spouse. Now you say it's fine and the spouse that was sponsored can stay, no worries about deportation, etc.

So what is it you're talking about? You just don't want the sponsor to be 'blamed'?

No-one is saying all sponsors are abusers. The vast majority of cases where couples split are 'no fault' vis a vis IRCC, no accusations on either side, and they work out their civil issues on their own. (Some of those may still be fraudulent eg if both sponsor and spouse are involved but that's a separate issue)

1. I like the UK system, in theory - I don't know how well it works in practice, I'm not there. I like the idea of an interim status for a spouse/fiance/boyfriend/partner etc.

2. In *our* system, yes - I agree that the sponsored spouse arrived as a PR, should be able to remain as a PR no matter the circumstances surrounding the failure of a marriage whether it happens organically or through a scam.

3. There is a poster in here that has been aggressively making statements that it's all on the sponsor and making it sound like all PA's are innocent - even if they're a scammer, the sponsor should have known better. Yes, there's an undertaking, the sponsor is responsible. Yes, there are abusive sponsors. Yes, there are consequences of sponsoring someone you don't stay with. Yes, you should move on and learn a lesson or two. But also, there are PA's that use Canadians for sponsorship and that cannot always be the fault of the sponsor - scammers can play a good game and these things need to be acknowledged. Why? Because there are many lonely and vulnerable people out there who can't imagine that someone can fake or scam love - and people should be aware of these situations to make better and informed decisions of marrying someone from abroad.

 

[Mrayti]

Anyone involved in immigration has also seen cases where even when the government has concerned that marriages are for immigration purposes sponsors fight to be able to sponsor their spouse. Some are unwilling to see warning signs. Many also insist on marrying someone who isn’t already in Canada because they/their family will benefit and receive “gifts” from their future family, want to leverage their immigration status to marry someone they may not have been matched with if they didn’t have status in Canada, etc. Depending on the situation there are sponsors and people being sponsored that have used the immigration system to their own benefit.

Of course this happens. I try to believe that IRCC does a good job vetting some of these people at interviews - but I don't know what happens there. Those that really fight through appeals and miss the warning signs of a scammer are simply people that are easily taken advantage of and are vulnerable and/or lonely. I have read accounts of people going as far as having a baby (anchor baby) to try and get PR and then abandon the child as well. Unfortunately, love can be blind and for the unsuspecting person the flags aren't always waving boldly.

 

[canuck78]

1. I like the UK system, in theory - I don't know how well it works in practice, I'm not there. I like the idea of an interim status for a spouse/fiance/boyfriend/partner etc.

2. In *our* system, yes - I agree that the sponsored spouse arrived as a PR, should be able to remain as a PR no matter the circumstances surrounding the failure of a marriage whether it happens organically or through a scam.

3. There is a poster in here that has been aggressively making statements that it's all on the sponsor and making it sound like all PA's are innocent - even if they're a scammer, the sponsor should have known better. Yes, there's an undertaking, the sponsor is responsible. Yes, there are abusive sponsors. Yes, there are consequences of sponsoring someone you don't stay with. Yes, you should move on and learn a lesson or two. But also, there are PA's that use Canadians for sponsorship and that cannot always be the fault of the sponsor - scammers can play a good game and these things need to be acknowledged. Why? Because there are many lonely and vulnerable people out there who can't imagine that someone can fake or scam love - and people should be aware of these situations to make better and informed decisions of marrying someone from abroad.

Having no consequences if sponsorship fall apart soon after arrival, for marriage fraud or because everyone is viewed as lonely or vulnerable will likely just lead to people being less cautious and more scammers. Many may consider trying to date someone already in Canada where sponsorship would not be a consideration, may try living together outside of Canada, etc. if they knew there would be consequences of sponsorship. If it was well known and well documented that any spouse sponsored could remain in Canada no matter what happened to the relationship as soon as they landed in Canada many more people with bad intentions would likely try to find a partner in Canada and push for sponsorship. There is no perfect solution but there should to be at least the illusion that there could be consequences of marriage fraud.

 

[armoured]

1. I like the UK system, in theory - I don't know how well it works in practice, I'm not there. I like the idea of an interim status for a spouse/fiance/boyfriend/partner etc.

2. In *our* system, yes - I agree that the sponsored spouse arrived as a PR, should be able to remain as a PR no matter the circumstances surrounding the failure of a marriage whether it happens organically or through a scam.

To be blunt: you've read a wee bit about the UK system, you like one aspect *in theory*, but actually don't know much of anything about how it works in practice - neither the problems nor the compensatory factors (which may or may not exist - IDK).

There's no magic bullet. These two things contradict each other, and to say you 'like' the UK system in theory ... well, the problem with theory sometimes is that it has issues in reality. Unintended consequences. Canada tried it and it was bad. Unless those aspects are addressed, it's like saying "I'd like to own a horse" and knowing nothing about horses.

BTW - there are other aspects of the UK system that would absolutely never be accepted here. Spouses from abroad sponsoring can't just move with them - they must absolutely demonstrate UK income sufficient for spouse and kids for a considerable length of time. I have acquaintances who have had to live apart for years to make this work, and a few who've given up on ever returning to UK with family - it's a VERY harsh monetary requirement (from Canadian perspective).

[Caveat that I don't know if it's changed since then.]

3. There is a poster in here that has been aggressively making statements that it's all on the sponsor and making it sound like all PA's are innocent - even if they're a scammer, the sponsor should have known better. Yes, there's an undertaking, the sponsor is responsible. Yes, there are abusive sponsors. Yes, there are consequences of sponsoring someone you don't stay with. Yes, you should move on and learn a lesson or two. But also, there are PA's that use Canadians for sponsorship and that cannot always be the fault of the sponsor - scammers can play a good game and these things need to be acknowledged. Why? Because there are many lonely and vulnerable people out there who can't imagine that someone can fake or scam love - and people should be aware of these situations to make better and informed decisions of marrying someone from abroad.

Yep, there are scammers. If your point is just that in cases of egregious marriage fraud, IRCC should try to stop it. I think they make an effort - but it's the nature of the beast that there can NEVER exist the balance that everyone thinks is right. The bad ones should get caught and thorwn out - but determining which are the bad ones with sufficient evidence is very non-trivial.

As for 'people should be aware' - yep, they should. And govt should attempt to make them aware.

And they do! They have all kinds of sites warning! Many immigration pages about this! They check the applicants, they check the basics of the relatonship, etc.

But someone will always say it wasn't enough, many/most will ignore all the warnings, they'll ignore their friends, the red flags, the warnings, etc.

It still boils down to: if someone wants to get married, the government can't stop them. And once married, most are going to be able to sponsor their spouse, no matter how many checks.