Petition Regarding the Singapore offices' business practices

[CharlieD10]

OK, so I thought I would run a check through CanLii and I came up with the following random sample:

30 spousal cases refused
4 grounds for refusal:
a) Section 4 (bad faith marriage) - 22 cases, 3 allowed on appeal, 19 denials upheld
b) Section 117 (9)(c)(i) [sponsor/spouse married to someone else] - 5 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 4 denials upheld
c) Section 117 (1)(a) [spouses not legally married] - 2 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 1 denial upheld
d) Section 16(1) [obligation to answer truthfully] - 1 case, denial upheld

So, 73% of cases denied on bad faith grounds, of which 86% of the denials were upheld on appeal. Overall, 83% of the refusals were upheld on appeal.

Wow. That's a tough office.

 

[rjessome]

OK, so I thought I would run a check through CanLii and I came up with the following random sample:

30 spousal cases refused
4 grounds for refusal:
a) Section 4 (bad faith marriage) - 22 cases, 3 allowed on appeal, 19 denials upheld
b) Section 117 (9)(c)(i) [sponsor/spouse married to someone else] - 5 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 4 denials upheld
c) Section 117 (1)(a) [spouses not legally married] - 2 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 1 denial upheld
d) Section 16(1) [obligation to answer truthfully] - 1 case, denial upheld

So, 73% of cases denied on bad faith grounds, of which 86% of the denials were upheld on appeal. Overall, 83% of the refusals were upheld on appeal.

Wow. That's a tough office.

+1 for all that research!

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

OK, so I thought I would run a check through CanLii and I came up with the following random sample:

30 spousal cases refused
4 grounds for refusal:
a) Section 4 (bad faith marriage) - 22 cases, 3 allowed on appeal, 19 denials upheld
b) Section 117 (9)(c)(i) [sponsor/spouse married to someone else] - 5 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 4 denials upheld
c) Section 117 (1)(a) [spouses not legally married] - 2 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 1 denial upheld
d) Section 16(1) [obligation to answer truthfully] - 1 case, denial upheld

So, 73% of cases denied on bad faith grounds, of which 86% of the denials were upheld on appeal. Overall, 83% of the refusals were upheld on appeal.

Wow. That's a tough office.

Indeed a very tough office but I guess have to give them some credit even though they operate at a snails pace they appear to make the right call most of the time... and kudos for that amazing research... ask and ye shall receive around here is seems... thanks for that.

 

[toby]

Interesting thread. I just stumbled upon it today.

The overarching point Bangkokcanuck raises, for me anyway, is “why is CIC not exploring alternative methods of investigation that might increase efficiency?”

Singapore is not likely to increase the number of Visa Officers (VOs), since the Minister of Immigration has a mandate to reduce, not increase costs. However, would it increase efficiency and reduce wait times to have an interview first, as Bangkokcanuck proposes, and let VOs spend time analyzing documentation only for applicants who pass the interview? We don’t know, but it’s worth analyzing.

Someone else suggested lie detector tests to cut through all the documentary analysis and get to the real nub of the matter – the motive of the applicant (visa or love?). I recommended this idea months ago, but it met with a storm of protest – not the least of which was Rjessome’s rebuttal that such tests have no legal validity in a Court of Law, principally because they are not 100% reliable. But a VO trying to guess motive by looking at documents is not 100% reliable either. So, if both methods are imperfect, at least the test is faster, can weed out some of the frauds, and let Visa Officers look at documentation only for the legits.

If an applicant did not want to take the test, then he/she would simply be processed in the current, slow way.

A personal example illustrates how much time is wasted when CIC follows its ossified procedures, and refuses to think creatively. When my wife had her interview in Hong Kong a few weeks ago, her Application had already been with the consulate for more than 1.5 years. I referred the Interview Officer (IO) to the “invitation” letter, which said that the VO could not determine that our relationship was genuine based on the documentation presented. I asked the IO (different from the VO who assessed our documentation) what additional documentation would have sufficed, and he shrugged; there was nothing more we could have provided. Then he asked how long we had been together when we submitted the Application; I replied “about 6 months”; he then intimated that such a short period left room for doubt, hence an interview.

There are many holes in that logic, but let that pass. His reply suggest that the VO’s decision was made quite early on, but that the interviews were backlogged. I pointed out that if the stability of our relationship was the purpose of the interview, there were faster ways to determine this -- a random phone call to speak to both of us, or ask us for proof we were still together (e.g. certified letter from a neighbour saying we are a couple), , etc etc. This would have saved the consulate (and us) a lot of time. He smiled and went to the next interview.

This one example is probably repeated many times in many countries, and a little attention to efficiencies would save a LOT of time.

But none of this seems to have been addressed in the recent round of public consultations leading to the conditional 2-year PR visa. Pity.

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

The overarching point Bangkokcanuck raises, for me anyway, is “why is CIC not exploring alternative methods of investigation that might increase efficiency?”

Yeah that was in fact the point I thought I made a number of times but clearly not that many people got it or I guess cared enough to get into it. I hate to jump back on the Union sucks subject but a lot of gov't employees are unionized (not sure about in the actual Embassies) and for the most part in Unions being creative and innovative is not really a big part of the job description. I believe the word "drones" often applies. As such any proposal for making things better will likely have to come from the public pushing their elected officials.

Singapore is not likely to increase the number of Visa Officers (VOs), since the Minister of Immigration has a mandate to reduce, not increase costs. However, would it increase efficiency and reduce wait times to have an interview first, as Bangkokcanuck proposes, and let VOs spend time analyzing documentation only for applicants who pass the interview? We don't know, but it's worth analyzing.

I actually can't see how that option would NOT speed things up. The day the app arrives from Mississauga start scheduling interviews I bet you would weed a whole bunch of people out right away. Just looking the amazing research CharlieD did if you could assume that the 30 cases that were refused were caught at that first interview stage that would be 30 cases that would not have been clogging up the regular queue I don't see how that wouldn't help.

Someone else suggested lie detector tests to cut through all the documentary analysis and get to the real nub of the matter – the motive of the applicant (visa or love?). I recommended this idea months ago, but it met with a storm of protest – not the least of which was Rjessome's rebuttal that such tests have no legal validity in a Court of Law, principally because they are not 100% reliable. But a VO trying to guess motive by looking at documents is not 100% reliable either. So, if both methods are imperfect, at least the test is faster, can weed out some of the frauds, and let Visa Officers look at documentation only for the legits.

I agree the lie detector tests are not valid in court but we would be using them as another means for investigation not to present in court. Even if someone failed a test the would still be entitled to appeal and go through the regular process.. just people that pass would be fast tracked etc.. of course I am talking in hypotheticals.

This one example is probably repeated many times in many countries, and a little attention to efficiencies would save a LOT of time.

But none of this seems to have been addressed in the recent round of public consultations leading to the conditional 2-year PR visa. Pity.

As with most things gov't oriented it is usually about protecting one's little Kingdom more than it is making things better for the tax payers. We see this on every level of gov't on just about every subject. Clearly at 20 months for Singapore it's time for some drastic measures... that is over a year and a half. I would bet that some people that apply do have very real and loving marriages, but after 20 months or more some don't make it... I wonder how many people right now that live with their spouses would be fine with suddenly being apart for 20 months or worse being told they have to live apart with no hard end stated.. I can't imagine that is good for a marriage. I guess in some cases it might make the relationship stronger but hard to know that before the fact.

 

[canadianwoman]

30 spousal cases refused
4 grounds for refusal:
a) Section 4 (bad faith marriage) - 22 cases, 3 allowed on appeal, 19 denials upheld
b) Section 117 (9)(c)(i) [sponsor/spouse married to someone else] - 5 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 4 denials upheld
c) Section 117 (1)(a) [spouses not legally married] - 2 cases, 1 allowed on appeal, 1 denial upheld
d) Section 16(1) [obligation to answer truthfully] - 1 case, denial upheld

So, 73% of cases denied on bad faith grounds, of which 86% of the denials were upheld on appeal. Overall, 83% of the refusals were upheld on appeal.

I've seen reports that about half of appealed cases are allowed, so what these stats show is that the VOs in the Singapore office are making the right decision more often than not - or at least that the judges are agreeing with the VOs' decisions 86% of the time. So the long processing time of the Singapore office is correlated with an increased number of correct decisions, compared to the average visa office.

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

I've seen reports that about half of appealed cases are allowed, so what these stats show is that the VOs in the Singapore office are making the right decision more often than not - or at least that the judges are agreeing with the VOs' decisions 86% of the time. So the long processing time of the Singapore office is correlated with an increased number of correct decisions, compared to the average visa office.

The question still remains what do they do that takes so long.. however they are doing their jobs that seems to have a good accuracy rate, but why so long?? That is my question...

 

[dair2dv8103100]

I would bet that some people that apply do have very real and loving marriages, but after 20 months or more some don't make it... I wonder how many people right now that live with their spouses would be fine with suddenly being apart for 20 months or worse being told they have to live apart with no hard end stated.. I can't imagine that is good for a marriage. I guess in some cases it might make the relationship stronger but hard to know that before the fact.

Thank you for putting into words what I have been thinking for a long time. I am aware of at least 2 people that have been apart from their spouses during this process for years, one being over 7 years!

I have not nearly been in this process long enough to comprehend what damage that does to a relationship but I was separated from my now husband for 16 months before we got married and now facing another year apart, I cannot even imagine the thought of longer. It has definitely put a strain on our relationship and there are days I wonder what the heck I am doing.

If the purpose of spousal/family sponsorship is family reunification then they are failing miserably and creating very tough situations for couples/families simply wanting to move on with life together. I can't count how many times I have heard on here about spouse's being apart for years and finally cheating on/leaving their partner simply because of the amount of time apart waiting for some response from immigration. While I appreciate they need to take precautions and assess for MOC's I do agree there needs to be some creative thinking to address how to reveal these couples earlier in the process. Then again, it is the voter's that are going to have to start pushing against a system of "drones" who will resist any change.

I will definitely take a look at your petition. I wish you the best of luck.

 

[rjessome]

I've seen reports that about half of appealed cases are allowed, so what these stats show is that the VOs in the Singapore office are making the right decision more often than not - or at least that the judges are agreeing with the VOs' decisions 86% of the time. So the long processing time of the Singapore office is correlated with an increased number of correct decisions, compared to the average visa office.

I've heard that "rumour" too but have never seen any stats to back it up.

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

Just hit 69 sigs, anyone have any suggestions as to where else I can promote this? Like other Immigration forums etc..

 

[lenardparnold]

Well it sure is frustrating when theres hundreds of thousands of people immigrating to Canada because they want the Canadian dollar to send home to their families, and then they can bring all their family members here faster than I can get my wife here because the officers in Singapore think she is a fraudulant whore......

I want to sign that thing but a part of me is afraid to because I just want it to work out and there is still a small amount of hope that we get approved within this year....

 

[lenardparnold]

Can't do anything but wait and wonder what a bunch of officers will say about her and can't make any life decisions or much at all until we figure out whats going to happen and where we are going to be.......

 

[lenardparnold]

Well at one point Singapore was up to 22 or 23 months for a while (when I applied it was like 8-16 months or something) but now it went back down to 20 months...

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

Obviously I couldn't agree more with how poorly the Singapore office operates and I do think there plenty of room for improvement. I don't know if it's just sheer civil servant laziness or whether it's some form of corruption. But I can tell you that the only way we can make any changes is by making logical rational noise about what is happening there and letting the powers that be figure out why it is as it is and what to do about it... the more we talk and keep issues like this in the spotlight the better chance we have that something worthwhile will come of it.