+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

rjessome

VIP Member
Feb 24, 2009
4,354
214
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/front/article/1400131

For the last four years, Robyn Kumar has found herself in the strange and awkward position of having to prove to the Canadian government that she and her husband are in love.

Enlarge Photo VIKTOR PIVOVAROV/TIMES & TRANSCRRobyn Kumar holds a picture of her husband, Sanjeet Kumar of Pakistan, who she married in September 2007. "I am heart-broken and tired and I just want to be able to wake up every morning to see the face of the man I love," says the Lakeville woman, who was born in Saint John but grew up in Moncton.

Robyn, 45, of Lakeville, married her husband Sanjeet Kumar - a 34-year-old with a bachelor of arts degree - in September 2007 and she's been working ever since at obtaining a spousal sponsorship so he can come to Canada from his native Pakistan and become a permanent resident. Unfortunately for the couple, an immigration officer who interviewed her husband after the wedding decided the marriage was a sham.

The Canadian official, who's based in Islamabad, Pakistan, ruled the marriage was one of convenience, designed to allow Sanjeet to immigrate to Canada.

"I think she just had a hunch," says Robyn. "She made assumptions he didn't know me or my two children well enough."

The couple is still fighting to get him to Canada but it's taking its toll.

"It's become taxing on us," she says, breaking down in tears. "I can barely talk about it without crying."

Robyn is represented by Lee Cohen, the Halifax-based lawyer who specializes in immigration and human rights law. He says his client and her husband have inexplicably been mistreated by the federal government.

"This is disrespectful and disgraceful," says Cohen. "I have no idea when he'll be able to come to Canada. He should have already been in Moncton by now."

The story began back in spring of 2005. Robyn had recently split from her husband and was a single mother taking care of two kids.

"I was going through a divorce and it was a tough time, so I wasn't looking for love," she says. "But isn't that the way it happens?"

She met Sanjeet online and they started chatting over the Internet and got along well, talking every day. She went to visit him in Pakistan a year and a half later, in fall 2006, and they got engaged.

"I went to meet him and his family and I was swept off my feet," recalls Robyn, who works at Second Cup in Champlain Place.

A year later she returned to Pakistan, became a Hindu and married Sanjeet. They filled out the paperwork so he could come to Canada and waited for the process to play out.

But Robyn says the interview with the immigration official in Pakistan went poorly. She says the biggest mistake was Sanjeet agreeing to do the interview in English, which is his third language. While he could communicate in English while writing online, he didn't speak it that well and Robyn says there were communication problems.

The couple was shocked when Sanjeet was denied permanent residency and appealed the decision. Robyn says she sent almost 2,000 pages of Internet chats to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, along with cards they sent to each other, proof of gifts exchanged and anything else that showed they were in a relationship.

"I fought to prove my marriage is real and isn't a sham and a fraud," she says.

Robyn went through the immigration department's appeal process and successfully had the decision overturned in June 2010, meaning the government accepted her marriage as legitimate. But immigration then appealed that decision to a federal court, something Cohen says he has never seen in his years of practising immigration law.

"I don't know why they did that," says the lawyer. "I don't know what it is about the appeal decision they found offensive."

Once again, the couple were successful and the court upheld the appeal decision in October 2010. Robyn and Sanjeet understood the application would now be processed so he could gain his permanent resident status.

But nothing has happened. Sanjeet is still in Pakistan working for the family business and Robyn is still waiting.

"Six or seven months have passed without so much as a whisper," says Cohen. "He should have been here by now."

Cohen says even if the couple received a phone call from the Canadian government today saying the process was underway, it would probably still take six months to get him to Canada.

"The immigration system is, at best, inefficient," says Cohen. "There doesn't seem to be a level of respect for the applicant or the Canadian national who's sponsoring him. This is particularly irksome to me."

Robyn has spoken to staff in Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe MP Brian Murphy's office on a couple of occasions and a letter was sent to Immigration Minister Jason Kenny on her behalf and they are awaiting response. The last time she saw Sanjeet was during a three-week trip to Pakistan in November and she hopes they will be reunited in Canada by their fourth anniversary in September, but doubts it.

Jon Stone, director of communications for Citizenship and Immigration Canada's Atlantic region, says he can't discuss this particular case, due to the Privacy Act. But he says marriages of convenience designed to bring an immigrant to this country are very common and something immigration officers work hard to prevent.

"Marriages of convenience are always a concern," says Stone. "Canada is extremely attractive for immigrants around the world and we have cases all the time involving marriages of convenience. People look at it as an avenue to abuse the system, hence the vigilance of immigration officers to put good processes into place."

Stone says files are thoroughly reviewed and not just rubber stamped.

The immigration officers have to be convinced the spousal relationship is for real and has been in place for a while.

Stone says the rules are clear on the type of things officials look for to determine if a relationship is genuine. He also says because the process is so thorough, it can delay honest couples who aren't trying to fool the government.

"We try to ensure those who have legitimate relationships and can prove that are given fair and due process," he says, adding spousal sponsorships are given high priority by immigration. "But this can be a time-consuming process."

He adds that Canadian immigration offices in Colombo (Sri Lanka), Beijing (China) and Islamabad tend to have the heaviest caseloads, so there can be delays.

Meanwhile, Robyn continues to wait.

"I'm going to be 'celebrating' my fourth wedding anniversary this September, likely alone," she says. "Almost four years without my husband."
 
Damn, and double damn, that is all I can say. CIC actually appealed the appeal decision? I never heard of that, never knew they went that far with sponsorship cases! I have read plenty of other types of cases where judicial review was requested, but never a sponsorship case. Dang.

I just read through the case notes on CanLII. The appeal judge describes the couple as "forthright" in their answers, found no "significant contradictions" in their testimony, and dismissed the VO's accusation that developing a relationship over the Internet was "strange". (This is the 21st century, and if you believe the match.com advertisements, more than 20% of marriages nowadays are developing out of online meetings.) They clearly acknowledged that he performed poorly at the interview, but that was readily explained by his natural nervousness and decision to be interviewed in English, which was just bad luck, and the judge acknowledged that and excused it.

If I were the appeal judge, I'd be insulted too, as CIC clearly decided they didn't like her decision process either.
 
Thanks for posting this article. I've been following Robyn's story for quite some time now through her posts on different forum. She's been through so much and I really hope there's a positive end soon.
 
rjessome said:
Once again, the couple were successful and the court upheld the appeal decision in October 2010. Robyn and Sanjeet understood the application would now be processed so he could gain his permanent resident status.
..."Six or seven months have passed without so much as a whisper," says Cohen. "He should have been here by now."
This wait seems to be normal though - several forum members have reported waiting months after a successful appeal.
Stone says the rules are clear on the type of things officials look for to determine if a relationship is genuine.
Ridiculous. The rules may be clear to the visa officers - though I also doubt that, since one forum member was refused because the VO misinterpreted the rules (RobsLuv) - but I find it hard to believe they are clear to the average applicant.
... adding spousal sponsorships are given high priority by immigration.
Unless, of course, the spouse comes from an undesirable country.
He adds that Canadian immigration offices in Colombo (Sri Lanka), Beijing (China) and Islamabad tend to have the heaviest caseloads, so there can be delays.
Once again, not explaining why Beijing has one of the fastest processing times in the world.

Funny how her case seems a lot like mine: I got married in the fall of 2007, we had our appeal in the summer of 2010. I'm still waiting too.
 
canadianwoman said:
Unless, of course, the spouse comes from an undesirable country.

Speaking of undesirable...my husband arrived home in Canada last night. During his Customs/Immigration processing at Pearson, the IO asked him why he was in Jamaica, and he said he was visiting with his wife. The IO asked him if he was sponsoring me and when my husband said yes, the IO told him "Get ready for a long wait, Jamaica is red-flagged right now." Marvelous.
 
What does it mean when a country is red flagged? How can we find out which countries are red flagged or not?
 
The question now is why hasn't the PR visa been issued yet? I'll give my three guesses.

1. Although the relationship has been found to be genuine at the IAD and FC, the application is still evaluated and "could" be refused under ANOTHER section of the Act. Perhaps CIC is looking for another reason in law to refuse. I highly DOUBT that this is the reason but it's possible.

2. CIC obviously doesn't believe this relationship is genuine proven by the fact that they appealed the decision of the IAD. Perhaps they are waiting for the new legislation for conditional PR visas for spouses to be enacted. That way, if CIC is proven right within the first 2 years after landing in Canada, they can revoke the husband's PR and send him back to Pakistan. If they are wrong, then the conditions get removed 2 years after landing and everybody is happy.

3. Islamabad has such a huge backlog that they just haven't gotten to it yet.

I'm leaning towards options 2 and 3.

I was just told a horror story that proves CIC does not get it wrong all the time in their refusals. Without mentioning specific details that might indentify the person, I will tell you that this spousal sponsorship was refused at the visa post, appealed by the sponsor and won at the IAD. Visa was issued to the applicant. Applicant had developed a secret relationship with another person in Canada unknown to the sponsor. Applicant came to Canada without telling the sponsor BUT, thinking that they were home free, gave the address of the "new/true love" as their permanent residence rather than that of the sponsor. Their biggest mistake and a lucky break for the sponsor was that the address the applicant gave to CBSA was in Quebec. The sponsor does not live in Quebec so there was no CSQ on file. CBSA called the sponsor. Sponsor withdrew their sponsorship and the applicant never landed and was ordered to leave Canada. However, they COULD appeal if they choose to. Section 62(2) of IRPA says:

(2) A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision at an examination or admissibility hearing to make a removal order against them.

I don't know if the Applicant has appealed or not. It's heartbreaking for the sponsor. They fought a long and hard battle to be with their spouse only to find out it was all a lie.

I am certainly NOT stating that the couple in the article are similar in any way to the story I just mentioned. I'm just wanting to show situations where CIC does get it right. We are very one-sided on this board, me included, but I also believe balance is necessary for better perspective.
 
angtao said:
What does it mean when a country is red flagged? How can we find out which countries are red flagged or not?
It means the VOs have been alerted that a lot of marriage fraud (or other kinds of immigration scams) is happening and so they should be especially vigilant when processing applications.

The gov't certainly does not put out a list of countries that have been red-flagged. In many cases we can guess - Nigeria, for eg., is certainly on any country's 'red flag' list. It would be nice to be friends with a border official or immigration officer and be able to get inside info from them.
 
rjessome said:
2. CIC obviously doesn't believe this relationship is genuine proven by the fact that they appealed the decision of the IAD. Perhaps they are waiting for the new legislation for conditional PR visas for spouses to be enacted. That way, if CIC is proven right within the first 2 years after landing in Canada, they can revoke the husband's PR and send him back to Pakistan. If they are wrong, then the conditions get removed 2 years after landing and everybody is happy.
But they've been married since 2007, so even if CIC is waiting for this legislation to pass, wouldn't this couple be exempt from the 2-year conditional visa because they've been married for longer than 2 years?

I wonder about this with my own relationship. IF my husband ever gets a PR visa, would he be exempt from the 2-year conditional time simply because it took so long to process his visa, we have been married longer than 2 years? Or would CIC start the date from the first application?
 
The new regulations have to do with how long the couple were in a relationship when the sponsorship application was filed, not how long they have been married. The conditional visa applies where the couple had been in a relationship for under two years when the application was filed, not if they were married for less than two years.

Wherever they decide to start the line from, I know my husband and I will fall into this group. We knew each other 15 months before marrying, 13 of those were online, and we filed the sponsorship just 1 month shy of knowing each other for 2 years. We won't celebrate our first wedding anniversary until June this year, so no matter what happens, the conditional visa matter is definitely a concern for us.
 
CIC does get it right sometimes, I'd never say otherwise after reading the cases on CanLII that I have. Some were just so egregiously MOCs, you have to wonder at the barefacedness of the applicants for even bothering to appeal the decision. They should have just thrown up their hands when the PR application was denied, said "hey, we tried something, it didn't work, moving on", but human beings have a marvelous capacity not just for deceit, but for self-deceit.

On the other hand, when they get it wrong, as in this case, they can get it spectacularly wrong. This is someone's life they are dealing with. Robyn Kumar and her husband are not statistics, they are people. CIC, like every bureaucratic machinery ever invented by the hand of man, can forget that they are dealing with people sometimes, focusing instead on processes, procedures and regulations to the detriment of human relationships.
 
canadianwoman said:
But they've been married since 2007, so even if CIC is waiting for this legislation to pass, wouldn't this couple be exempt from the 2-year conditional visa because they've been married for longer than 2 years?

I wonder about this with my own relationship. IF my husband ever gets a PR visa, would he be exempt from the 2-year conditional time simply because it took so long to process his visa, we have been married longer than 2 years? Or would CIC start the date from the first application?

If the visa is issued after the new Regulations go into effect, then it would date back to the original application. This application is not "done" but has been extended because of the appeal at the IAD. It's not "new". So if the sponsor and applicant were not married for two years as of the date of their application (remember, there is only ONE application in this case), then the PR visa would have conditions.

For you, you will be re-applying. Your previous application is finished. If a visa is issued, it would have to meet the Regulations pertaining to the date of the application that is being decided, not a previous one. So if you are married for 2 years or more as of the date of the new application, then, to my understanding, no conditions would be placed on his PR visa if the application is successful.
 
CharlieD10 said:
The new regulations have to do with how long the couple were in a relationship when the sponsorship application was filed, not how long they have been married. The conditional visa applies where the couple had been in a relationship for under two years when the application was filed, not if they were married for less than two years.

No, that's not entirely correct. CIC defines the relationship for these purposes as either married or common-law. If the date of marriage is less than 2 years or the length of co-habitation is less than 2 years at the time of application, conditions WILL be placed on any PR visa issued in this category.
 
CharlieD10 said:
CIC does get it right sometimes, I'd never say otherwise after reading the cases on CanLII that I have. Some were just so egregiously MOCs, you have to wonder at the barefacedness of the applicants for even bothering to appeal the decision. They should have just thrown up their hands when the PR application was denied, said "hey, we tried something, it didn't work, moving on", but human beings have a marvelous capacity not just for deceit, but for self-deceit.

On the other hand, when they get it wrong, as in this case, they can get it spectacularly wrong. This is someone's life they are dealing with. Robyn Kumar and her husband are not statistics, they are people. CIC, like every bureaucratic machinery ever invented by the hand of man, can forget that they are dealing with people sometimes, focusing instead on processes, procedures and regulations to the detriment of human relationships.

Well said on both counts.
 
Thanks, rjessome.
So all I have to worry about is "if" his new app will be approved!