Refused TRV – Need advice for reapplication

[Anncs]

Hi everyone, looking for advice on a Canadian visitor visa reapplication (tourism purpose).

Applicant is a widowed woman from India, refused under IRPR 179(b) for:

1. Insufficient family ties outside Canada
2. Insufficient financial resources
3. Purpose of visit/travel history not convincing

Her circumstances:

• 3 children in India — one employed and two studying
• Elderly mother with a documented physical disability
• Currently employed full-time in India
• Previously worked legally in Kuwait for about 4 years and returned to India
• Has approximately ₹17.5 lakh in liquid funds (savings + FD)
• CA net worth certificate and 6-month bank statements available
• Employer has approved a 15-day leave and confirmed she will return to work
• Planning a clearly documented 15-day tourism trip with hotel bookings, itinerary and travel insurance
• Has a Canadian friend who will provide an invitation but will not sponsor the trip

What documents would you recommend adding to specifically address the three refusal concerns?

Especially:

• Family ties: children's documents, mother's disability certificate, residence proof, etc.
• Funds: bank statements, FD, CA net worth, source of funds, PPF/pension, etc.
• Purpose/travel history: previous Kuwait employment/return, current employment, NOC, hotel bookings, itinerary, invitation letter, etc.

Would appreciate advice from anyone who has successfully reapplied after a similar 179(b) refusal.

 

[Sean Wu]

Her children should give her an invitation. Not Canadian friend. If no invitation, only visit Canada as a tour.

 

[Anncs]

Her children should give her an invitation. Not Canadian friend. If no invitation, only visit Canada as a tour.

Her childrens are in India and she is coming for tourism purpose

 

[Sean Wu]

No invitation letter. She should add tour plan documents and house property and car registration and so on.

 

[Naturgrl]

Hi everyone, looking for advice on a Canadian visitor visa reapplication (tourism purpose).

Applicant is a widowed woman from India, refused under IRPR 179(b) for:

1. Insufficient family ties outside Canada
2. Insufficient financial resources
3. Purpose of visit/travel history not convincing

Her circumstances:

• 3 children in India — one employed and two studying
• Elderly mother with a documented physical disability
• Currently employed full-time in India
• Previously worked legally in Kuwait for about 4 years and returned to India
• Has approximately ₹17.5 lakh in liquid funds (savings + FD)
• CA net worth certificate and 6-month bank statements available
• Employer has approved a 15-day leave and confirmed she will return to work
• Planning a clearly documented 15-day tourism trip with hotel bookings, itinerary and travel insurance
• Has a Canadian friend who will provide an invitation but will not sponsor the trip

What documents would you recommend adding to specifically address the three refusal concerns?

Especially:

• Family ties: children's documents, mother's disability certificate, residence proof, etc.
• Funds: bank statements, FD, CA net worth, source of funds, PPF/pension, etc.
• Purpose/travel history: previous Kuwait employment/return, current employment, NOC, hotel bookings, itinerary, invitation letter, etc.

Would appreciate advice from anyone who has successfully reapplied after a similar 179(b) refusal.

1. To IRCC, family ties are spouse and children under 22. If under 22, show that her children live with her. Not adult children or elderly parents.
2. Funds - I don't know what coversions are but she shows a minimum of $10k cash in personal accounts. Just cash. How much is she spending on the trip because could be using all her savings to go to Canada.
3. Travel history is to the US, UK, NZ or AUS.

 

[canuck78]

Hi everyone, looking for advice on a Canadian visitor visa reapplication (tourism purpose).

Applicant is a widowed woman from India, refused under IRPR 179(b) for:

1. Insufficient family ties outside Canada
2. Insufficient financial resources
3. Purpose of visit/travel history not convincing

Her circumstances:

• 3 children in India — one employed and two studying
• Elderly mother with a documented physical disability
• Currently employed full-time in India
• Previously worked legally in Kuwait for about 4 years and returned to India
• Has approximately ₹17.5 lakh in liquid funds (savings + FD)
• CA net worth certificate and 6-month bank statements available
• Employer has approved a 15-day leave and confirmed she will return to work
• Planning a clearly documented 15-day tourism trip with hotel bookings, itinerary and travel insurance
• Has a Canadian friend who will provide an invitation but will not sponsor the trip

What documents would you recommend adding to specifically address the three refusal concerns?

Especially:

• Family ties: children's documents, mother's disability certificate, residence proof, etc.
• Funds: bank statements, FD, CA net worth, source of funds, PPF/pension, etc.
• Purpose/travel history: previous Kuwait employment/return, current employment, NOC, hotel bookings, itinerary, invitation letter, etc.

Would appreciate advice from anyone who has successfully reapplied after a similar 179(b) refusal.

What is savings in CAD? What are her reasons for traveling? Has she traveled internationally before except Dubai? In the past 10 years has she visited countries like the US, UK, Australia, etc.? What type of disability does she have?

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

Hi everyone, looking for advice on a Canadian visitor visa reapplication (tourism purpose).

Applicant is a widowed woman from India, refused under IRPR 179(b) for:

1. Insufficient family ties outside Canada
2. Insufficient financial resources
3. Purpose of visit/travel history not convincing

Her circumstances:

• 3 children in India — one employed and two studying
• Elderly mother with a documented physical disability
• Currently employed full-time in India
• Previously worked legally in Kuwait for about 4 years and returned to India
• Has approximately ₹17.5 lakh in liquid funds (savings + FD)
• CA net worth certificate and 6-month bank statements available
• Employer has approved a 15-day leave and confirmed she will return to work
• Planning a clearly documented 15-day tourism trip with hotel bookings, itinerary and travel insurance
• Has a Canadian friend who will provide an invitation but will not sponsor the trip

What documents would you recommend adding to specifically address the three refusal concerns?

Especially:

• Family ties: children's documents, mother's disability certificate, residence proof, etc.
• Funds: bank statements, FD, CA net worth, source of funds, PPF/pension, etc.
• Purpose/travel history: previous Kuwait employment/return, current employment, NOC, hotel bookings, itinerary, invitation letter, etc.

Would appreciate advice from anyone who has successfully reapplied after a similar 179(b) refusal.

17.5 lac INR = 30k CAD. Unrealistic to believe that someone would spend ~10k CAD on travelling to Canada which is their ~30% of live savings. The invitation letter from a friend means nothing, and that Canadian friend CAN'T sponsor this trip - everything has to be on her own merit. What's her itinerary here going to be as a tourist?

 

[Anncs]

17.5 lac INR = 30k CAD. Unrealistic to believe that someone would spend ~10k CAD on travelling to Canada which is their ~30% of live savings. The invitation letter from a friend means nothing, and that Canadian friend CAN'T sponsor this trip - everything has to be on her own merit. What's her itinerary here going to be as a tourist?

Thats just her liquid fund. She have other assets like gold and property.

She have travelled to Kuwait for work.

Canadian friend is not sponsoring but its a part of her tourism that she meets her friend.

She was planning for 15 days trip covering Ontario and Quebec.

(People live for their happiness also. Not just for money or savings. So, this can be her dream, happiness amd what more. Some people unrealistic things might be realistic for others. People are of different kind. Just my thought).

 

[Anncs]

What is savings in CAD? What are her reasons for traveling? Has she traveled internationally before except Dubai? In the past 10 years has she visited countries like the US, UK, Australia, etc.? What type of disability does she have?

30K cad. Purely tourism and just meeting a friend during the visit

She only travelled to Kuwait. She was supposed to travel to Dubai for tourism but due some personal matters, she wasnt able and her visa got expired.

Her mother have 50% disability and she is the primary caregiver.

Her kids are 21, 18 and 16 years old.

 

[Anncs]

1. To IRCC, family ties are spouse and children under 22. If under 22, show that her children live with her. Not adult children or elderly parents.
2. Funds - I don't know what coversions are but she shows a minimum of $10k cash in personal accounts. Just cash. How much is she spending on the trip because could be using all her savings to go to Canada.
3. Travel history is to the US, UK, NZ or AUS.

1. Her children are 16, 18 and 21. All 3 living with her

2. 30K CAD. Her estimated cost for tripwas around 8K cad. All hotel reservations done.
Travel insurance taken.

3. No other travel history other that Kuwait.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

Thats just her liquid fund. She have other assets like gold and property.

She have travelled to Kuwait for work.

Canadian friend is not sponsoring but its a part of her tourism that she meets her friend.

She was planning for 15 days trip covering Ontario and Quebec.

(People live for their happiness also. Not just for money or savings. So, this can be her dream, happiness amd what more. Some people unrealistic things might be realistic for others. People are of different kind. Just my thought).

>People live for their happiness also. Not just for money or savings.

You don't need to be defensive, just see that as how someone else would see it. Given the abuse involved with visitor visas, you'd expect extreme scrutiny in that case. Would you believe that people who appeared better than your mom on all parameters have taken asylum the minute they've landed on a Canadian airport. You see these objections as an annoyance without factoring in what has happened so repetitively before we reached this state.

 

[Anncs]

>People live for their happiness also. Not just for money or savings.

You don't need to be defensive, just see that as how someone else would see it. Given the abuse involved with visitor visas, you'd expect extreme scrutiny in that case. Would you believe that people who appeared better than your mom on all parameters have taken asylum the minute they've landed on a Canadian airport. You see these objections as an annoyance without factoring in what has happened so repetitively before we reached this state.

I never mentioned anywhere that this was about my mom. My parents already have Super Visas.
And, I understand your point, and I agree that an officer has to look at the application from a risk perspective, especially given past cases of visitors not leaving Canada. I wasn't dismissing those concerns.

My point was only that the amount someone chooses to spend on a holiday cannot by itself determine whether the trip is genuine or reasonable. In this case, the ₹17.5 lakh is only her liquid funds; she also has other documented assets, including gold and property. She has previously lived and worked legally in Kuwait and returned to India, and she currently has employment, approved leave, children, and family responsibilities there.

The Canadian friend isn't sponsoring her or providing a reason to remain in Canada. Meeting her friend is simply one part of a 15-day Ontario and Quebec tourism itinerary, which she is funding herself.

Ultimately, the purpose of the reapplication is to provide enough evidence for the officer to assess those circumstances—not to assume that either a refusal or an approval is guaranteed. I appreciate your perspective.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

I never mentioned anywhere that this was about my mom. My parents already have Super Visas.
And, I understand your point, and I agree that an officer has to look at the application from a risk perspective, especially given past cases of visitors not leaving Canada. I wasn't dismissing those concerns.

My point was only that the amount someone chooses to spend on a holiday cannot by itself determine whether the trip is genuine or reasonable. In this case, the ₹17.5 lakh is only her liquid funds; she also has other documented assets, including gold and property. She has previously lived and worked legally in Kuwait and returned to India, and she currently has employment, approved leave, children, and family responsibilities there.

The Canadian friend isn't sponsoring her or providing a reason to remain in Canada. Meeting her friend is simply one part of a 15-day Ontario and Quebec tourism itinerary, which she is funding herself.

Ultimately, the purpose of the reapplication is to provide enough evidence for the officer to assess those circumstances—not to assume that either a refusal or an approval is guaranteed. I appreciate your perspective.

ChatGPT copy-pasta i svery unappealing to respond back to. I like to talk to the humans, not bots(at least, not outside of work ). The thing that you/they need to do is to make sure that they overcome those objections. They can hire someone to do that. One thing though, we've very qualified high income earners repetitively be rejected for visitor visas and what I shared is a reason behind them. Often, an officer literally has no way to differentiate between a potential visa abuser and a legitimate visitor when it comes to Canadian immigration.

I'd strongly suggest that you work on the issues with a Canadian lawyer to get her the visa - that's her best shot!

 

[Anncs]

ChatGPT copy-pasta i svery unappealing to respond back to. I like to talk to the humans, not bots(at least, not outside of work ). The thing that you/they need to do is to make sure that they overcome those objections. They can hire someone to do that. One thing though, we've very qualified high income earners repetitively be rejected for visitor visas and what I shared is a reason behind them. Often, an officer literally has no way to differentiate between a potential visa abuser and a legitimate visitor when it comes to Canadian immigration.

I'd strongly suggest that you work on the issues with a Canadian lawyer to get her the visa - that's her best shot!

I believe there is no rule that we cannot use Chatgpt. If you dont want to respond- don't respond. Nobody forced you to do so. Its your wish whether to speak to bots or human but everybody cant act as your need.

There is no point of having this discussion forum if we need to use lawyer. I hope you understand the meaning of discussion groups. This forum is to ask suggestions, advices, ideas and strategies from people who have experiences with different immigration scenarios. I do not need your advice to make a decsion to hire a lawyer or not.

I didnt mention anything about high earners or low earners getting visa denied or approved. My question was to get suggestions and ideas. If you dont have any, why you bothered to give irrelevant reply.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

I believe there is no rule that we cannot use Chatgpt. If you dont want to respond- don't respond. Nobody forced you to do so. Its your wish whether to speak to bots or human but everybody cant act as your need.

There is no point of having this discussion forum if we need to use lawyer. I hope you understand the meaning of discussion groups. This forum is to ask suggestions, advices, ideas and strategies from people who have experiences with different immigration scenarios. I do not need your advice to make a decsion to hire a lawyer or not.

I didnt mention anything about high earners or low earners getting visa denied or approved. My question was to get suggestions and ideas. If you dont have any, why you bothered to give irrelevant reply.

Talking to a human vs talking to a bot are two different things. You need a lawyer, unless you are going to share detailed notes on rejection. Stop taking everything so personally and learn how to be objective. People with poor reasoning and extreme bias use LLMs to further their bias - it makes the discussion worthless. Share the notes and then we can talk more.