taneja,
Perhaps I should stay out of this, but I feel constrained to comment anyway. The title of this thread got my attention for the simple reason that, from my limited experience (mostly second hand from reading on this forum), TRVs for spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, SOs, etc., are indeed difficult to procure.
You opened here by saying your were going to "bust the myths" surrounding this topic. With all due respect, you have busted little outside of a TRV denial in your case. But then, your case is, I would say, truly exceptional. Inter alia, you hold a secure government position commanding a salary well above that of the average Canadian. You have extensive travel experience and have held a TRV before. As you point out, you knew your case was wrongly decided. It certainly looked that way and you proved it. Good. In the end, I see the "myth" as remaining intact; unshaken. TRVs for spouses remain as difficult of procurement as ever. And, I dare say, the only way it could be called a "myth", is if the notion that a TRV for a spouse is hard to obtain was never true to begin with. Do you say that?
Where we really part company is your somewhat harsh criticism of advice given on this forum. You wrote:
"I seeked (sic) helped on this forum from so called 'Senior' or 'experienced' members of the forum but none except one replied. Even that person didn't seem positive in my case and rather advised to forget TRV and have Plan B."
In truth, two replied - canuck78 and the indomitable scylla. The former did not seem positive, but did not tell you to "forget it". Rather, canuck78 wrote, in part:
As things turned out, I am not sure that canuck78 was so far off the mark. You started that thread back in May/21 and your TRV application was in fact denied thereafter, seemingly as canuck78 predicted. Perhaps my own forecast for success would have been less gloomy, but canuck78 was far from wrong. And the "Plan B" advice was sound.
My purpose here is not to act as defender for canuck78 or anyone else. Doubtful that canuck78 needs or wants my defence, and I no nothing about canuck78 apart from having read some of that member's posts and noting that member has racked up over 9,000 "likes", hence must be doing something right. No, my reason for this post is (likely in vain) to seek to discourage negativism towards those here who take time to try to help others. The opinions, or "advice", are free. No one here that I have noticed professes to be an "expert". The maligned "senior" members are offering opinions and advice honestly given and with expectation of nothing in return. Everyone here is learning, always. Sure, experience will show some advice/opinions to be wrong or, perhaps more correctly, not borne out in the actual circumstances. So what? Does that mean the opinion or advice was "bad" and ought not to have been given?
I would not care to see a lot of member bashing on this forum, which could only serve to have a chilling effect. How many will want to volunteer as helpers if they feel they will be subject to sharp criticism when matters play out differently from what they predicted? Why expose oneself to that?
There are few absolutes in the immigration arena and the IRCC often appears to move in mysterious ways. When it comes to TRVs, the decision-making process is summary in the extreme and the decisions are rendered in boilerplate language devoid of reasoning or analysis. They are unsigned, giving full vigour and effect to the term "faceless bureaucrat". In my personal experience, the CAIPS notes sometimes add nothing that would offer any hint as to why the decision was taken. So, against that backdrop, how precise can one here be in answering questions about the process? No one can, but there is a wealth of experience here and, in my assessment, almost any opinion is of value and the recipient and all readers should be grateful that someone took the time (and risked taking flak) to post it. The generosity shown by the senior and other members here should not be discouraged, but rather, sedulously fostered.
