Valentine’s Day just passed, and for some couples, it might be difficult to find the time to spend together. Sometimes it’s because of work, conflicting schedules or even a shared disdain for the holiday. However, one can’t think of any good reason for a pair of young newlyweds not being able to spend to holiday together – unless they work at the United States and Canada border.

Democrat and Chronicle told the story this week of a couple, Matt and Heather Lopresto. Mr. Lopresto is from the United States, and Mrs. Lopresto is from Hamilton, Ontario – a Canadian citizen. They met in school in 2005 and hit it off, marrying recently in Canada.

They were under the notion that once married, Mrs. Lopresto would be able to gain United States permanent residence (Green Card) easily and be able to live with her husband in the United States. All was well and good, with back and forth visits until the day before their wedding in Canada. Mr. Lopresto was turned away at the US border when he said “marriage” was his reason for visiting. He had to scramble quickly to prove he had a job in the United States, a decent income and a place to live as well as that he definitely planned to return home – all on the day before his wedding. More border issues arose when each attempted to cross into the US again, albeit separately. Matt was told at the border that he could be charged with smuggling an illegal alien if he lived with his wife at home in the United States, and again he had to prove their relationship as legitimate. Their passports are flagged, and they are questioned every time they cross over the border, together or not.

Reasonably, the governments of both countries would want to ensure the marriage is legitimate. However, the couple was unaware of the paperwork, fees and required procedures for Mrs. Lopresto to become a legal resident of the United States.

Situations like this are why something as simple as an international romance can become a tangled immigration legal matter. At our office we often enconter such mishaps and  unfortunatly, the saying “love is blind”  oftten applies to the immigraton context.

Matt and Heather would have been well served to have consulted with an immigration lawyer, in order to avoid their frustrations at the US/Canada border. They would have been fully aware of what they needed to file a US Spousal Petition to have Mrs. Lopresto well on her way to becoming a legal resident of the United States.

Hi Mary,

I would like to just inform you that My sons , Purav  and Purvin  (twins) have booked their air tickets for the last week of April 2010, for Toronto from India. As such I may request once again to let me know if you need any specific documents from them before their landing, which could be obtained from them only and which may be difficult for us to obtain once they land in Canada. The documents can be either form their institute of study or from elsewhere which require their presence at India or which may require their signing in exchange. All other relevant documents of the case have been submitted by me to you earlier.

Further I am also happy to inform you that my son in law has obtained his Canadian PR for spousal immigration and has been living with us in Mississauga since October 31, 2009 after landing in Toronto.

This is just for your knowledge and in reciprocation of your best wishes.

T. Patel

Immigration to Quebec made easier for Haitians

Last week, the Province of Quebec stated that it was preparing to open its door to welcome more Haitian immigrants affected by the recent earthquake despite federal government protocols

90 per cent of the 135,000 members of the Canadian Haitian population currently reside in the province of Quebec. Quebec Minister of Immigration and Cultural Communities Yolande James has said she is prepared to use the “power of selection”, a clause in the federal and provincial immigration agreement, for allowing an implementation of the expanded definition of family to increase the amount of eligible Haitian immigration sponsorships by Canadians. This particular clause is very rarely used.

But the Federal Government is still refusing to expand the Family Class for Immigrants

Canada’s Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney has firmly maintained that the Canadian government will not change the definition of family with regards to whom Canadians can sponsor for citizenship from Haiti. The definition of the Family Class for Immigrants is limited to spouses, parents, grandparents and dependent children and does not include other family members such as aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews.

Kenney’s main argument for the lack of flexibility with this rule is that it would be unfair to others who have experienced massive events of destruction in their home countries whom Canada has provided assistance for, using the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami as a prime example. It is estimated that over 200,000 people were killed or washed away during the tsunami, which was the result of the second largest earthquake ever recorded. The devastation caused by the tsunami was significant, destroying many coastal regions in several countries

However, in the case of the Haitian earthquake, an entire country, its infrastructure, its population and its means of survival may have been irreparably destroyed. The total death toll, numbers of Haitians left homeless or critically injured may never be known. Further, in my view, two wrongs don’t make a right. The Feds should have expanded the Family Class for Tsunami crises. Now they have an opportunity to correct their mistakes but it does not look like they will.

A landmark ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal held that Immigrant Sponsors are not automatically required to pay back immigrant debt of the relatives they sponsored despite having signed a Sponsorship Agreement. Rather the Province now has to proceed with the debt collection of Sponsors in the same manner, with the same measure of fairness, as with other government debt scenarios. This means that the government must take into account the full context of the situation of the immigrant sponsors and treat each debt collection on a case-by-case basis.

Despite the somewhat overstated headline in today’s National Post by Natalie Alcoba, the Court’s ruling does not mean that immigrant sponsors are “off the hook” when it comes to sponsorship dept collection. The government will still require that, in most cases immigrant sponsors will have to pay back the money their relatives collect from the government. However, with his ruling, the government has to exercise discretion in the collection process.

This ruling  is a welcome change. Not a free pass. Cases where, for example, spouses are sponsored from overseas only to leave the matrimonial home days after arrival, suggest possible “immigrant fraud” on the part of the relative who used the immigrant sponsor to get Canada. Such cases require a degree of fairness and compassion on the part of the government in the debt collection process. Many well meaning, unsuspecting immigrant sponsors are indeed taken advantage of by savvy suiters who promise love and companionship. Months or days later after arriving, bags are packed along with a new Canadian Permanent Resident Card.

They say “love is blind” . Well, if this is true, then its true for immigrant sponsors. Fairness not forgiveness should be the order of the day. Remember that immigrant sponsors are Canadians and Permanent Residents and should be afforded the same level of understanding that the rest of us have come to expect when being asked to pay back our debts.

Mary,

I meant to get back to you sooner.  We did go to the Canadian Consulate in Buffalo on Tuesday and all went well.  We came back the same day, landed in Canada as immigrants with no problems.  I have even managed to get a drivers license, applied for an OHIP card and Canadian Social Insurance Number (SIN).

Thanks so much for all your help.  We are so delighted by how smoothly and quickly this all went.

-Janine

Hello Mr. Niren,

I would like your opinion on my sponsorship. My husband was refused because of my previous marriage. Canada Immigration jumped to the conclusion that my second marriage is not bona fide because of my previous marriage was brief . I have reapply with more proof that my marriage is genuine. What do you think will happen? Do you think I should have appealed the case?

Thank you

Lilian

______________________

Having a previous marriage is not itself enough for a Visa Officer to conclude that your current marriage is not genuine resulting in a refusal. In your Sponsorship Application you must have not properly documented your relationship. When there is a refusal in such circumstances, the usual course of action would be to appeal the decision to the IAD within 30 days of notification of refusal. At the IAD you can show though additional documents and testimony, that your case has merit. If you are too late in filing the appeal, you can re-apply but make sure in your application, you address the concerns of the first refusal and try to get access to the computer notes regarding your case.