Countries like Australia and England require that a sponsored person live with their spouse for three years before being given permanent resident status, which is what a Toronto-area MP said he’d like to see implemented in Canada to help prevent marriage fraud.

Bramalea-Gore-Malton Liberal MP Gurbax Singh Malhi said that within his riding alone, he hears of between two and three instances each month of spousal sponsorship where once the spouse comes to Canada, they disappear.

The case of Ashpreet Badwal, a resident of Toronto, has been published in several different media outlets over the past few days. Badwal met her husband online, flew to India to marry him and tried to sponsor him, but was rejected on the grounds that it was suspected to be fraudulent. She appealed and won, granting her husband permanent residence. But when she went to pick him up at the airport, he never showed and called her to tell her he wasn’t meeting her.

Because Badwal sponsored her husband, she is also legally responsible for him for three years.

The MP has sent a letter to Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney asking for the husband to be deported immediately.

Immigration fraud through marriage, or marriages of convenience (MOC) , most importantly make it even more difficult for those who are trying to sponsor their loved ones to come to Canada after much time apart for legitimate reasons.

Whether these proposed changes do take place, the current reality is that Visa Officers stationed at Canadian Embassies take an increasingly strict approach to processing spousal sponsorship applications. For a successful application, it is essential to have a well documented application package and for the applicant to perform well at his or her interview overseas–otherwise you will likely find yourself in appeals court.

We  recently blogged about the Government of Canada proposing new regulations to become tougher on marriages or adoptions of “convenience” for immigration purposes. Now, Canadian immigration officials have released information saying that arranged marriages will be under increased scrutiny, primarily affecting the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities as well as some Chinese communities.

However, the government has assured that only fraudulent arranged marriages for immigration purposes will be targeted by the more thorough checks and legitimate immigration applications will not be affected.

Tarek Fatah, of the Muslim Canadian Congress said, “we welcome this move to enforce the policy, the Canadian citizenship is not for sale,” to the Toronto Sun after the news was announced.

The high frequency of abuse with regards to the marriage process for Canadian immigration casts a high amount of suspicion on those who are immigrating legitimately. The government intends to conduct more background checks and will have access to tools that will protect the process and the system’s integrity. Most of the people subject to the increased scrutiny will be those who arrive to immigrate right after a marriage.

Meanwhile, Citisenship and Immigration Canada has stated that annually almost 10,000 Canadians marry people from other countries who already live in Canada, and around 8 to 10 per cent of these permanent residence applications are rejected. Alternatively, over 60,000 Canadians mary overseas and file inernational spousal sponsorships,15 per cent of which are rejected.

In Canada, the spouse generally can receive landed status without conditions, whereas in the United States there is sometimes requirement for the two to live together for a minimum period of a few years for before the spouse can get permanent residence

We will see how this all plays out. The concern is that Canada Immigration will apply an unnecessarily  level of scrutiny to spousal sponsorships for arrange marriages which in some cultures is a totally legitimate process of marriage.

A small mention proposing new regulations on family relationships for immigrants was mentioned in Saturday’s Canada Gazette.

The Canada Gazette is a publication put out by the Government of Canada that contains information on notices for the public, hearings and proposed regulations among other Parliamentary happenings.

The Gazette states that Section 4 (R4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations are already designed to “protect the integrity of the immigration system” by not allowing for marriages or relationships of convenience to be used to get around immigration laws. However, determining which relationships are for real and which ones are only for immigration purposes is difficult.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada wants to further define the family relationships used in family class immigration situations, meaning it will be far easier for immigration officials to not allow someone to immigrate into Canada if they suspect they have entered into a marriage simply for immigration purposes.

The proposed measures will also crack down on child-parent adoptive relationships, in case they are not genuine or are for immigration purposes only. These also present the same difficulties with regards to identifying relationships of convenience and will also be covered under the proposed regulations.

Leaving such decisions up to a few officials isn’t a very safe idea. People can make mistakes, but in the case of these immigration issues,  a simple unfounded suspicion can result refusals of immigration applications.

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.