To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
Mar 17th 2004, 8:31 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
Hello,
I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
and find them perfectly clear.
However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
dates.
In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
(including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
CIC OP manuals.
Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
Thank you
Arona
I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
and find them perfectly clear.
However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
dates.
In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
(including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
CIC OP manuals.
Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
Thank you
Arona
Mar 17th 2004, 1:09 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
Arona:
On what basis you you state that persons in the SW category get their visas
in 4 to 5 months. That is not my expereince in Paris even for French or
Belgian nationals, The BF date is like a failsafe date at which time the
case will be reviewed to see how matters are progressing. Without posting
all your details it is diffcult to say how long matters will take but
Spouses are definitly given priority. You are still within the 6 months
window of processing expect of offices.
Jim metcalfe
"Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
> I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> and find them perfectly clear.
> However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> dates.
> In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> CIC OP manuals.
> Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> Thank you
> Arona
On what basis you you state that persons in the SW category get their visas
in 4 to 5 months. That is not my expereince in Paris even for French or
Belgian nationals, The BF date is like a failsafe date at which time the
case will be reviewed to see how matters are progressing. Without posting
all your details it is diffcult to say how long matters will take but
Spouses are definitly given priority. You are still within the 6 months
window of processing expect of offices.
Jim metcalfe
"Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
> I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> and find them perfectly clear.
> However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> dates.
> In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> CIC OP manuals.
> Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> Thank you
> Arona
Mar 17th 2004, 2:27 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
There were no SW class applicants in Paris approved in "average of 4-5
months" for years my friend, I have no idea where you got your information
from.
And you also misunderstood my explanation of BFD - it doesn't mean that
nothing will happen until BFD, it means that officer will take a look at the
case **if** no activity happens sooner. Today is only March 17 and you have
no way of knowing if anything happened for at least past month or so with
the case as it usually takes at least a month from any action requiring
notification of applicant to mail the letter.
Conjugal partners are being processed with the same highest priority as
spouses and common-law partners - the only problem with conjugal partners is
determining if they meet the definition of such and if it is a bona fide
relationship. It may take longer depending from the conclusiveness of
evidence submitted and if interview is required from the number of cases
already waiting in interview queue. I see absolutely nothing alarming in the
timeline you provided and I would be surprised if you would already have any
answer.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
> I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> and find them perfectly clear.
> However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> dates.
> In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> CIC OP manuals.
> Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> Thank you
> Arona
months" for years my friend, I have no idea where you got your information
from.
And you also misunderstood my explanation of BFD - it doesn't mean that
nothing will happen until BFD, it means that officer will take a look at the
case **if** no activity happens sooner. Today is only March 17 and you have
no way of knowing if anything happened for at least past month or so with
the case as it usually takes at least a month from any action requiring
notification of applicant to mail the letter.
Conjugal partners are being processed with the same highest priority as
spouses and common-law partners - the only problem with conjugal partners is
determining if they meet the definition of such and if it is a bona fide
relationship. It may take longer depending from the conclusiveness of
evidence submitted and if interview is required from the number of cases
already waiting in interview queue. I see absolutely nothing alarming in the
timeline you provided and I would be surprised if you would already have any
answer.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
> I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> and find them perfectly clear.
> However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> dates.
> In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> CIC OP manuals.
> Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> Thank you
> Arona
Mar 17th 2004, 2:56 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
AM: I am please we agree on the procesing times in Paris. I was beginning to
doubt it myself as we are finally getting interviews in Paris from pre IRPA
cases.
Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for his
"girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
Jim metcalfe
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:87_5c.238915$Hy3.108866@edtnps89...
> There were no SW class applicants in Paris approved in "average of 4-5
> months" for years my friend, I have no idea where you got your information
> from.
> And you also misunderstood my explanation of BFD - it doesn't mean that
> nothing will happen until BFD, it means that officer will take a look at
the
> case **if** no activity happens sooner. Today is only March 17 and you
have
> no way of knowing if anything happened for at least past month or so with
> the case as it usually takes at least a month from any action requiring
> notification of applicant to mail the letter.
> Conjugal partners are being processed with the same highest priority as
> spouses and common-law partners - the only problem with conjugal partners
is
> determining if they meet the definition of such and if it is a bona fide
> relationship. It may take longer depending from the conclusiveness of
> evidence submitted and if interview is required from the number of cases
> already waiting in interview queue. I see absolutely nothing alarming in
the
> timeline you provided and I would be surprised if you would already have
any
> answer.
> --
> ../..
> Andrew Miller
> Immigration Consultant
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> email: [email protected]
> (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> ________________________________
> "Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> > and find them perfectly clear.
> > However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> > category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> > Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> > information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> > My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> > 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> > Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> > dates.
> > In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> > Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> > and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> > (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> > Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> >
> > So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> > sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> > information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> > could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> > assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> > CIC OP manuals.
> >
> > Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> > Thank you
> > Arona
doubt it myself as we are finally getting interviews in Paris from pre IRPA
cases.
Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for his
"girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
Jim metcalfe
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:87_5c.238915$Hy3.108866@edtnps89...
> There were no SW class applicants in Paris approved in "average of 4-5
> months" for years my friend, I have no idea where you got your information
> from.
> And you also misunderstood my explanation of BFD - it doesn't mean that
> nothing will happen until BFD, it means that officer will take a look at
the
> case **if** no activity happens sooner. Today is only March 17 and you
have
> no way of knowing if anything happened for at least past month or so with
> the case as it usually takes at least a month from any action requiring
> notification of applicant to mail the letter.
> Conjugal partners are being processed with the same highest priority as
> spouses and common-law partners - the only problem with conjugal partners
is
> determining if they meet the definition of such and if it is a bona fide
> relationship. It may take longer depending from the conclusiveness of
> evidence submitted and if interview is required from the number of cases
> already waiting in interview queue. I see absolutely nothing alarming in
the
> timeline you provided and I would be surprised if you would already have
any
> answer.
> --
> ../..
> Andrew Miller
> Immigration Consultant
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> email: [email protected]
> (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> ________________________________
> "Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> > and find them perfectly clear.
> > However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> > category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> > Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> > information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> > My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> > 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> > Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> > dates.
> > In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> > Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> > and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> > (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> > Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> >
> > So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> > sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> > information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> > could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> > assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> > CIC OP manuals.
> >
> > Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> > Thank you
> > Arona
Mar 17th 2004, 3:29 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
"James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for his
> "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
James,
I am intrigued by the above comment, having seen many Conjugal Applications
fail through CHC London where our case is currently being processed.
I have a couple of questions:
1) Do these new guidelines improve the definition of Conjugal Partner?
Other applicants who have been turned down say that from their interviews
they got the impression that you can only apply as Conjugal if you are
homosexual couple/have no way of establishing a common-law relationship.
Of course, i've seen successes elsewhere where neither of these criteria
apply - but at London (and only at London have I seen this) hetero couples
are told that they don't meet Conjugal criteria - but to get married ASAP
and then the visa will be issued...
Seaching Google, I haven't seen a successful Conjugal app made through
London (where marriage wasn't required) since 2002!
2) Will these guidelines apply to us? AOR rec'd December 2003, heard nothing
back yet.
Many thanks
PS - we didn't use the term "girlfriend" once!
news
[email protected]...> Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for his
> "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
James,
I am intrigued by the above comment, having seen many Conjugal Applications
fail through CHC London where our case is currently being processed.
I have a couple of questions:
1) Do these new guidelines improve the definition of Conjugal Partner?
Other applicants who have been turned down say that from their interviews
they got the impression that you can only apply as Conjugal if you are
homosexual couple/have no way of establishing a common-law relationship.
Of course, i've seen successes elsewhere where neither of these criteria
apply - but at London (and only at London have I seen this) hetero couples
are told that they don't meet Conjugal criteria - but to get married ASAP
and then the visa will be issued...
Seaching Google, I haven't seen a successful Conjugal app made through
London (where marriage wasn't required) since 2002!
2) Will these guidelines apply to us? AOR rec'd December 2003, heard nothing
back yet.
Many thanks
PS - we didn't use the term "girlfriend" once!
Mar 17th 2004, 3:34 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
Yes Jim, I read it.
And it is almost exactly in line with policies already practiced for quite
some time by many visa posts, especially London. Yes, still open to some
interpretation, but leaving much less room for such compared to the
January's edition of OP2.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> AM: I am please we agree on the procesing times in Paris. I was beginning
to
> doubt it myself as we are finally getting interviews in Paris from pre
IRPA
> cases.
> Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for his
> "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
> Jim metcalfe
> "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:87_5c.238915$Hy3.108866@edtnps89...
> > There were no SW class applicants in Paris approved in "average of 4-5
> > months" for years my friend, I have no idea where you got your
information
> > from.
> >
> > And you also misunderstood my explanation of BFD - it doesn't mean that
> > nothing will happen until BFD, it means that officer will take a look at
> the
> > case **if** no activity happens sooner. Today is only March 17 and you
> have
> > no way of knowing if anything happened for at least past month or so
with
> > the case as it usually takes at least a month from any action requiring
> > notification of applicant to mail the letter.
> >
> > Conjugal partners are being processed with the same highest priority as
> > spouses and common-law partners - the only problem with conjugal
partners
> is
> > determining if they meet the definition of such and if it is a bona fide
> > relationship. It may take longer depending from the conclusiveness of
> > evidence submitted and if interview is required from the number of cases
> > already waiting in interview queue. I see absolutely nothing alarming in
> the
> > timeline you provided and I would be surprised if you would already have
> any
> > answer.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller
> > Immigration Consultant
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > email: [email protected]
> > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > "Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> > > and find them perfectly clear.
> > > However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> > > category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> > > Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> > > information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> > > My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> > > 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> > > Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> > > dates.
> > > In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> > > Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> > > and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> > > (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> > > Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> > >
> > > So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> > > sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> > > information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> > > could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> > > assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> > > CIC OP manuals.
> > >
> > > Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> > > Thank you
> > > Arona
> >
> >
And it is almost exactly in line with policies already practiced for quite
some time by many visa posts, especially London. Yes, still open to some
interpretation, but leaving much less room for such compared to the
January's edition of OP2.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...> AM: I am please we agree on the procesing times in Paris. I was beginning
to
> doubt it myself as we are finally getting interviews in Paris from pre
IRPA
> cases.
> Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for his
> "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
> Jim metcalfe
> "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:87_5c.238915$Hy3.108866@edtnps89...
> > There were no SW class applicants in Paris approved in "average of 4-5
> > months" for years my friend, I have no idea where you got your
information
> > from.
> >
> > And you also misunderstood my explanation of BFD - it doesn't mean that
> > nothing will happen until BFD, it means that officer will take a look at
> the
> > case **if** no activity happens sooner. Today is only March 17 and you
> have
> > no way of knowing if anything happened for at least past month or so
with
> > the case as it usually takes at least a month from any action requiring
> > notification of applicant to mail the letter.
> >
> > Conjugal partners are being processed with the same highest priority as
> > spouses and common-law partners - the only problem with conjugal
partners
> is
> > determining if they meet the definition of such and if it is a bona fide
> > relationship. It may take longer depending from the conclusiveness of
> > evidence submitted and if interview is required from the number of cases
> > already waiting in interview queue. I see absolutely nothing alarming in
> the
> > timeline you provided and I would be surprised if you would already have
> any
> > answer.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller
> > Immigration Consultant
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > email: [email protected]
> > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > "Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> > > and find them perfectly clear.
> > > However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> > > category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> > > Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> > > information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> > > My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> > > 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> > > Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> > > dates.
> > > In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> > > Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> > > and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> > > (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> > > Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> > >
> > > So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> > > sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> > > information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> > > could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> > > assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> > > CIC OP manuals.
> > >
> > > Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> > > Thank you
> > > Arona
> >
> >
Mar 17th 2004, 3:51 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
Depends what you mean as "improving" guidelines. For sure revised manual
makes it more clear, but if you were hoping for having things more flexible
then it doesn't make it any easier. Quite opposite - it is very clearly
stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional cases**
where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get married or
live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners, it is
not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not getting
married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
And yes, it applies to all pending under IRPA cases, regardless when
submitted.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> > dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> > instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> > suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for
his
> > "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
> James,
> I am intrigued by the above comment, having seen many Conjugal
Applications
> fail through CHC London where our case is currently being processed.
> I have a couple of questions:
> 1) Do these new guidelines improve the definition of Conjugal Partner?
> Other applicants who have been turned down say that from their interviews
> they got the impression that you can only apply as Conjugal if you are
> homosexual couple/have no way of establishing a common-law relationship.
> Of course, i've seen successes elsewhere where neither of these criteria
> apply - but at London (and only at London have I seen this) hetero couples
> are told that they don't meet Conjugal criteria - but to get married ASAP
> and then the visa will be issued...
> Seaching Google, I haven't seen a successful Conjugal app made through
> London (where marriage wasn't required) since 2002!
> 2) Will these guidelines apply to us? AOR rec'd December 2003, heard
nothing
> back yet.
> Many thanks
> PS - we didn't use the term "girlfriend" once!
makes it more clear, but if you were hoping for having things more flexible
then it doesn't make it any easier. Quite opposite - it is very clearly
stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional cases**
where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get married or
live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners, it is
not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not getting
married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
And yes, it applies to all pending under IRPA cases, regardless when
submitted.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news
[email protected]...> > Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> > dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> > instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> > suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for
his
> > "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
> James,
> I am intrigued by the above comment, having seen many Conjugal
Applications
> fail through CHC London where our case is currently being processed.
> I have a couple of questions:
> 1) Do these new guidelines improve the definition of Conjugal Partner?
> Other applicants who have been turned down say that from their interviews
> they got the impression that you can only apply as Conjugal if you are
> homosexual couple/have no way of establishing a common-law relationship.
> Of course, i've seen successes elsewhere where neither of these criteria
> apply - but at London (and only at London have I seen this) hetero couples
> are told that they don't meet Conjugal criteria - but to get married ASAP
> and then the visa will be issued...
> Seaching Google, I haven't seen a successful Conjugal app made through
> London (where marriage wasn't required) since 2002!
> 2) Will these guidelines apply to us? AOR rec'd December 2003, heard
nothing
> back yet.
> Many thanks
> PS - we didn't use the term "girlfriend" once!
Mar 17th 2004, 4:10 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Vl%5c.14427$vh1.8108@clgrps13...
> Quite opposite - it is very clearly
> stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional
cases**
> where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get married
or
> live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners, it is
> not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not getting
> married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
Thanks for the clarification.
Unless I missed something, i'm sure the application forms and guide only
mentioned what you should be able to prove to be classified as Conjugal, not
mentioning anything about only apply if you're exceptional.
No use dwelling on it here anyway, one for discussion at the interview
perhaps!
Thanks
news:Vl%5c.14427$vh1.8108@clgrps13...
> Quite opposite - it is very clearly
> stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional
cases**
> where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get married
or
> live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners, it is
> not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not getting
> married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
Thanks for the clarification.
Unless I missed something, i'm sure the application forms and guide only
mentioned what you should be able to prove to be classified as Conjugal, not
mentioning anything about only apply if you're exceptional.
No use dwelling on it here anyway, one for discussion at the interview
perhaps!
Thanks
Mar 17th 2004, 4:11 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
Whether it improves the situation or not is diffcult to say without knowing
the circmstances of the case involved. I think it gives good guidance in
preparing this type of case for presentation and it should be followed as
closely as possible. Obviously visa officers are struggling with this
conjugal cases and the amendments in the OP manual are an attempt to bring
consistency to the system. This is a new concept for visa officers and
until there is some case law there will be differing opinions on what
constitutes a true conjugal relationship.
I note that you have seen many cases of this type refused in London, I have
only one such case in London and it is going well and we expect a positive
resolution in the next few months. We are dealing with another in Eastern
Europe that was refused, we did not start the case as it was done by the
sponsor and it relates to the aplpicant saysing they were engaged to be
married but no definite plans. We are doing an ADR Conferance as I think
there is some room to win the case.
It would be interesting to compare the reasons for refusal, I suspect that
many of them involve friends and not true conjugal relationships which do
not meet the guidelines.
I apologies for the "girlfriend" comment. There as another similar posting
whihc spoke fo sponosring girlfriend as a conjugal partner.
Jim metcalfe
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> > dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> > instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> > suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for
his
> > "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
> James,
> I am intrigued by the above comment, having seen many Conjugal
Applications
> fail through CHC London where our case is currently being processed.
> I have a couple of questions:
> 1) Do these new guidelines improve the definition of Conjugal Partner?
> Other applicants who have been turned down say that from their interviews
> they got the impression that you can only apply as Conjugal if you are
> homosexual couple/have no way of establishing a common-law relationship.
> Of course, i've seen successes elsewhere where neither of these criteria
> apply - but at London (and only at London have I seen this) hetero couples
> are told that they don't meet Conjugal criteria - but to get married ASAP
> and then the visa will be issued...
> Seaching Google, I haven't seen a successful Conjugal app made through
> London (where marriage wasn't required) since 2002!
> 2) Will these guidelines apply to us? AOR rec'd December 2003, heard
nothing
> back yet.
> Many thanks
> PS - we didn't use the term "girlfriend" once!
the circmstances of the case involved. I think it gives good guidance in
preparing this type of case for presentation and it should be followed as
closely as possible. Obviously visa officers are struggling with this
conjugal cases and the amendments in the OP manual are an attempt to bring
consistency to the system. This is a new concept for visa officers and
until there is some case law there will be differing opinions on what
constitutes a true conjugal relationship.
I note that you have seen many cases of this type refused in London, I have
only one such case in London and it is going well and we expect a positive
resolution in the next few months. We are dealing with another in Eastern
Europe that was refused, we did not start the case as it was done by the
sponsor and it relates to the aplpicant saysing they were engaged to be
married but no definite plans. We are doing an ADR Conferance as I think
there is some room to win the case.
It would be interesting to compare the reasons for refusal, I suspect that
many of them involve friends and not true conjugal relationships which do
not meet the guidelines.
I apologies for the "girlfriend" comment. There as another similar posting
whihc spoke fo sponosring girlfriend as a conjugal partner.
Jim metcalfe
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news
[email protected]...> > Have you read the new guidelines for Conjugal partners in the OP manual
> > dated 12 MARCH 2004? Very long winded but an improvement on the former
> > instructions. Still a bit ambiguaous and open to interpretation. I would
> > suggest that the original poster read them carefully before filing for
his
> > "girlfriend". Incidently that word does not feature in the instructions.
> James,
> I am intrigued by the above comment, having seen many Conjugal
Applications
> fail through CHC London where our case is currently being processed.
> I have a couple of questions:
> 1) Do these new guidelines improve the definition of Conjugal Partner?
> Other applicants who have been turned down say that from their interviews
> they got the impression that you can only apply as Conjugal if you are
> homosexual couple/have no way of establishing a common-law relationship.
> Of course, i've seen successes elsewhere where neither of these criteria
> apply - but at London (and only at London have I seen this) hetero couples
> are told that they don't meet Conjugal criteria - but to get married ASAP
> and then the visa will be issued...
> Seaching Google, I haven't seen a successful Conjugal app made through
> London (where marriage wasn't required) since 2002!
> 2) Will these guidelines apply to us? AOR rec'd December 2003, heard
nothing
> back yet.
> Many thanks
> PS - we didn't use the term "girlfriend" once!
Mar 17th 2004, 4:25 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
Just to add to my previous comment - revised last week OP2 goes even further
with restricting conjugal partnerships than up to date policies of CHC
London are. For example London used to give the option to "not so" conjugal
partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur **before**
application is filed.
As you see now for yourself relying only on application guides and forms in
most cases is absolutely not sufficient for successful application. There is
much more to it than what generic, bare basic instructions can ever provide.
And all those guides usually include warning that they are for basic
informational purpose only and that for more details one should consult IRPA
and it's Regulations. For most applicants reading IRPA and Regs will also
not be enough anyway as they have no slightest idea how to interpret all of
that legal "mumbo jumbo", they have no idea what departmental policies on
every issue are, what are instructions given (and changed several times per
year) to processing officers, etc.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Unless I missed something, i'm sure the application forms and guide only
> mentioned what you should be able to prove to be classified as Conjugal,
not
> mentioning anything about only apply if you're exceptional.
> No use dwelling on it here anyway, one for discussion at the interview
> perhaps!
> Thanks
> "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Vl%5c.14427$vh1.8108@clgrps13...
> > Quite opposite - it is very clearly
> > stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional
> cases**
> > where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get married
> or
> > live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners, it
is
> > not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not getting
> > married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
with restricting conjugal partnerships than up to date policies of CHC
London are. For example London used to give the option to "not so" conjugal
partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur **before**
application is filed.
As you see now for yourself relying only on application guides and forms in
most cases is absolutely not sufficient for successful application. There is
much more to it than what generic, bare basic instructions can ever provide.
And all those guides usually include warning that they are for basic
informational purpose only and that for more details one should consult IRPA
and it's Regulations. For most applicants reading IRPA and Regs will also
not be enough anyway as they have no slightest idea how to interpret all of
that legal "mumbo jumbo", they have no idea what departmental policies on
every issue are, what are instructions given (and changed several times per
year) to processing officers, etc.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Unless I missed something, i'm sure the application forms and guide only
> mentioned what you should be able to prove to be classified as Conjugal,
not
> mentioning anything about only apply if you're exceptional.
> No use dwelling on it here anyway, one for discussion at the interview
> perhaps!
> Thanks
> "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Vl%5c.14427$vh1.8108@clgrps13...
> > Quite opposite - it is very clearly
> > stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional
> cases**
> > where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get married
> or
> > live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners, it
is
> > not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not getting
> > married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
Mar 17th 2004, 4:43 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
AM: To summarize your latest comments: " A little knowledge is
dangerous"!!!!!!!! Or to restate the obvious. Immigration law is complex and
in some instance should not be left to the layman.
Jim metcalfe
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XR%5c.14759$vh1.233@clgrps13...
> Just to add to my previous comment - revised last week OP2 goes even
further
> with restricting conjugal partnerships than up to date policies of CHC
> London are. For example London used to give the option to "not so"
conjugal
> partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
> marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur
**before**
> application is filed.
> As you see now for yourself relying only on application guides and forms
in
> most cases is absolutely not sufficient for successful application. There
is
> much more to it than what generic, bare basic instructions can ever
provide.
> And all those guides usually include warning that they are for basic
> informational purpose only and that for more details one should consult
IRPA
> and it's Regulations. For most applicants reading IRPA and Regs will also
> not be enough anyway as they have no slightest idea how to interpret all
of
> that legal "mumbo jumbo", they have no idea what departmental policies on
> every issue are, what are instructions given (and changed several times
per
> year) to processing officers, etc.
> --
> ../..
> Andrew Miller
> Immigration Consultant
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> email: [email protected]
> (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> ________________________________
> "A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.
> > Unless I missed something, i'm sure the application forms and guide only
> > mentioned what you should be able to prove to be classified as Conjugal,
> not
> > mentioning anything about only apply if you're exceptional.
> > No use dwelling on it here anyway, one for discussion at the interview
> > perhaps!
> >
> > Thanks
> > "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:Vl%5c.14427$vh1.8108@clgrps13...
> >
> > > Quite opposite - it is very clearly
> > > stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional
> > cases**
> > > where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get
married
> > or
> > > live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners,
it
> is
> > > not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not
getting
> > > married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
> >
> >
> >
dangerous"!!!!!!!! Or to restate the obvious. Immigration law is complex and
in some instance should not be left to the layman.
Jim metcalfe
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XR%5c.14759$vh1.233@clgrps13...
> Just to add to my previous comment - revised last week OP2 goes even
further
> with restricting conjugal partnerships than up to date policies of CHC
> London are. For example London used to give the option to "not so"
conjugal
> partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
> marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur
**before**
> application is filed.
> As you see now for yourself relying only on application guides and forms
in
> most cases is absolutely not sufficient for successful application. There
is
> much more to it than what generic, bare basic instructions can ever
provide.
> And all those guides usually include warning that they are for basic
> informational purpose only and that for more details one should consult
IRPA
> and it's Regulations. For most applicants reading IRPA and Regs will also
> not be enough anyway as they have no slightest idea how to interpret all
of
> that legal "mumbo jumbo", they have no idea what departmental policies on
> every issue are, what are instructions given (and changed several times
per
> year) to processing officers, etc.
> --
> ../..
> Andrew Miller
> Immigration Consultant
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> email: [email protected]
> (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> ________________________________
> "A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.
> > Unless I missed something, i'm sure the application forms and guide only
> > mentioned what you should be able to prove to be classified as Conjugal,
> not
> > mentioning anything about only apply if you're exceptional.
> > No use dwelling on it here anyway, one for discussion at the interview
> > perhaps!
> >
> > Thanks
> > "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:Vl%5c.14427$vh1.8108@clgrps13...
> >
> > > Quite opposite - it is very clearly
> > > stated that conjugal partners category is reserved for **exceptional
> > cases**
> > > where partners living in conjugal relationship cannot either get
married
> > or
> > > live together long enough to meet definition of common-law partners,
it
> is
> > > not for those who made a free choice for whatever reasons of not
getting
> > > married or not cohabiting together for at least 12 months.
> >
> >
> >
Mar 17th 2004, 5:28 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XR%5c.14759$vh1.233@clgrps13...
> For example London used to give the option to "not so" conjugal
> partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
> marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur
**before**
> application is filed.
This is not good news for us, because at least if they thought we weren't
"not so" Conjugal we had the chance of another option.
I still feel this is unfair when at the time the application was made, at no
point did any official documentation made available to applicants recommend
that we need not apply if we weren't what CIC deemed to be an exceptional
case.
Then again I was also saddened by this option, as it does "use" marriage as
a tool for easy immigration.
However, this is a moot point.
I have studied the link you posted in a previous thread
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/...h/op/op02e.pdf), and I believe
with the exception of *some* joint financial commitments (we do have a joint
bank account however), we have presented irrefutable evidence with regards
to very nearly every aspect of what CIC like to see present in a Conjugal
Partnership.
We remain confident, and i'm sure we'll hear something soon!
Thanks again
news:XR%5c.14759$vh1.233@clgrps13...
> For example London used to give the option to "not so" conjugal
> partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
> marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur
**before**
> application is filed.
This is not good news for us, because at least if they thought we weren't
"not so" Conjugal we had the chance of another option.
I still feel this is unfair when at the time the application was made, at no
point did any official documentation made available to applicants recommend
that we need not apply if we weren't what CIC deemed to be an exceptional
case.
Then again I was also saddened by this option, as it does "use" marriage as
a tool for easy immigration.
However, this is a moot point.
I have studied the link you posted in a previous thread
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/...h/op/op02e.pdf), and I believe
with the exception of *some* joint financial commitments (we do have a joint
bank account however), we have presented irrefutable evidence with regards
to very nearly every aspect of what CIC like to see present in a Conjugal
Partnership.
We remain confident, and i'm sure we'll hear something soon!
Thanks again
Mar 17th 2004, 5:28 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
"James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FE%[email protected]...
James,
Thanks for your input.
If your e-mail address given works, and if you can spare 5 minutes, I can
give you brief details of our circumstances.
> I note that you have seen many cases of this type refused in London, I
have
> only one such case in London and it is going well and we expect a positive
> resolution in the next few months.
This is good news.
> It would be interesting to compare the reasons for refusal, I suspect that
> many of them involve friends and not true conjugal relationships which do
> not meet the guidelines.
As I have said to Andrew Miller in the post made at the same time as this
one, having studied the criteria before we made our application and again
today, I am 100% sure we meet the guidelines.
However, it's this clearly undefined "exceptional cases only" thing that is
making us worry.
> I apologies for the "girlfriend" comment. There as another similar
posting
> whihc spoke fo sponosring girlfriend as a conjugal partner.
No need to apologise!
The "girlfriend" term is a tricky one. Here in the UK, my peers and I would
class a relationship path travel from "girlfriend" to "fiancee" to "wife".
Girlfriend covers a whole chunk of the relationship, right through to when
you're just starting out, to just before you get engaged, when you may have
joint commitments, live together, etc. My brother still calls his fiancee
his girlfriend, so he will go straight from "girlfriend" to "wife".
So I can see why CIC aren't keen on the "girlfriend" statement, as taken at
it's lowest form, it can mean next to nothing.
Bearing this in mind, my partner and I made sure we referred to each other
as partners throughout the application, even though we call ourselves
"boyfriend" and "girlfriend" when we talk to each other, and will probably
do so until we get married.
Thanks again.
news:FE%[email protected]...
James,
Thanks for your input.
If your e-mail address given works, and if you can spare 5 minutes, I can
give you brief details of our circumstances.
> I note that you have seen many cases of this type refused in London, I
have
> only one such case in London and it is going well and we expect a positive
> resolution in the next few months.
This is good news.
> It would be interesting to compare the reasons for refusal, I suspect that
> many of them involve friends and not true conjugal relationships which do
> not meet the guidelines.
As I have said to Andrew Miller in the post made at the same time as this
one, having studied the criteria before we made our application and again
today, I am 100% sure we meet the guidelines.
However, it's this clearly undefined "exceptional cases only" thing that is
making us worry.
> I apologies for the "girlfriend" comment. There as another similar
posting
> whihc spoke fo sponosring girlfriend as a conjugal partner.
No need to apologise!
The "girlfriend" term is a tricky one. Here in the UK, my peers and I would
class a relationship path travel from "girlfriend" to "fiancee" to "wife".
Girlfriend covers a whole chunk of the relationship, right through to when
you're just starting out, to just before you get engaged, when you may have
joint commitments, live together, etc. My brother still calls his fiancee
his girlfriend, so he will go straight from "girlfriend" to "wife".
So I can see why CIC aren't keen on the "girlfriend" statement, as taken at
it's lowest form, it can mean next to nothing.
Bearing this in mind, my partner and I made sure we referred to each other
as partners throughout the application, even though we call ourselves
"boyfriend" and "girlfriend" when we talk to each other, and will probably
do so until we get married.
Thanks again.
Mar 17th 2004, 8:05 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
It was always clearly defined as the "exceptional" since the conjugal
partners were defined in the Immigration Manual back in the summer of 2002.
If you go back in this forum to my own posts from summer 2002 explaining
(with quotes from Manual) what it takes to meet the criteria for conjugal
partners you would see that it was always like that.
As Jim already wrote summarizing my previous comment immigration law is
complex and "little knowledge" gained from application kits and guides may
be very dangerous, especially when interpreted with too much optimism.
And if you have well proven the bona fide of relationship then the only
problem you will have will be explaining and documenting reasons why **you
can't get married** and/or why **you couldn't cohabit for 12 months** before
application - not why you simply didn't want to. If your explanation and
supporting evidence won't be satisfactory then you may still be lucky and
get the final "get married" option from London. Good luck.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:XR%5c.14759$vh1.233@clgrps13...
> > For example London used to give the option to "not so" conjugal
> > partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
> > marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur
> **before**
> > application is filed.
> This is not good news for us, because at least if they thought we weren't
> "not so" Conjugal we had the chance of another option.
> I still feel this is unfair when at the time the application was made, at
no
> point did any official documentation made available to applicants
recommend
> that we need not apply if we weren't what CIC deemed to be an exceptional
> case.
> Then again I was also saddened by this option, as it does "use" marriage
as
> a tool for easy immigration.
> However, this is a moot point.
> I have studied the link you posted in a previous thread
> (http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/...h/op/op02e.pdf), and I believe
> with the exception of *some* joint financial commitments (we do have a
joint
> bank account however), we have presented irrefutable evidence with regards
> to very nearly every aspect of what CIC like to see present in a Conjugal
> Partnership.
> We remain confident, and i'm sure we'll hear something soon!
> Thanks again
partners were defined in the Immigration Manual back in the summer of 2002.
If you go back in this forum to my own posts from summer 2002 explaining
(with quotes from Manual) what it takes to meet the criteria for conjugal
partners you would see that it was always like that.
As Jim already wrote summarizing my previous comment immigration law is
complex and "little knowledge" gained from application kits and guides may
be very dangerous, especially when interpreted with too much optimism.
And if you have well proven the bona fide of relationship then the only
problem you will have will be explaining and documenting reasons why **you
can't get married** and/or why **you couldn't cohabit for 12 months** before
application - not why you simply didn't want to. If your explanation and
supporting evidence won't be satisfactory then you may still be lucky and
get the final "get married" option from London. Good luck.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:XR%5c.14759$vh1.233@clgrps13...
> > For example London used to give the option to "not so" conjugal
> > partners - "get married and we'll grant visa". Manual boldly states that
> > marriage or meeting 12 months cohabitation requirement must occur
> **before**
> > application is filed.
> This is not good news for us, because at least if they thought we weren't
> "not so" Conjugal we had the chance of another option.
> I still feel this is unfair when at the time the application was made, at
no
> point did any official documentation made available to applicants
recommend
> that we need not apply if we weren't what CIC deemed to be an exceptional
> case.
> Then again I was also saddened by this option, as it does "use" marriage
as
> a tool for easy immigration.
> However, this is a moot point.
> I have studied the link you posted in a previous thread
> (http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/...h/op/op02e.pdf), and I believe
> with the exception of *some* joint financial commitments (we do have a
joint
> bank account however), we have presented irrefutable evidence with regards
> to very nearly every aspect of what CIC like to see present in a Conjugal
> Partnership.
> We remain confident, and i'm sure we'll hear something soon!
> Thanks again
Mar 18th 2004, 10:02 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: To Andrew / Jim / all experts - Priority process ?
James, Andrew:
This information can be found on the french immigration forum of
www.immigrer.com. You will find the timelines of SW having applied to
Quebec and other provinces. There are also timelines for sponsorship
applications, most of which were initiated prior to the Feb. 2003
regulations. Please check it out and you will see for yourselves that
the more recent SW applications have been processed very quickly.
I also mentioned that sponsorship applications took longer because on
this forum concerning Paris, there are mostly canadian-north african
couples and the applications are very carefully srutinized, background
checks take longer, ect. But as you will see, the discrepancy between
timelines for SW and sponsorships is huge.
James, I am aware that I am within the 6-month timeframe, which is why
I haven't sent any request for information to the Paris office.
However, given that I haven't received till now any interview request
(or anything else for that matter) and that this letter would arrive
+/- 6 weeks prior to the interview date, this brings us very close to
the 6-month timeframe (24/11/03 - 24/05/04). I am also willing to
submit other proof of "interdependency" such as joint bank account,
pension/life insurance beneficiary documents, proof that my partner
was actively looking for a job in Europe for 2 years to come and live
with me here.
Should I submit these documents just like that, without waiting for
instructions from Paris ?
Thank you
Arona
"James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
> Arona:
>
> On what basis you you state that persons in the SW category get their visas
> in 4 to 5 months. That is not my expereince in Paris even for French or
> Belgian nationals, The BF date is like a failsafe date at which time the
> case will be reviewed to see how matters are progressing. Without posting
> all your details it is diffcult to say how long matters will take but
> Spouses are definitly given priority. You are still within the 6 months
> window of processing expect of offices.
>
> Jim metcalfe
>
>
> "Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> > and find them perfectly clear.
> > However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> > category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> > Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> > information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> > My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> > 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> > Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> > dates.
> > In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> > Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> > and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> > (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> > Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> >
> > So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> > sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> > information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> > could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> > assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> > CIC OP manuals.
> >
> > Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> > Thank you
> > Arona
This information can be found on the french immigration forum of
www.immigrer.com. You will find the timelines of SW having applied to
Quebec and other provinces. There are also timelines for sponsorship
applications, most of which were initiated prior to the Feb. 2003
regulations. Please check it out and you will see for yourselves that
the more recent SW applications have been processed very quickly.
I also mentioned that sponsorship applications took longer because on
this forum concerning Paris, there are mostly canadian-north african
couples and the applications are very carefully srutinized, background
checks take longer, ect. But as you will see, the discrepancy between
timelines for SW and sponsorships is huge.
James, I am aware that I am within the 6-month timeframe, which is why
I haven't sent any request for information to the Paris office.
However, given that I haven't received till now any interview request
(or anything else for that matter) and that this letter would arrive
+/- 6 weeks prior to the interview date, this brings us very close to
the 6-month timeframe (24/11/03 - 24/05/04). I am also willing to
submit other proof of "interdependency" such as joint bank account,
pension/life insurance beneficiary documents, proof that my partner
was actively looking for a job in Europe for 2 years to come and live
with me here.
Should I submit these documents just like that, without waiting for
instructions from Paris ?
Thank you
Arona
"James Metcalfe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
> Arona:
>
> On what basis you you state that persons in the SW category get their visas
> in 4 to 5 months. That is not my expereince in Paris even for French or
> Belgian nationals, The BF date is like a failsafe date at which time the
> case will be reviewed to see how matters are progressing. Without posting
> all your details it is diffcult to say how long matters will take but
> Spouses are definitly given priority. You are still within the 6 months
> window of processing expect of offices.
>
> Jim metcalfe
>
>
> "Arona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've read the answers posted by Andrew regarding the meaning of BF'D
> > and find them perfectly clear.
> > However, what I don't get is that the Conjugal Partner Sponsorship
> > category is supposed to be a priority, as are the
> > Spouse/Common-law/Dep. Child applications, as fully stated in all CIC
> > information documents and that in reality it is simply not the case:
> > My PR file has been "in process" at the Paris office since 24 Nov.
> > 2003 (AOR 28/01/04). CAIPS notes mention BF'D 23-03-2004. From what
> > Andrew says, I take it to mean that NOTHING has happened between the 2
> > dates.
> > In the meantime, I see a whole bunch of people applying through the
> > Paris office for both Skilled Worker and Spouse Sponsorship categories
> > and the Skilled Workers getting their visa in an average of 4-5 months
> > (including applicants from so-called "sensitive" countries), Spouse
> > Sponsorship taking longer in all cases (married couples fare better)!
> >
> > So what is exactly this notion of "priority" if your file is left
> > sitting around for FOUR months, with no request for additional
> > information, proof of whatever, interview request or anything that
> > could indeed fit in with this "priority" concept ?! One would expect
> > assessment (positive or negative) to be done faster as stated in the
> > CIC OP manuals.
> >
> > Plse give me your professional view on this matter.
> > Thank you
> > Arona