A Representative You Should NOT Hire?
A Foreign Student from India almost completing her second year of her study permit approached a RCIC to seek advice. She wanted to get her husband and her 4 1/2-year-old daughter in Canada while she would be working on a three-year PGWP Post Graduate Work Permit. The Regulated Consultant told her that she would submit an Spouse Open Work Permit application, but it was advisable NOT to include her daughter with that application because it would increase the chances of REFUSAL for her husband.
Then one month after applying SOWP application for the father/Spouse she submitted a Canadian Visitor Visa application for the 4 1/2-year-old daughter of the foreign student. With the CVV application she submitted a 9 PAGE COVERING LETTER.
In the first paragraph of the covering letter dated October 2021 she gave the Visa Post one month to approve the application so that the mother/ Student could return to Canada with her daughter. ONE MONTH! This RCIC did not include any evidence that the little girl’s mother was enrolled in college. She did UNDERLINED in BOLD for the Visa Post Officer that if they wanted to confirm the student status do not hesitate to contact her. Writing “All requested documents will be provided immediately.” If proof of the Mothers Student status can be provided immediately why were the proof of attending a College NOT provided with the application.?
Just in case the Visa Post Officer is an IDIOT and didn’t know their job this RCIC created a section called THE LAW.
She listed the entire IRPR 179 a, b, c, d, e, f, g.
FYI https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/page-23.html#h-688383
Then this Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant has a section called BACKGROUND. In the background section she states the father of this little girl resides in India and works for company ABC. Not one mention of the fact that she has submitted a SOWP Spouse Open Work Permit application for the father the previous month! Then this RCIC writes even though the mother/Foreign Student is currently residing in India she intends to return to her studies in December 2021. What the student is NOT in Canada!
SHOCK # 5 The RCIC stated that because the little girl missed her mommy so much the Foreign Student decided to fly home to India and study online. NOT that the College went to totally only studying due to COVID-19! How upset can this little girl be if mommy is at home with her for the last nine months? Mom was home in India from March 2021 until late October 2021 why did they only give the visa post a month to render a decision on this visitor application? Why didn’t they apply sooner?
Then she writes two lengthy paragraphs which are UNDERLINED in BOLD that she understands under normal situation the Foreign Student would have to be in Canada to allow the Visa post officer to issue a visitor visa. Then as an afterthought this RCIC states “The open work permit application of Zunaira’s father, Mohammedadil is being submitted separately”. That would mean if the father got a SOWP there would be no one back home to send Zunaira back home to after her VISIT!
Inviter’s address and phone number on the TRV portal One address is the mother’s sister address in Canada while she lists the residential address of her home in India since she is currently residing there.
This RCIC writes two more long pages listing “Factors to Consider”
1. Proof of Relationship,
2. Purpose of Visit,
3. Financial Sufficiency,
4. Ties to the home country,
5. Travel History,
6. Family Reunification,
7. Best Interest of the Child.
The purpose of the visit is because the little girl misses her mommy. Did they not expect that to happen when the mother went to study in Canada? Which 4 ½ year old would not miss their mother who was studying abroad?
Then on page six of her 9 PAGE COVERING LETTER she quotes the IRCC Operational Manuals for assessing study permit applications. I guess the Visa Post Officer never read their own manual. She goes in great detail how this couple have sufficient funds to support the stay in Canada of the mother and daughter.
Due to Lack of Travel History for this 4 ½ year old daughter the Regulated Immigration Consultant quotes a Federal Court Decision. “As was determined by the Federal Court of Canada in Dhanoa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 729, Paragraph 12; ‘Lack of previous travel can only at most be a neutral factor. If one had travelled and always returned, the visa officer’s concerns might be lessened. ’.
· Why is this Regulated Consultant trying to impress the visa post officer with her knowledge or is she trying to educate the Visa Post Officer?
In the section “Family Reunification” she fails to mention little Zunaira is residing with her father and her grandparents in the same house. Instead, she quotes “As per the Evaluation of the Family Reunification Program of the Evaluation Division of the IRCC, dated March 2014” but wait for another comment when she states this policy on relates to Canadian Citizens or Permanent residents, but she thinks it should also apply to temporary residents.
She claims that the mother being an international student of Canada, has proved herself to be a part of Canadian economy by maintaining her full-time student status at Conestoga college. Wait no evidence submitted that the mother has ever attended Conestoga College.
Best Interest of the Child section this RCIC quotes the following case law (Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817) and should bear in mind that “[c]hildren will rarely, if ever, be deserving of any hardship” (Hawthorne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 475, [2003] 2 F.C. 555).
Then she rants and raves about the age of the child. Then fails to mention that she is residing with her father and grandparents back in India. That she has been with her mother who returned to India since March 2021 until October 2021 when the application was submitted.
Then the Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant RCIC has this section
• the level of dependency between the child and the H&C applicant
Wait has this Consultant submitted an H&C application? Has she requested H&C considerations? NO!
She writes about the level of dependency between the applicant “Zunaira” and her mother the foreign student. I can’t ignore this quote “It is an innate nature of a child to feel most protected in the care of his mother and yearn her unconditional love”. Such a sexist comment from a woman! What fathers don’t count? Everyone knows that boys are closer to their mothers and daughters are closer to their fathers.
This Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant according to her Linkedin Profile became regulated in July of 2019. I checked and she is still a member of CICC in good standing as of todays date. I note that she shows her location as Toronto but when she ends her nine-page covering letter by telling the Visa Post Officer if they have any questions, they can call her yet her telephone area code is missing one number. Good luck with trying to call her.
One more observation since the RCIC did not provide evidence that the wife/nother was actually enrolled and attending Conestoga College in the visitor application did she provide proof of attending the College in the fathers SOWP spouse open work permit application.
Since the little girl will be FIVE YEARS OLD this September why not wait and apply for a study permit for the child. Is the mother so bad to not allow her child to attend school for three years while visiting Canada?
That way the father may be approved and could bring the little girl to Canada or the mother would have to make a quicjk trip home to pick up her daughter.
SHAME ON THIS RCIC!
Roy Kellogg
cvimmigration.com
