Montreal denied!!!

[Lenie7 0]

That was probably about it because I told him I had more, like utility bills for my house in my name, including cable tv, and property tax records, but he had already made up his mind and didn't want to see anything. I had seen on VJ that many people were getting hassled for domicile, but I felt like I was well prepared for the interview. Little did I know how difficult it actually would be. I guess part of the reason I am thinking I might get a job is that I don't want to relinquish my PR card in Canada, not because I don't have intentions to move to the U.S., but because I hate the idea of closing doors and opportunities in the future. Canada has different requirements than the U.S to maintain PR status and so I'd like to keep it if I can.

You can go ahead and get a job in the US without worrying about giving up your PR card. As long as your husband makes it down to the US within 6 months, you will be fine. (I am a PR card holder, too.)

I'm probably going to sound like the biggest VJ jerk by saying this, but I actually kind of understand where the CO is coming from. It seems unfair, and it IS unfair in a way...but when you look at it from the CO's standpoint, the Canadian permanent residency card, combined with the lack of employment in the U.S. shows that you're really not committed to being an American resident. When you're not actively living in a house you own there, it ISN'T a residence...it's just a house that, for all he knows, you could be renting out and be including the utility bills etc. in the rent.

That isn't to say that I side with the CO, given that WE on VJ know that your intentions are sound. But from a purely factual standpoint, there's not a lot of proof that you are a de facto American, and not a Canadian resident, merely seeking a convenient future option from your husband.

Take no offense by this...I'm just trying to see it from the CO's perspective.

Wyatt - I'm sorry, but I really have to disagree with you. In order to file for DCF, you HAVE to have a visa or PR of some sort. I have not heard of any other consulate that requires you to give up your PR card in order to prove that you have an intention to move. Hell, who is going to go through this process if they didn't have any intention of moving?

And realistically, this interviewer seems to go in with his mind already made up without even looking at the interviewee's documentation - it is probably the same guy who interviewed Simistar - but she forced the proof to be seen. Her husband had a job offer, though.

Mal, you are right. With DCF, you have to be a PR for over six months I think, so why bother offering that if you are going to hold it against someone? I think it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to stay together through the process and move at the same time.

Wyatt, as a USC, I can apply for immigration benefits for my husband anytime I want, so what is the benefit of having status with no intention? If I wasn't in a legitimate relationship, maybe that would make sense, but my marriage is valid and immigration had no problems with our proof of the relationship.

I got the impression that he felt like I had proved enough for domicile, but he wanted me to give up my PR status. He said that when I mail the card in to the Canadian consulate, they send back it back with hole punches in it and that would be my proof. He also said that the immigration law is very clear about establishing domicile, so I asked him where I could find the law (for my own reference) and he got defensive, stating that even if I hired an attorney they wouldn't be able to do anything (as though I was threatening him). I wasn't asking for that purpose, but if the law is SO clear (which it isn't and is at the discretion of the case officer), I wanted to see it for myself so that I would submit the proper documentation.

When he asked if I had a job in the U.S., I said that I didn't need to work because my husband made good money. He replied, "well, not everyone is as rich as you." Since my husband's career is more important than mine, I wanted to stay with him until we could move to the U.S. Now, I may find a job and once the visa is issued, figure out if I want to stay there or not.

I know there are two sides to every story, but we were not rude, arrogant or anything like that. We were a little nervous, very polite and answered his questions calmly. The crying jag at the end seemed to annoy him, but besides that, I don't know why he made some of the comments he did.

[trailmix 77]

Yes - also, I had to prove domicile and we did not file DCF - just saying it can be done and DCF is not the deciding factor.

As I mentioned, I emailed the consulate for clarification on the reestablishing domicile issue, based on conflicting advice people seem to be getting from COs (this latest one takes the cake).

While I don't expect them to respond with guidelines that will guarantee a visa being issued 100% of the time, something other than a black hole would be of benefit. I see no reason why they cannot be more transparent about their requirements.

(oh and you don't necessarily have to be a PR of Canada for 6 months - you can be here as a student for example and you just have to show proof of 'long term residence' in Canada - like your PR card for instance....)

Edited November 24, 2009 by trailmix

[Rustbelt 0]

Dalene, I'm so sorry you're having to go through this. With Steve & myself we considered the DCF route (we could have lived in one place on one side of the border then!), but we wanted to have the extra flexibility for his work. So we did the regular IR-1 route so that he could move for work if it was necessary instead of being tied to jobs within a commutable distance. I'm kind of glad we did it that way now . . . (Not that it helps you at all).

Hugs to you.

- Steve's wife

[trailmix 77]

When he asked if I had a job in the U.S., I said that I didn't need to work because my husband made good money. He replied, "well, not everyone is as rich as you." Since my husband's career is more important than mine, I wanted to stay with him until we could move to the U.S. Now, I may find a job and once the visa is issued, figure out if I want to stay there or not.

[bogartnoir 1]

When he asked if I had a job in the U.S., I said that I didn't need to work because my husband made good money. He replied, "well, not everyone is as rich as you." Since my husband's career is more important than mine, I wanted to stay with him until we could move to the U.S. Now, I may find a job and once the visa is issued, figure out if I want to stay there or not.

yes. this comment is rather shocking and presumptuous. completely out of line.

i'm so sorry you have to go through all of this.

[Lenie7 0]

Yes - also, I had to prove domicile and we did not file DCF - just saying it can be done and DCF is not the deciding factor.

As I mentioned, I emailed the consulate for clarification on the reestablishing domicile issue, based on conflicting advice people seem to be getting from COs (this latest one takes the cake).

While I don't expect them to respond with guidelines that will guarantee a visa being issued 100% of the time, something other than a black hole would be of benefit. I see no reason why they cannot be more transparent about their requirements.

(oh and you don't necessarily have to be a PR of Canada for 6 months - you can be here as a student for example and you just have to show proof of 'long term residence' in Canada - like your PR card for instance....)

I didn't file DCF since I hadn't been a Canadian PR for six months and hadn't been living here beforehand. I would agree that it shouldn't be an issue, so I don't know why he focused so much on me giving up my PR card. By the end, the gist of his instructions were: go get a job in the U.S. OR give up your PR card.

[Malrothien 6]

All I know is - I am not giving up my Canadian PR - I didn't spend almost $2000 for nothing and losing that opportunity. We cannot afford to be apart, so if we get the same outcome, then that's that. I just think it's rude and unprofessional what he is telling you, Dalene.

[thedawghouse86 0]

Hi Dalene,

Sorry to hear about your experience at the interview! Sounds to me like you got the same fellow a few people have had for the interview and I do not believe that he actually understands the 'reestablishing domicile' clause in their own guidelines. Which is not to say that he doesn't know what evidence he is looking for - but he seems to be hasty in telling the U.S. citizen they must move back to the U.S. rather than just submit more proof.

First off, I would not be too hasty in relinquishing your Canadian PR card - that sounds completely out of line.

I know you are probably still reeling from getting denied but as some others have mentioned, other people have been told that they have to move back to the U.S. (probably by the same guy) and that turned out to not be the case and they submitted extra evidence and were approved.

So back to the practical matters at hand. From what I understand from your post, you submitted proof of:

- Owning a house in the U.S. (is this vacant, are you moving to live in that house?)

- U.S. driver's license

- Cars registered there with U.S. insurance

- Several bank accounts

What other proof did you submit that you were 'reestablishing domicile'?

I agree with not giving your Canadian PR card back. There is absolutely no law that states you have to give up any benefit from a foreign government in order to obtain a benefit from the U.S. government. It's none of their business if you're a Canadian PR or not; the only thing that matters is that you are the USC.

I would recommend getting an immigration lawyer to help. My lawyer told me that in my case the consulate may have made an error in not issuing my visa that day. I gave them the information they requested, but I was told that the guy would look at it within a couple days even though the letter states to allow up to four weeks. The interviewers don't seem to look through the case at all before interviewing you -- my interviewer even said at one point that we didn't have any proof of my wife being a USC (points to U.S. birth certificate in front of him).

And these people wonder why there are illegal immigrants?

[wmtc 0]

Sorry U got denied, just keep your head up and move on to the next step, do alot of research on how you can get the visa approved without moving to state and leaving your family behind. We Vj member's will have your back till the end, just be patient and don't let this situation get the best of U,

Always hope for the best

[Lenie7 0]

When he asked if I had a job in the U.S., I said that I didn't need to work because my husband made good money. He replied, "well, not everyone is as rich as you." Since my husband's career is more important than mine, I wanted to stay with him until we could move to the U.S. Now, I may find a job and once the visa is issued, figure out if I want to stay there or not.

yes. this comment is rather shocking and presumptuous. completely out of line.

i'm so sorry you have to go through all of this.

I know...kind of inappropriate, right? Well, at the end, after I was upset and knew we clearly weren't going to be issued the visa, I said, "Well you said that everyone is not rich, so how can there be an expectation that people maintain two households (one in U.S. one in Canada) in order to prove domicile? Not everyone has that kind of money." I think the hypocrisy was lost on him.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Mal, you are right. With DCF, you have to be a PR for over six months I think, so why bother offering that if you are going to hold it against someone? I think it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to stay together through the process and move at the same time.

Then why are most of the CR-1 filers (on VJ at least) separated right now? If it was acceptable to stay together through the process, why am I not down in D.C. with my wife while things are moving forward? Again, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm just trying to get into the mentality of why you were denied.

Wyatt, as a USC, I can apply for immigration benefits for my husband anytime I want, so what is the benefit of having status with no intention? If I wasn't in a legitimate relationship, maybe that would make sense, but my marriage is valid and immigration had no problems with our proof of the relationship.

Sure you're entitled to apply for immigration benefits...but when the CO considers the fact that your husband is a Canadian and is wealthy enough to support you IN Canada...and that you own a house that you don't live in IN the U.S., and that you have permanent resident status IN Canada...the CO is going to wonder why it's important for you to move back to the U.S. There seems (to him) to be no reason for you to move back down there. IF, on the other hand, you were working down there and living in your house, and you wanted your husband to join you...then there's incentive for the CO to say, "okay, this move is purely from a marriage standpoint". When the CO tallies up all the other factors (wealthy husband, wife with Canadian PR, assets in the States, husband and wife legally living together in Canada), there seems to be less NEED for a visa to be issued, doesn't it? When contrasted with all of the other CR-1s out there who are spending several months WITHOUT their spouses, it's just going to look to the CO that getting your husband U.S. status is more of a convenience thing than a legitimate need for him to become an American PR. That's probably why he wants to see you either get work or give up your Canadian PR -- it would indicate a move on your part that would show some sort of NEED for them to issue the visa.

I really hope I'm not coming across the wrong way here. I'm just thinking that from their standpoint, there's not a lot of incentive for them to issue a visa when you guys are already living together in Canada as Canadian residents and are financially comfortable.

[Lenie7 0]

All I know is - I am not giving up my Canadian PR - I didn't spend almost $2000 for nothing and losing that opportunity. We cannot afford to be apart, so if we get the same outcome, then that's that. I just think it's rude and unprofessional what he is telling you, Dalene.

Yeah...I thought so, too - more so now that I've had a day to reflect. I think many of the things he said to us were totally inappropriate and unprofessional. Well, I guess there's nothing to do but move on and learn from this whole experience.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Dalene

[trailmix 77]

I see your point Wyatt - but where does 'need' come in to it? There is no mention of 'need' in the guidelines. If visas were approved on need - then most DCFers (or people who file for a CR1/IR1 via USCIS in the U.S.) from Canada would never get a visa.

Edited November 24, 2009 by trailmix

[Malrothien 6]

Mal, you are right. With DCF, you have to be a PR for over six months I think, so why bother offering that if you are going to hold it against someone? I think it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to stay together through the process and move at the same time.

Then why are most of the CR-1 filers (on VJ at least) separated right now? If it was acceptable to stay together through the process, why am I not down in D.C. with my wife while things are moving forward? Again, please don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm just trying to get into the mentality of why you were denied.

Because you would already be living in the country that you are immigrating to.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

I see your point Wyatt - but where does 'need' come in to it? There is no mention of 'need' in the guidelines. If visas were approved on need - then most DCFers from Canada would never get a visa.

Nope...but I would bet a large sum of money that NEED is the major subjective factor by the CO in the issuance of these visas. They may not, in an objective sense, be "reunification visas", but for all intents and purposes, that is what they are. NEED isn't a stated factor in the guidelines because the CO is the ultimate arbiter of the case -- not USCIS, not NVC...but the CO.