Income comes from more than one source. Limited travel history to schengen states. not satisfied genuine visitor, not satisfied would abide by the terms and conditions of trv.
No proof of savings for hosts. No proof of savings for applicant. LICO does not appear met even if daughter and son-in-law have no children. Applicant has an average/low income and in the lack of evidence of savings I am not satisfied that adequate funds are available. Establishment for both applicant and hosts is not demonstrated either.
not satisfied that PA and spouse will return to Ukraine at the end of their authorised stay if visas issued to them; believe that the family might try to remain in Cda for good; not satisfied that they would do it properly
No satisfactory proof of work experience. No satisfactory evidence of any vocational skill or training related to proposed job. No satisfactory proof of employment income or source of personal savings. I am not satisfied applicant can perform the work sought in CDA nor that applicant would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for stay.
Affidativ of spousal financial sustainance on file. Spouse is a civil servant. Salary not known. Refusal recommended. Account presented looks bogus. Doubt credibility of funds based on pa’s income. Source of funds presented not known. Doubt bonafide and intenrions.
Employed as Deputy Director — no evidence of income provided. Subject appears to have a strong desire to reach Canada and his purpose changes from application to application. Now is a self registered participant in a conference. Not satisfied subject has a genuine business purpose or that is not an intending immigrant.
Insufficient proof of previous IT studies or ESL studies. spouse is only recently employed. I am not satisfied that PA and spouse are well-established in Russia and that they will leave Canada at the end of their stay.
Low income, funds were recently deposited and bank statement does not show regular deposit of income, no compelling reason for travel I am not satisfied that PA is sufficiently established to ensure her departure at the end of auth. period of stay
I have searched the employment validation in GCMS that supports this application and have found that such a validation does exist, but applicana is not one of the 5 people listed on the LMO. The LMO is presented by his consultant as pertaining to him but it does not. A blatant case of misrep in order to inappropriately qualify for a WP. Inadmissible for A40(1)(a). Refused. Spouse and child as well because they alos sough to get a status document that they would not be entitled to. Also provisions of A40(2)(a) apply as well.