Traveling While Waiting for Spousal Sponsorship

[LovelylilD]

Hello,

I’ve read on previous posts about limiting travel while waiting for a response from IRCC, but the Holidays are coming up and I want to see family.

I am from the US, being sponsored by my spouse from inside Canada. I left in June for 5 days for my cousins wedding, and I won’t be heading back until Dec, so I don’t think I’m doing anything fishy here. But I do want to stay in the US for longer than I did last time, maybe 16-18 days.
I’ve seen previous posts advising no more than 2 weeks every 6 months. So what I want to know is this: Is IRCC monitoring my comings and goings? Am I supposed to report something? Will they know I’ve been gone longer than 14 days? What exactly happens to the application (which has been approved in principal, just waiting for the background check), does it get flagged? Is there an inquiry? I’ve never been denied entry to Canada before, so I’m not so worried about re-entering as a visitor, but I don’t want anything to go wrong with my PR.
Please advise. Sorry if I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I feel like that’s what IRCC has done by making us go through this whole process in the first place.

 

[scylla]

Hello,

I’ve read on previous posts about limiting travel while waiting for a response from IRCC, but the Holidays are coming up and I want to see family.

I am from the US, being sponsored by my spouse from inside Canada. I left in June for 5 days for my cousins wedding, and I won’t be heading back until Dec, so I don’t think I’m doing anything fishy here. But I do want to stay in the US for longer than I did last time, maybe 16-18 days.
I’ve seen previous posts advising no more than 2 weeks every 6 months. So what I want to know is this: Is IRCC monitoring my comings and goings? Am I supposed to report something? Will they know I’ve been gone longer than 14 days? What exactly happens to the application (which has been approved in principal, just waiting for the background check), does it get flagged? Is there an inquiry? I’ve never been denied entry to Canada before, so I’m not so worried about re-entering as a visitor, but I don’t want anything to go wrong with my PR.
Please advise. Sorry if I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I feel like that’s what IRCC has done by making us go through this whole process in the first place.

I don't see any problem with what you have planned. There is nothing you need to report.

 

[Ponga]

Sorry if I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I feel like that’s what IRCC has done by making us go through this whole process in the first place.

What is the `this' that you are referring to?

By submitting an Inland application, you are expected to remain in Canada during the process. Many applicants (though not all) have no problems if they leave for a short trip*, but that is never guaranteed. Each time a foreign national presents themselves to the primary CBSA officer, there's no guarantee of entry. Having said that, having reached the all important AIP stage, chances of you re-entering without issue would seem to be quite high. If, however, you were denied, your Inland application would be in jeopardy. I'm NOT saying that to elevate your angst, merely stating the facts.

* [The real problem is that no one (not even IRCC) has a clear definition of what a`short trip' means.]

 

[richardrocks]

My husband is American and in the same boat — hasn’t left Canada since he applied 7 months ago. We didn’t want to jeopardize anything. Also, a border agent said that when they admit you to Canada at a land crossing, whatever status you previously had gets reset. He’s already gone from 6 month initial TRV to a one year extension to a 2 year OWP. It’s not clear to me that he’d be able to return from a trip abroad and maintain his current status without some help from CBSA which may or may not happen. I’d actually like to call the border again for some clarity on this but they’ve been impossible to reach since the US election.

At this point, we are going to wait til eCOPR but we also wonder what happens if we drive to the US on an eCOPR and they mail the PR card which I’ve heard invalidates the eCOPR. Does that make returning hard? Am I misunderstanding anything?

 

[Ponga]

My husband is American and in the same boat — hasn’t left Canada since he applied 7 months ago. We didn’t want to jeopardize anything. Also, a border agent said that when they admit you to Canada at a land crossing, whatever status you previously had gets reset. He’s already gone from 6 month initial TRV to a one year extension to a 2 year OWP. It’s not clear to me that he’d be able to return from a trip abroad and maintain his current status without some help from CBSA which may or may not happen. I’d actually like to call the border again for some clarity on this but they’ve been impossible to reach since the US election.

At this point, we are going to wait til eCOPR but we also wonder what happens if we drive to the US on an eCOPR and they mail the PR card which I’ve heard invalidates the eCOPR. Does that make returning hard? Am I misunderstanding anything?

I have never heard of this...which doesn't mean much, I suppose.

The PR card does not invalidate anything. it is simply the official `proof' that the person has obtained PR status that is mostly used for returning to Canada via a commercial carrier. Since your husband is a U.S. citizen (with a valid passport, I assume) he doesn't even really need a PR Card to return to Canada...at all.

A valid PRC is `really' proof for the first 730 days. If a person fails to meet the Residency Requirements to maintain their PR status, a valid card would be a bit of a paradox (from the day that they were no longer in compliance).

 

[richardrocks]

I have never heard of this...which doesn't mean much, I suppose.

The PR card does not invalidate anything. it is simply the official `proof' that the person has obtained PR status that is mostly used for returning to Canada via a commercial carrier. Since your husband is a U.S. citizen (with a valid passport, I assume) he doesn't even really need a PR Card to return to Canada...at all.

A valid PRC is `really' proof for the first 730 days. If a person fails to meet the Residency Requirements to maintain their PR status, a valid card would be a bit of a paradox (from the day that they were no longer in compliance).

If I can ever reach them to confirm, I’ll respond here. Basically, when an American crosses the border s/he usually gets a 6 month visa. If you previously had a 1 or 2 year TRV by applying for extensions pending spousal PR, you revert back to standard 6 months when you re-enter. That’s what one border agent told me when we first arrived, but who knows.

These forums are a testament to how little official information is out there. I recognize that there are dozens of immigrations programs and individual scenarios, but it sure would be nice to get a really complete FAQ directly from IRCC addressing these sorts of concerns.

 

[armoured]

If I can ever reach them to confirm, I’ll respond here. Basically, when an American crosses the border s/he usually gets a 6 month visa. If you previously had a 1 or 2 year TRV by applying for extensions pending spousal PR, you revert back to standard 6 months when you re-enter. That’s what one border agent told me when we first arrived, but who knows.

These forums are a testament to how little official information is out there. I recognize that there are dozens of immigrations programs and individual scenarios, but it sure would be nice to get a really complete FAQ directly from IRCC addressing these sorts of concerns.

I don't pretend to be an expert on this but my understanding:
-sure, leaving suspends/ends your current visit (status right now as a visitor).
-but when your US spouse returns, they're (in substance) applying again to become a visitor. If admitted - which should be routine, I believe, in the case where the applicant has a spousal app in process and an OWP - they now have visitor status again. (Almost always for the six month default validity).
-The OWP part and its connection to the visitor status is where I'm at a loss. My understanding is they're basically separate; so if your spouse is readmitted (again, routine usually), they are now a visitor (again) who also happens to have the right to work.
-Note this MUST be kept separate from the concept of the visa. The 'visa' is a right-to-travel to Canada doc that also implies that the bearer will be admitted (but it does not guarantee it because CBSA can decide, for example, that the bearer isn't being truthful or wants to use it for some improper purpose, or whatever). For the most part US passport holders do not need a 'visa' to Canada.

As far as I can tell, the confusion on OWPs etc and people leaving is because having the OWP isn't a visa and doesn't guarantee you a return. (This is where it gets murky for me, I don't know how they go about dealing with that - if the person needs a visa). So for those who don't have a visa (to return with) and need one to board a plane it is a matter of considerable import, and they have to get it resolved somehow (ideally before departing).

There's the related issue that an inland app can be refused/cancelled if 'abandoned', i.e. the applicant leaves the country, with the implication that has left long enough that no longer is 'inland' nor residing with the sponsor. (Which might be the case for someone who leaves without a visa and doesn't deal with getting one soon enough).

All of this to say: please see @scylla's post above. Doesn't sound like leaving and returning after the few week visit to USA will be an issue.

And on the eCOPR issue: if/when the eCOPR comes, it is evidence that the holder is / became a PR, but not a document that lets a PR board a plane - that document is the PR card. Short form in your specific context: US citizens don't need a PR card to board a plane to Canada, all other citizen-PRs do (or a PRTD). Won't be an issue at a land border, either.

 

[richardrocks]

I don't pretend to be an expert on this but my understanding:
-sure, leaving suspends/ends your current visit (status right now as a visitor).
-but when your US spouse returns, they're (in substance) applying again to become a visitor. If admitted - which should be routine, I believe, in the case where the applicant has a spousal app in process and an OWP - they now have visitor status again. (Almost always for the six month default validity).
-The OWP part and its connection to the visitor status is where I'm at a loss. My understanding is they're basically separate; so if your spouse is readmitted (again, routine usually), they are now a visitor (again) who also happens to have the right to work.
-Note this MUST be kept separate from the concept of the visa. The 'visa' is a right-to-travel to Canada doc that also implies that the bearer will be admitted (but it does not guarantee it because CBSA can decide, for example, that the bearer isn't being truthful or wants to use it for some improper purpose, or whatever). For the most part US passport holders do not need a 'visa' to Canada.

As far as I can tell, the confusion on OWPs etc and people leaving is because having the OWP isn't a visa and doesn't guarantee you a return. (This is where it gets murky for me, I don't know how they go about dealing with that - if the person needs a visa). So for those who don't have a visa (to return with) and need one to board a plane it is a matter of considerable import, and they have to get it resolved somehow (ideally before departing).

There's the related issue that an inland app can be refused/cancelled if 'abandoned', i.e. the applicant leaves the country, with the implication that has left long enough that no longer is 'inland' nor residing with the sponsor. (Which might be the case for someone who leaves without a visa and doesn't deal with getting one soon enough).

All of this to say: please see @scylla's post above. Doesn't sound like leaving and returning after the few week visit to USA will be an issue.

And on the eCOPR issue: if/when the eCOPR comes, it is evidence that the holder is / became a PR, but not a document that lets a PR board a plane - that document is the PR card. Short form in your specific context: US citizens don't need a PR card to board a plane to Canada, all other citizen-PRs do (or a PRTD). Won't be an issue at a land border, either.

Thanks for the detailed response! Still, it’s all so dizzying. Let’s say that he leaves and returns and gets the usual 6 month visitor visa. And when that expires, assuming that PR application is dragging on, would he need to apply for an extension or is he under presumed temporary resident status due to the pending application?

An American who’s already been admitted to Canada many times is unlikely to get denied entry, but let’s just say that there’s a lot of power and discretion vested in indicidual agents. I’m still weary to leave for the holidays until this is finalized.

Re the OWP, it’s odd because the document says to leave Canada on the 2 year expiration but if that document itself doesn’t grant visitor per se, then he’s only got one year under the previous TRV document. And maybe implied status indefinitely until there’s a decision?

Is anyone aware if any of this is spelled out clearly on a Gov website?

 

[armoured]

I’m still weary to leave for the holidays until this is finalized.

I honestly wouldn't worry about a couple week trip.

Re the OWP, it’s odd because the document says to leave Canada on the 2 year expiration but if that document itself doesn’t grant visitor per se, then he’s only got one year under the previous TRV document. And maybe implied status indefinitely until there’s a decision?

That is where I do not know. I believe the OWP effectively gives the holder leave to stay during the course of it, but I've also never understood implied status fully, and this is where my split of the two breaks down.

In most simple terms though: he'll have six months, worry about it 5 months in and if uncertain, apply for an extension then.

 

[Ponga]

For the most part US passport holders do not need a 'visa' to Canada.

There is no `for the most part' for U.S. passport holders.

 

[richardrocks]

There is no `for the most part' for U.S. passport holders.

For the record, when we moved here we interacted with a border agent who cut us off right after we said "we decided to move to Canada" and gave us a very long and unpleasant lecture about how people don't get to just get to show up at the border and "decide to move to Canada". Once she realized that we literally had a ream of paper showing our serious intent, and that we had thoroughly done our research into the spousal sponsorship process, the tone changed, but I was literally shaking in my boots... especially since we had rented our home and had all our belongs and a dog with. Thought for a moment we'd be heading to live with an aunt or something.

So! Yeah, they're likely let us back in but... if they're having a bad day... you're going to sweat. Fun times.

 

[armoured]

There is no `for the most part' for U.S. passport holders.

There are actually - but not really relevant here.

A US passport holder CAN be denied, and one not-so weird reason might be - you're arriving to do something that's not covered by any type of temporary resident visa (work, diplomatic service*, etc). They might let you in on the understanding you can't do the thing you came here to do, etc.

But in this sense - you need the visa to do the thing - some US passport holders do need a visa.

And of course - the COPR to come and settle may not be a 'visa', but as this thread has covered, it's needed (msotly) to do the thing you came to do, land. And people who show up without visas/papers saying they're 'moving' can indeed have issues.

(And I haven't addressed those who may have other issues like criminal records - I don't know the details - but one answer could be a visa).

*Realized this is probably a bad example as holders would usually have diplomatic passports ... but then it gets complicated about what diplomatic passports cover (hint: holders do not always get diplomatic protection/immunity if they're not formally accredited). Similar issues for active military under status-of-forces and other officials - the official passport on its own ain't enough).

Anyway all a digression from this topic. And I should clarify, I'm not fully up on what documentation is needed for all work/official and other travel for various passport holders, some of my recollections may be old.

 

[armoured]

people don't get to just get to show up at the border and "decide to move to Canada". Once she realized that we literally had a ream of paper showing our serious intent
...
So! Yeah, they're likely let us back in but... if they're having a bad day... you're going to sweat. Fun times.

Your previous situation was QUITE different from your spouse's current situation.

You did indeed, well, bluntly - you screwed up by showing up at the border the way you did. Serious intent or not, that's not the way to approach, and some have been turned back on that basis. (And basically told some steps to undertake to be allowed in). They were lenient in the end.

Whether they were being jerks or not - well, eye of the beholder.

 

[richardrocks]

There are actually - but not really relevant here.

A US passport holder CAN be denied, and one not-so weird reason might be - you're arriving to do something that's not covered by any type of temporary resident visa (work, diplomatic service*, etc). They might let you in on the understanding you can't do the thing you came here to do, etc.

But in this sense - you need the visa to do the thing - some US passport holders do need a visa.

And of course - the COPR to come and settle may not be a 'visa', but as this thread has covered, it's needed (msotly) to do the thing you came to do, land. And people who show up without visas/papers saying they're 'moving' can indeed have issues.

(And I haven't addressed those who may have other issues like criminal records - I don't know the details - but one answer could be a visa).

*Realized this is probably a bad example as holders would usually have diplomatic passports ... but then it gets complicated about what diplomatic passports cover (hint: holders do not always get diplomatic protection/immunity if they're not formally accredited). Similar issues for active military under status-of-forces and other officials - the official passport on its own ain't enough).

Anyway all a digression from this topic. And I should clarify, I'm not fully up on what documentation is needed for all work/official and other travel for various passport holders, some of my recollections may be old.

You're not wrong -- see my previous post about our experience at the border. The agent absolutely dressed us down for saying we intended to Canada to live/work with nothing other than our passports (and paperwork showing that we jointly owned a condo in Canada, etc). She pointed at me (a dual citizen) and said, "you, you're good" and then pointed at my American husband and said, "you, you're not good at all". She also warned him not to "sponge off the system" which is really amazing because he's a surgical nurse... heard that Canada needs those.

So, this is some context as to why we are weary to cross the border until there's a final decision.

 

[richardrocks]

Your previous situation was QUITE different from your spouse's current situation.

You did indeed, well, bluntly - you screwed up by showing up at the border the way you did. Serious intent or not, that's not the way to approach, and some have been turned back on that basis. (And basically told some steps to undertake to be allowed in). They were lenient in the end.

Whether they were being jerks or not - well, eye of the beholder.

What was the right way to do it? I'm a Canadian and there's an inland process for applying for spousal sponsorship and Americans generally don't need visas to enter Canada. Let's educate folks in a similar situation...

We were nothing but pleasant and my husband completely took it in stride. Just smiled and said, Plan B could be a fun adventure. Fortunately, no Plan B needed and we love life in Canada. Only wish there was more transparency online about the process. It's dizzying. Shouldn't need an attorney in a scenario like ours.