Inland sponsorship - interview @ port of entry

[Lashen]

What are you on about??

Stating an intention to apply for sponsorship does NOT make a person inadmissible.

Common-law relationships are NOT hard to prove. It is no different than a married app except submitting the proof of cohabitation.

Paying the fees ahead of time can most certainly changes things. It shows CBSA that a couple is serious about applying for PR and that they are following the process to legally live in Canada.

Be careful of the information you give here as it might cause major problème.

Inland sponsorship are always not the preferred option by IRCC. Declaring that you are coming as a visitor and intend to apply for inland sponsorship means you have a dual intentions. How do you then convince the officer that your intention is to visitor only and you will leave when your authorized stay ends? This is why most people with outland applications find it hard to get visitor's visa unless you are non-visa national, in which case you must declare dual intent. There are cases which applicants were turned back because they told Boarder officers that they are coming to apply for PR. There is à boarder issues TV channel that they show thèse cases.

Also paying for in land sponsorship fees in advance will not facilitate entry to Canada. This is relevant if you already have ongoing inland application and of proof of payment needs to be verified.

Also i think i wasn't clear here: I'm not saying common law partnerships are such difficult to prove. If you have monitored this forum for long, IRCC tends to request more documents from common law than married ones depending on the circumstance.

In a nuteshell, it's not necessary to debate over this.
My Advise:
Your partner should just enter as a visitor. You guys can travel together. Your partner's main intention should be just To visit you. As soon as you are in Canada you can begin your in land application together with OWP.

Also as Canuck said, your partner shouldn't bring many luggages as this will constitute their undeclared intention to remain in Canada.

 

[Lashen]

Thanks. What is the advisable length of stay? I mean is it a good idea to buy a return ticket in 6 months time or to play it safe and rather go for 3-4 months instead?

As far as the return date shows that your partner is leaving within 6 months you guys should be ok.

 

[Will_PA]

My wife's company paid to relocate both of us so I went for the most expensive possible, which was Xmas. I think 2 weeks or 1 month would look better. Does your wife have a ETA (think it's called that- the Canadian esta)? Get that, it lasts 5 years.

I have only begun the process, so don't take what I say as a roadmap. But I'll let you know how I get on.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

1. Is it acceptable to help answer questions on her behalf during the initial interview?
2. Also, I have only spent two weeks in Canada and dont have a permanent address yet. We will book something temporary and look for our own place in meantime. Is it a problem from the point of view of a CBSA officer?
3. How much money should my partner have in her account to prove that she can sustain herself for the time being as a visitor? Or should I step in and show my bank statements as her common-law partner?
4. We plan to leave Scotland altogether, abandoning our rental agreement, my partner leaving her job. How should my partner go about the "proving ties to your country" question when asked about it?

1. If she can't communicate effectively, then you can help.

2. Just give the address of where you will be staying. You aren't expected to have a house purchased or rented.

3. Between both of you, you should be able to show at least several thousand dollars.

4. Honestly, she doesn't really have any ties to show. She should just stress that she understands that she is coming as a visitor and will leave if she has to.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Be careful of the information you give here as it might cause major problème.

Inland sponsorship are always not the preferred option by IRCC. Declaring that you are coming as a visitor and intend to apply for inland sponsorship means you have a dual intentions. How do you then convince the officer that your intention is to visitor only and you will leave when your authorized stay ends? This is why most people with outland applications find it hard to get visitor's visa unless you are non-visa national, in which case you must declare dual intent. There are cases which applicants were turned back because they told Boarder officers that they are coming to apply for PR. There is à boarder issues TV channel that they show thèse cases.

Also paying for in land sponsorship fees in advance will not facilitate entry to Canada. This is relevant if you already have ongoing inland application and of proof of payment needs to be verified.

Also i think i wasn't clear here: I'm not saying common law partnerships are such difficult to prove. If you have monitored this forum for long, IRCC tends to request more documents from common law than married ones depending on the circumstance.

In a nuteshell, it's not necessary to debate over this.
My Advise:
Your partner should just enter as a visitor. You guys can travel together. Your partner's main intention should be just To visit you. As soon as you are in Canada you can begin your in land application together with OWP.

Also as Canuck said, your partner shouldn't bring many luggages as this will constitute their undeclared intention to remain in Canada.

I have been advising on the forum for several years and have over 12000 posts, so I am confident in the info that I have posted.

 

[petrikbb]

I have been advising on the forum for several years and have over 12000 posts, so I am confident in the info that I have posted.

Thank you. So the sponsorship shouldnt be mentioned at all? Should we stick to the "visiting my partner" scenario? Isnt it going to look suspicious if a PR accompanies his partner who claims to be a visitor only?

 

[KBH]

Hello everyone

I have a question with regards to my common-law partner's sponsorship. I am a PR, landed in Canada a month ago (August) but had to leave after two weeks to go back to Scotland. Now, I want to take my common-law partner with me the next time around to Canada and apply inland under Spouse/common-law in Canada class.
She was the non-accompanying family member on my EE application.

I am a little concerned about the interview at the Canadian border after we land together in November. We will not be hiring a law firm to draft us a contract as a proof of my intention to apply for sponsorship. We would rather apply ourselves once we are in Canada. These are the questions on my mind at the moment:

1. Are we going to be interviewed together at the airport once we land in Canada? (I am a PR, she would be a visitor from a non-visa requiring country)
2. Would it help if I pay the initial fee for her sponsorship before she arrives to Canada with me as a proof of my and her intentions to apply? Or is it advisable to pay only after the inland application has been submitted?
3. What is the most convincing evidence to prove that we really want to apply INLAND (PR and OWP) and to secure at least 6 months worth of visitor visa and not to be turned away at the border?

Thanks

If you left two weeks after you landed, did you leave before receiving your PR card? You will need your PR card to get back into Canada.

 

[petrikbb]

If you left two weeks after you landed, did you leave before receiving your PR card? You will need your PR card to get back into Canada.

I know. Will have to apply for a temporary travel document or have the card sent to me by a friend.

 

[KBH]

I know. Will have to apply for a temporary travel document or have the card sent to me by a friend.

You got it. Just wanted to make sure you were aware, especially if you are anticipating a somewhat anxious border crossing, that other detail was taken care of!

 

[petrikbb]

You got it. Just wanted to make sure you were aware, especially if you are anticipating a somewhat anxious border crossing, that other detail was taken care of!

But on the other hand, I was allowed to leave Canada without it. Although the lady at the desk did have quite a long chat with her manager about it. I have read somewhere that it shouldnt be a problem if you are coming from a non-visa requiring country. Is that true, or I wont be allowed to board a plane under any circumstances?

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Thank you. So the sponsorship shouldnt be mentioned at all? Should we stick to the "visiting my partner" scenario? Isnt it going to look suspicious if a PR accompanies his partner who claims to be a visitor only?

It doesn't need to be mentioned upfront, only if the officer pushes further.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

But on the other hand, I was allowed to leave Canada without it. Although the lady at the desk did have quite a long chat with her manager about it. I have read somewhere that it shouldnt be a problem if you are coming from a non-visa requiring country. Is that true, or I wont be allowed to board a plane under any circumstances?

Unless a person is being detained, they have the right to leave Canada.

The visa-exempt passport loophole was closed when the eTA became mandatory. You will not be able to board a plane without a valid PR card or a PRTD.

 

[petrikbb]

Unless a person is being detained, they have the right to leave Canada.

The visa-exempt passport loophole was closed when the eTA became mandatory. You will not be able to board a plane without a valid PR card or a PRTD.

So I will not be able to board the plane under any circumstances? What if I need to return now not having the time to get the documents? Would it help if I get the ETA.?

 

[canuck_in_uk]

So I will not be able to board the plane under any circumstances? What if I need to return now not having the time to get the documents? Would it help if I get the ETA.?

As I said, you would need a PR card or PRTD to board a plane.

If you don't have time, your only other option is to fly to the US and cross into Canada at a land border.

Once you are a PR, an eTA is no longer valid.

 

[petrikbb]

It doesn't need to be mentioned upfront, only if the officer pushes further.

Ok. Could you please describe this in a little more detail? I mean the possible questions from CBSA officer and best suited answers?