AUGUST 2020 *OUTLAND* SPOUSAL SPONSORSHIP

[The Robust]

But when they lets say drop the "x" is when they send AOR? And AOR means they have all the documents needed and they wont send the package back right?

yeah that's rigth

 

[The Robust]

there was no misguided information. Irrespective of the circumstances, all the lawyers I have spoken to have said the same thing,. It is "recommended" for the sponsor not to leave the country for more than 2/3 weeks....... we do not know how CIC will handle it

Anyways lets get back to the point..... so impatient for the AOR!

even if you leave for 2 weeks they can still create an issue

 

[pc8922]

Miss bee is correct, it is only RECOMMENDED you don't leave the country for more than a month or your app MIGHT be cancelled. It's up to you if you want to gamble and you feel lucky.

That is incorrect. Do you have any reference from CIC / any link we can refer to? It is as simple as being able to prove residency within Canada when asked - which can be done via an active lease ( payment of rent ), bills, bi-weekly or monthly salary.

 

[armoured]

That is incorrect. Do you have any reference from CIC / any link we can refer to? It is as simple as being able to prove residency within Canada when asked - which can be done via an active lease ( payment of rent ), bills, bi-weekly or monthly salary.

Under the residency obligation of the immigration act, residency is defined to mean only physical presence. No leases, bills, salaries, taxation status or other documents will demonstrate residency for the purposes of the residency obligation than actual physical presence (with the exception of the specific cases of eg working for canadian government abroad and a few other ones, or accompanying a canadian-citizen spouse).

As has been repeated here many times: they seem to accept that short trips abroad ("visits" if you prefer) are acceptable. Longer trips abroad may not be acceptable. Enforcement clearly varies.

Let's be clear: they are not bound to consider residency in any other sense than physical presence in Canada.

 

[The Robust]

That is incorrect. Do you have any reference from CIC / any link we can refer to? It is as simple as being able to prove residency within Canada when asked - which can be done via an active lease ( payment of rent ), bills, bi-weekly or monthly salary.

Following is what we have

"Sponsors who maintain a principal residence in Canada are not considered to be in violation of residency requirements if they:

• take short holidays or business trips outside Canada on a temporary basis
• have work arrangements that require them to be outside Canada for temporary finite periods of time, but return to live in Canada in between assignments (such as ship crew or seasonal workers)

Persons who do not maintain a principal residence in Canada and who live and work abroad and only return to Canada for short visits are not considered to meet residency requirements."

IRCC should have a clear period instead of this statement like how many days sponsor can be out of Canada

 

[The Robust]

Under the residency obligation of the immigration act, residency is defined to mean only physical presence. No leases, bills, salaries, taxation status or other documents will demonstrate residency for the purposes of the residency obligation than actual physical presence (with the exception of the specific cases of eg working for canadian government abroad and a few other ones, or accompanying a canadian-citizen spouse).

As has been repeated here many times: they seem to accept that short trips abroad ("visits" if you prefer) are acceptable. Longer trips abroad may not be acceptable. Enforcement clearly varies.

Let's be clear: they are not bound to consider residency in any other sense than physical presence in Canada.

Well at least they can be specific in terms of duration but have given a vague statement from which one can conclude even more than one week can be considered as not a short holidays

"Sponsors who maintain a principal residence in Canada are not considered to be in violation of residency requirements if they:

• take short holidays or business trips outside Canada on a temporary basis
• have work arrangements that require them to be outside Canada for temporary finite periods of time, but return to live in Canada in between assignments (such as ship crew or seasonal workers)

Persons who do not maintain a principal residence in Canada and who live and work abroad and only return to Canada for short visits are not considered to meet residency requirements."

 

[armoured]

Well at least they can be specific in terms of duration but have given a vague statement from which one can conclude even more than one week can be considered as not a short holidays

"Sponsors who maintain a principal residence in Canada are not considered to be in violation of residency requirements if they:

• take short holidays or business trips outside Canada on a temporary basis
• have work arrangements that require them to be outside Canada for temporary finite periods of time, but return to live in Canada in between assignments (such as ship crew or seasonal workers)

Persons who do not maintain a principal residence in Canada and who live and work abroad and only return to Canada for short visits are not considered to meet residency requirements."

I don't understand - is this text your suggestion for how they should approach? Or did you get this from somewhere?

I'm not defending how they approach or disclose - I'm stating what de facto experience reported here from others has been, which is of necessity anecdotal, but is relevant to sponsors and applicants right now.

And I've clarified that the definition of residence you referred to earlier is not one that IRCC is required to apply (and hence not useful as guidance or a 'defence'), and they have another definition (physical presence in Canada) that they can apply.

If you think they should do it differently, do write to the minister, your MP, or whomever.

 

[The Robust]

I don't understand - is this text your suggestion for how they should approach? Or did you get this from somewhere?

I'm not defending how they approach or disclose - I'm stating what de facto experience reported here from others has been, which is of necessity anecdotal, but is relevant to sponsors and applicants right now.

And I've clarified that the definition of residence you referred to earlier is not one that IRCC is required to apply (and hence not useful as guidance or a 'defence'), and they have another definition (physical presence in Canada) that they can apply.

If you think they should do it differently, do write to the minister, your MP, or whomever.

"Sponsors who maintain a principal residence in Canada are not considered to be in violation of residency requirements if they:

• take short holidays or business trips outside Canada on a temporary basis
• have work arrangements that require them to be outside Canada for temporary finite periods of time, but return to live in Canada in between assignments (such as ship crew or seasonal workers)

Persons who do not maintain a principal residence in Canada and who live and work abroad and only return to Canada for short visits are not considered to meet residency requirements."

 

[armoured]

"Sponsors who maintain a principal residence in Canada are not considered to be in violation of residency requirements if they:

• take short holidays or business trips outside Canada on a temporary basis
• have work arrangements that require them to be outside Canada for temporary finite periods of time, but return to live in Canada in between assignments (such as ship crew or seasonal workers)

Persons who do not maintain a principal residence in Canada and who live and work abroad and only return to Canada for short visits are not considered to meet residency requirements."

Again, do not understand: where is this text from?

 

[pc8922]

"Sponsors who maintain a principal residence in Canada are not considered to be in violation of residency requirements if they:

• take short holidays or business trips outside Canada on a temporary basis
• have work arrangements that require them to be outside Canada for temporary finite periods of time, but return to live in Canada in between assignments (such as ship crew or seasonal workers)

Persons who do not maintain a principal residence in Canada and who live and work abroad and only return to Canada for short visits are not considered to meet residency requirements."

Correct. This is what I was referring to when I meant rent as well as salary slips, because it means you are maintaining residency within Canada. If your employer is not in Canada, you are earning outside Canada and being paid outside, you really don't have much claim on residency, however, if you earn inside Canada, it is easier to prove, since no employer would allow you to work remotely from outside the country for an infinite period of time ( tax implications, labor regulations etc. as was explained to me by my HR) . Short can vary, more so depending on the employer. A current applicant I personally know spent 3 months outside Canada as a PR, worked 2 months remotely and was given his SA. I haven't personally heard of cases where people have not been approved due to vacations, but there very well might be.

 

[The Robust]

Again, do not understand: where is this text from?

IRCC website

 

[armoured]

IRCC website

Ah found it:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/non-economic-classes/family-class-assessing-sponsor.html

Don't see this much contradicts what's been said earlier- short holidays or business trips on a temporary basis.

Note it says "work arrangements that require them to be outside Canada for temporary finite periods of time, but return to live in Canada in between assignments." This does not seem to meet the statements of some here of being allowed to work remotely.

Granted, there is the language about those not maintaining a principal residence - but that doesn't say that maintaining a residence in Canada is sufficient.

Anyway, those who wish to risk it with longer trips, their decision.

 

[rashi1101]

even if you leave for 2 weeks they can still create an issue

Absolutely!

 

[jonesy]

Hi everyone - I’d like to ask a quick one:
We submitted my wife’s application to IRCC back in August. We’re living together on South Africa, hoping to move to Canada if our spousal sponsorship gets approved. We haven’t received any confirmation of receipt from the Sydney office, but the couriers delivered back in August.
What are the time lines looking like? Is everyone else experiencing delays like this? Thanks!

 

[rashi1101]

Hi everyone - I’d like to ask a quick one:
We submitted my wife’s application to IRCC back in August. We’re living together on South Africa, hoping to move to Canada if our spousal sponsorship gets approved. We haven’t received any confirmation of receipt from the Sydney office, but the couriers delivered back in August.
What are the time lines looking like? Is everyone else experiencing delays like this? Thanks!

Hi there... even i submitted mine is August and have not received anything yet. I know few who sent after me and have received the AOR. if you see the previous pages, we do not know how they pick. With the current situation, we cant say a time line.
If you are going through a spousal application, its recommended you stay inside Canada.

Infact when you receive your AOR, do let us know