a newbie question ... sorry!

[Laurier]

Background ...
I am a born Canadian citizen and will have been living common law in Montreal with my partner for one (1) year by mid April 2014. She is from the Philippines and is on a 6 month renewed visitor visa status since Oct 2012 which next expires 30 May 2014. Near the end of April 2014 I intend to apply to sponsor her as my common law partner so that she can apply for her permanent resident status into Canada.

Here's my newbie question ...
will my partner once again have to apply to renew her visitor status while she waits for an answer to her permanent resident application into Canada or will she be on implied status during this period?
In reading Leon's sticky to his topic, my feeling is that the answer is Yes, she will have to re-apply. However; in reading the Instruction Guide for Applying for Permanent Residence (IMM 5289) on the topic of Maintaining Legal Status it says "Spouses and common‑law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada who wish to apply for permanent resident status are no longer required to have legal immigration status provided that they have an eligible sponsor. All other eligibility requirements continue to apply. Important information. Applicants who wish to be able to continue to work and study in Canada must submit an application for extension before the work or study permit expires."
I know it says work or study permit ... but does that include or exclude a visitor visa permit?

 

[zardoz]

CIC very strongly prefer you to be "in status" but as you can see, it's not absolutely necessary.
Unless there is an overwhelming reason why not, she should stay in status by applying for the extension.
At least that way, there is no risk of being picked up by CBSA and having to answer awkward questions.

 

[Avadava]

I agree with Zardoz, she should extend her visitor's visa. What you quoted from CIC means simply that spouses with no legal status in Canada can be sponsored. But that doesn't necessarily mean that CIC encourages applicants to drop their legal status once a sponsorship application has been filed.

 

[Rob_TO]

My interpretation is that inland apps give the applicant "implied" status while in Canada, with or without the new rules regarding submitting OWP with the application. So there would be no real need to spend the money to try and extend official visitor status.

Or in other words, there is practically zero chance that CIC will make moves to deport anybody in Canada while they have an inland app already in progress. The only reason they would, is maybe if the applicant did some illegal activity like working for cash without a permit or something.

Of course it's mandatory that she NEVER leaves Canada during the entire processing time (which can take approx 18 months or so), for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Avadava]

The OP didn't specify if he's applying inland or outland. With an outland application, if the spouse would need to go for an interview, she would have problems when she exits Canada if she doesn't have legal status (she might get banned from Canada for breaking immigration laws).
Also, according to the OP's previous posts, his spouse was working illegally in Canada for some couple that are now threatening her, and they were the ones "sponsoring" her as a visitor. If they decide to denounce her as "out of status" with CBSA, then she is in big trouble.

I don't understand why someone would choose not to extend a visitor's visa and be legal. It is decisions like this that get people in trouble and they find themselves in a big immigration mess after.

 

[Rob_TO]

The OP didn't specify if he's applying inland or outland. With an outland application, if the spouse would need to go for an interview, she would have problems when she exits Canada if she doesn't have legal status (she might get banned from Canada for breaking immigration laws).

For this reason i assumed they are only considering inland. With outland and for a person not visa-exempt, it would not even be guaranteed that a visitor status will always be extended like it would for a visa-exempt applicant.

I don't understand why someone would choose not to extend a visitor's visa and be legal. It is decisions like this that get people in trouble and they find themselves in a big immigration mess after.

If OP has implied status, then continuing to apply for visitor visa extensions is not needed.

However the main issue i'm not so sure on, is that previously the application for OWP along with inland app would give an applicant true implied status. With OWPs now not being sent upfront, i'm really not sure how the whole "implied" things works now.

 

[Laurier]

thank you so much everyone ... just a bit more info:

it's an inland PR application and I have absolutely no problem with extending her visitor's visa over and over again. The only thing that worries me is if an extension application gets rejected somehow while we are waiting for her PR application to get approved. The next extension application will be her 4th (all have been for 6 months ea) and I'm afraid someone at CIC maybe having a bad day or something will look at this and say Nope, enough visiting.

On another note someone above mentioned that my partner was working illegally in the past. If I gave that impression from a previous post, I was wrong. She was on a WX-1 visa and her problem was that she was a live-in caretaker working 24/7 and she was being over-worked by the people she worked for and had no life of her own. I was newbie back then (and still am!) and didn't know anything about visas, passports, CIC or anything. Even after seeing an immigration lawyer I wasn't that much further ahead. So; my first posts on the subject were inaccurate on the terminology of her situation. All of that is history now and my partner is even on amicable terms with these people now. A real turn-around in her life.

Thank you everyone for your time and patience.

 

[Rob_TO]

The only thing that worries me is if an extension application gets rejected somehow while we are waiting for her PR application to get approved. The next extension application will be her 4th (all have been for 6 months ea) and I'm afraid someone at CIC maybe having a bad day or something will look at this and say Nope, enough visiting.

As i mentioned above, there is practically zero chance that CIC would make moves to deport someone, if they have an inland application already in progress. One of the main purposes of an inland app, is that the applicant remains inside Canada during the entire process.

Your concern is valid that eventually, a visitor status visa may get denied. However in this case I really don't think this matters at all because the inland app will already be in process.

In the past an applicant has usually gotten "implied" status by submitting an OWP along with application. Recent rule changes at CIC stopped this process, but until I hear some confirmation that says otherwise, I imagine that "implied" status still exists with inland apps. Perhaps others with more knowledge of the OWP rule change can confirm.