Applying in-land, what to say at the border control?

[mandysue]

Hi everyone, this is my first post of many, I am sure!

So, I am a Canadian citizen (born in Canada) and my husband is from The Netherlands. Currently, we live in Ireland. We want to do an in-land spousal sponsorship, because a) we don't want to stay in Ireland for another 12 months and b) it would be great for him to get his Open Work Permit after a few months. We would fly from Ireland to Canada. My worry is what they will say at the border. I would have the application paid for already, and have housing arranged for the first while. Is it an issue if we say we are applying for an in land sponsorship? My husband would also have his return ticket booked to show them, in case we are not for some reason not approved.

Thoughts?

 

[mandysue]

Can anyone help?

 

[spousalsponsee]

Hi everyone, this is my first post of many, I am sure!

So, I am a Canadian citizen (born in Canada) and my husband is from The Netherlands. Currently, we live in Ireland. We want to do an in-land spousal sponsorship, because a) we don't want to stay in Ireland for another 12 months and b) it would be great for him to get his Open Work Permit after a few months. We would fly from Ireland to Canada. My worry is what they will say at the border. I would have the application paid for already, and have housing arranged for the first while. Is it an issue if we say we are applying for an in land sponsorship? My husband would also have his return ticket booked to show them, in case we are not for some reason not approved.

Thoughts?

Mata v Canada was a similar situation (American engaged to a Canadian, wanted to enter Canada to apply for spousal sponsorship).

She was banned from Canada for 1 year due to not having visitor intent.

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/218891/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHVmlzaXRvcgE

You first asked this in November, and it's now March. If you'd just applied outland then, you'd probably be at least half way through the process by now.....

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Hi everyone, this is my first post of many, I am sure!

So, I am a Canadian citizen (born in Canada) and my husband is from The Netherlands. Currently, we live in Ireland. We want to do an in-land spousal sponsorship, because a) we don't want to stay in Ireland for another 12 months and b) it would be great for him to get his Open Work Permit after a few months. We would fly from Ireland to Canada. My worry is what they will say at the border. I would have the application paid for already, and have housing arranged for the first while. Is it an issue if we say we are applying for an in land sponsorship? My husband would also have his return ticket booked to show them, in case we are not for some reason not approved.

Thoughts?

Answer any questions CBSA asks but don't volunteer information. If they ask further, he is visiting you while applying for spousal sponsorship. He is NOT moving to or coming to live in Canada, as he does not have that right. Pay the full PR fees and have the receipt ready to show as proof.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Mata v Canada was a similar situation (American engaged to a Canadian, wanted to enter Canada to apply for spousal sponsorship).

She was banned from Canada for 1 year due to not having visitor intent.

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/218891/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHVmlzaXRvcgE

You first asked this in November, and it's now March. If you'd just applied outland then, you'd probably be at least half way through the process by now.....

It would behoove you to mention that that case was an extremely rare occurrence and not representative of the vast majority of people who enter and apply for sponsorship without issue.

 

[spousalsponsee]

It would behoove you to mention that that case was an extremely rare occurrence and not representative of the vast majority of people who enter and apply for sponsorship without issue.

It would behoove you not to take quite such an aggressive tone in response to accurate information.

OP was concerned over timescales, but the best answer was to have applied outland some time ago.

 

[JulianaAndrew]

It would behoove you not to take quite such an aggressive tone in response to accurate information.

OP was concerned over timescales, but the best answer was to have applied outland some time ago.

What aggressive tone? canuck hasn't used inappropriate language. Your "accurate information" is very misleading, because it would make the OP believe the chances of something similar happening to her are high, when in fact they are not.
How could you possibly know if the best option for OP was to apply some time ago? For plenty of reasons, one cannot apply at a certain time, and has to wait until it's doable. Either way, it's the OP's choice when to apply, and you wouldn't know better than her when is the best time for her to apply.

 

[spousalsponsee]

What aggressive tone? canuck hasn't used inappropriate language. Your "accurate information" is very misleading, because it would make the OP believe the chances of something similar happening to her are high, when in fact they are not.
How could you possibly know if the best option for OP was to apply some time ago? For plenty of reasons, one cannot apply at a certain time, and has to wait until it's doable. Either way, it's the OP's choice when to apply, and you wouldn't know better than her when is the best time for her to apply.

"It would behoove you to mention" is very rude and aggressive. If canuck_uk wanted to be polite, they would have said eg "but this was an unusual case". Instead, s/he targeted me and my conduct. That was rude. Do not pretend otherwise.

As I have already explained above, the timing involved and information given (that they were already married) means they would likely have finished, or be well on their way now if they had applied in November. They can choose not to for a variety of reasons. That doesn't change the consequences.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

"It would behoove you to mention" is very rude and aggressive. If canuck_uk wanted to be polite, they would have said eg "but this was an unusual case". Instead, s/he targeted me and my conduct. That was rude. Do not pretend otherwise.

As I have already explained above, the timing involved and information given (that they were already married) means they would likely have finished, or be well on their way now if they had applied in November. They can choose not to for a variety of reasons. That doesn't change the consequences.

Lol, if you think that is rude and agressive, you must have a very hard time getting through real life.

If you see me responding to your post as "targeting you", then sure, I "targeted" you. I always "target" people who post incorrect, irresponsible or misleading information.

 

[spousalsponsee]

Lol, if you think that is rude and agressive, you must have a very hard time getting through real life.

If you see me responding to your post as "targeting you", then sure, I "targeted" you. I always "target" people who post incorrect, irresponsible or misleading information.

You were rude & aggressive. Life's pretty easy, douchebags like you don't need a place in it

 

[JulianaAndrew]

"It would behoove you to mention" is very rude and aggressive. If canuck_uk wanted to be polite, they would have said eg "but this was an unusual case". Instead, s/he targeted me and my conduct. That was rude. Do not pretend otherwise.

As I have already explained above, the timing involved and information given (that they were already married) means they would likely have finished, or be well on their way now if they had applied in November. They can choose not to for a variety of reasons. That doesn't change the consequences.

It's just another way to say "you should". Just being more familiar with "you should" doesn't mean "it would behoove you to mention" is very rude and aggressive. I would assume that the reason why canuck targets the information you posted (not really you, I don't see it being personal like you seem to do) and your conduct on this specific post is because it's misleading. And when something is misleading, in the context of use in this forum, it's just plain wrong. OP wants to apply inland, you are telling her she should have applied outland several months ago. Your solution, while it may be considered by the OP, doesn't really work for her.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

You were rude & aggressive. Life's pretty easy, douchebags like you don't need a place in it

Awwww, muffin.

 

[spousalsponsee]

It's just another way to say "you should". Just being more familiar with "you should" doesn't mean "it would behoove you to mention" is very rude and aggressive. I would assume that the reason why canuck targets the information you posted (not really you, I don't see it being personal like you seem to do) and your conduct on this specific post is because it's misleading. And when something is misleading, in the context of use in this forum, it's just plain wrong. OP wants to apply inland, you are telling her she should have applied outland several months ago. Your solution, while it may be considered by the OP, doesn't really work for her.

It's actually not. Language has tone. "You should" would already be quite direct, and the 'it would behoove' is patronising, and necessarily includes judgement. If canuck wants to dispute the suggestion, they're free to do so. If they can't do it without being rude, they should look in the mirror and ask if they like what they see. OP asked for input and suggestions, which they got.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

It's actually not. Language has tone. "You should" would already be quite direct, and the 'it would behoove' is patronising, and necessarily includes judgement. If canuck wants to dispute the suggestion, they're free to do so. If they can't do it without being rude, they should look in the mirror and ask if they like what they see. OP asked for input and suggestions, which they got.

I looked in the mirror and liked what I saw so much, I just can't stop smiling now. Thanks for the positive advice!

 

[JulianaAndrew]

It's actually not. Language has tone. "You should" would already be quite direct, and the 'it would behoove' is patronising, and necessarily includes judgement. If canuck wants to dispute the suggestion, they're free to do so. If they can't do it without being rude, they should look in the mirror and ask if they like what they see. OP asked for input and suggestions, which they got.

Patronizing? That's a funny one. While canuck most likely has more knowledge than you, and me as well, regarding immigration to Canada, which actually makes her superior, in regards to that knowledge, she is not treating you with an apparent kindness while showing she feels superior to you (which is the definition of patronizing, but who knows what you think patronizing actually means).
When you are advising someone, that advice can be easily judged, specially when it turns out to be a bad advise. Real life is full of judgement. There is judgment everywhere, and everybody has a judgement. What's wrong with that in the context of judging your advice to the OP? Judgement is imperative for any human being that can have a normal life. People here give bad advises all the time, or their advises include wrong information, it happens every day. When someone who has the right answer comes to tell me my advice was wrong, or partially wrong, I am actually happy to learn something new, and also happy that the OP gets the right answer. I would suggest you to do the same, it's a better exercise for oneself.