Can my sponsor leave Canada for 3 months - Inland

[danny87]

Hi, I have a question regarding my sponsor.

My sponsor, who I am married to, is going to Europe for 3 months for a summer internship from the end of may until the end of august. Can my inland sponsorship application be refused because she will not be in Canada for an extended period during the processing of my application? And do we need to let the CIC know of this?

 

[jamsham12]

I mean if she is able to reenter Canada after the 3 months, they you have no issue. But if she is refused entry by CBSA, that will be flagged and be sent to CIC in which they would then refused the inland app, all depends on whether or not she is able to reenter Canada, have you submitted the OWP application that CIC piloted in December? Ill let the senior members respond but my thinking is if she is able to get the OWP i would assume she might get a pass from CBSA even though there are some stipulations that state you cannot use the OWP as a travel document.

 

[zardoz]

Hi, I have a question regarding my sponsor.

My sponsor, who I am married to, is going to Europe for 3 months for a summer internship from the end of may until the end of august. Can my inland sponsorship application be refused because she will not be in Canada for an extended period during the processing of my application? And do we need to let the CIC know of this?

There are two aspects to this.. Firstly, if your sponsor is not a Canadian citizen, she must continue to reside in Canada for the whole of the application duration. Secondly, one of the requirements for inland spousal sponsorship is that you must be living together during the processing of your application. I think that you would both be taking a significant risk of not meeting the requirements for inland sponsorship application. If you informed CIC, it would probably be a death sentence for the application.

 

[zardoz]

I mean if she is able to reenter Canada after the 3 months, they you have no issue. But if she is refused entry by CBSA, that will be flagged and be sent to CIC in which they would then refused the inland app, all depends on whether or not she is able to reenter Canada, have you submitted the OWP application that CIC piloted in December? Ill let the senior members respond but my thinking is if she is able to get the OWP i would assume she might get a pass from CBSA even though there are some stipulations that state you cannot use the OWP as a travel document.

You need to reread the OP's question.

 

[Rob_TO]

Hi, I have a question regarding my sponsor.

My sponsor, who I am married to, is going to Europe for 3 months for a summer internship from the end of may until the end of august. Can my inland sponsorship application be refused because she will not be in Canada for an extended period during the processing of my application? And do we need to let the CIC know of this?

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip08-eng.pdf
5.14. Requirements to be granted permanent residence in the spouse or common-law partner inCanada
class
A potential sponsor meets requirements to be a sponsor
• resides in Canada

A foreign national meets the membership requirements of the spouse or common-law
partner in Canada class [R124]
• if they are the spouse or common-law partner of a sponsor (as defined in R130) and cohabits
with that sponsor in Canada;

So basically if your sponsor resides in Europe for 3 months and CIC never learns of it, then nothing would happen to your application. If they do learn of it, they could consider you no longer cohabiting in Canada so would simply cancel the application. Probably the odds are they won't find out... but you never know so you just need to understand the risk in case she decides to go.

 

[truesmile]

Just MY opinion:

Since you have only just submitted your application, that's a risk that I would be willing to take. Also, Canada does not have solid exit controls in place yet.

 

[danny87]

I mean if she is able to reenter Canada after the 3 months, they you have no issue. But if she is refused entry by CBSA, that will be flagged and be sent to CIC in which they would then refused the inland app, all depends on whether or not she is able to reenter Canada, have you submitted the OWP application that CIC piloted in December? Ill let the senior members respond but my thinking is if she is able to get the OWP i would assume she might get a pass from CBSA even though there are some stipulations that state you cannot use the OWP as a travel document.

No you have it backwards, I'm the one being sponsored and my spouse is the Canadian citizen. I will stay in Canada but she will not.

 

[danny87]

And to add to that: it's for her degree and also we sent a copy of our lease with the application

 

[Ponga]

No you have it backwards, I'm the one being sponsored and my spouse is the Canadian citizen. I will stay in Canada but she will not.

But Rob_TO's post could still apply, because you would NOT be cohabiting, if your sponsor is abroad for 3 months without you, right?

It's a slippery slope for sure.

 

[CdnandTrini]

And to add to that: it's for her degree and also we sent a copy of our lease with the application

My 2 cents worth which is personal opinion only (bolstered by the fact that I have seen and worked for many government offices). You are both still "residing" in Canada; your sponsor is on a temporary school/education trip; nowhere does CIC define any of this specifically in their operation manuals so they do not even have a standard or process to address it; you would have more than enough proof to still demonstrate that this was a temporary separation and the chances of the CBSA and CIC being able to figure this out together???? Almost none, nil, zilch. CIC can barely figure out their own internal stuff never mind coordinating with another federal agency/dept. And as far as I know, CIC cannot just arbitrarily "cancel anyone's application" they do have standards and processes in this regard with notice and rights of appeal.

If it was me,I would go forward with your plans & def. do not tell CIC. You have enough evidence to explain should it ever be necessary. Rob & Ponga both give many thoughtful and well considered answers to this forum and I respect them; however in this case I am respectfully disagreeing with them. Blessings.

 

[Rob_TO]

My 2 cents worth which is personal opinion only (bolstered by the fact that I have seen and worked for many government offices). You are both still "residing" in Canada; your sponsor is on a temporary school/education trip; nowhere does CIC define any of this specifically in their operation manuals so they do not even have a standard or process to address it; you would have more than enough proof to still demonstrate that this was a temporary separation and the chances of the CBSA and CIC being able to figure this out together???? Almost none, nil, zilch. CIC can barely figure out their own internal stuff never mind coordinating with another federal agency/dept. And as far as I know, CIC cannot just arbitrarily "cancel anyone's application" they do have standards and processes in this regard with notice and rights of appeal.

If it was me,I would go forward with your plans & def. do not tell CIC. You have enough evidence to explain should it ever be necessary. Rob & Ponga both give many thoughtful and well considered answers to this forum and I respect them; however in this case I am respectfully disagreeing with them. Blessings.

The rules say you must cohabit in Canada, not just reside here. As a measuring stick for cohabitation, you should use the same rules that apply in qualifying for common-law status. And surely there you can't argue that a 3-month break would still fall under the definition of "cohabiting".

Yes CIC can pretty much decide to cancel your app. And with the inland process, there is no appeals process. We have seen inland applicants be denied when CIC learns sponsor and applicant are not living together. They actually did simply cancel the app, and gave their reasons. Last one that comes to mind is a couple that were both living in Canada, but husband was living in another Canadian city due to their job... CIC cancelled the app with no possibility of appeal.

As I said though, I agree the chance of CIC actually finding out someone has left for 3 months is very slim. However OP still needs to be aware of the possible risks, no matter how small they may think it is.

 

[CdnandTrini]

The rules say you must cohabit in Canada, not just reside here. As a measuring stick for cohabitation, you should use the same rules that apply in qualifying for common-law status. And surely there you can't argue that a 3-month break would still fall under the definition of "cohabiting".

Yes CIC can pretty much decide to cancel your app. And with the inland process, there is no appeals process. We have seen inland applicants be denied when CIC learns sponsor and applicant are not living together. They actually did simply cancel the app, and gave their reasons. Last one that comes to mind is a couple that were both living in Canada, but husband was living in another Canadian city due to their job... CIC cancelled the app with no possibility of appeal.

As I said though, I agree the chance of CIC actually finding out someone has left for 3 months is very slim. However OP still needs to be aware of the possible risks, no matter how small they may think it is.

How does CIC actually identify cohabiting? Do they use a specific time frame or is it case by case? How long were the couple in your example apart for and were there any other concerns on their app? Not suggesting your points do not have some merit - the no appeals for inland apps is pretty much written in stone - but I suspect the case you are referring to may have had other issues. Is the measuring stick for cohabiting that you mention above your opinion, or is it actually defined and documented anywhere in CIC's manuals? Unless it is specifically spelled out then CIC has a lot of discretion with these decisions.

Cohabiting to "earn" common law status in order to be able to apply for PR is needed to get past that one year mark. In addition, the conditional PR also indicates that couples need to be living together for 2 years; however, I have never seen that specifically defined either in terms of timelines. Maybe because it is still relatively new, but to me, CIC is going to be hard pressed to do any "one size fits all" penalty for both of these scenarios. I also think most military spouses (not to mention everyone with a sick or ill loved one overseas) would argue with you and CIC about 3 months apart being used generically as the test to evaluate people's marriages.

 

[Rob_TO]

How does CIC actually identify cohabiting? Do they use a specific time frame or is it case by case? How long were the couple in your example apart for and were there any other concerns on their app? Not suggesting your points do not have some merit - the no appeals for inland apps is pretty much written in stone - but I suspect the case you are referring to may have had other issues. Is the measuring stick for cohabiting that you mention above your opinion, or is it actually defined and documented anywhere in CIC's manuals? Unless it is specifically spelled out then CIC has a lot of discretion with these decisions.

Yes CIC has lots of discretion, and that is the main point of concern when couples spend time apart. If you don't feel 3 months would cause CIC to cancel an app then what specific number of months apart would you say is the limit... 5 months? 8 months? 12 months? The problem is, everyone has their own opinion and there is no telling what a random visa officer at CIC will think. If a visa officer is a hard ass and thinks even 1 month apart is too long, then there isn't really anything you can do about it if they decide to cancel the app.

Cohabiting to "earn" common law status in order to be able to apply for PR is needed to get past that one year mark. In addition, the conditional PR also indicates that couples need to be living together for 2 years; however, I have never seen that specifically defined either in terms of timelines. Maybe because it is still relatively new, but to me, CIC is going to be hard pressed to do any "one size fits all" penalty for both of these scenarios. I also think most military spouses (not to mention everyone with a sick or ill loved one overseas) would argue with you and CIC about 3 months apart being used generically as the test to evaluate people's marriages.

In the detailed rules for conditional PR, under the definition of cohabiting they link to the manual section that talks about cohabiting to qualify for common-law. So in general you should assume the same criteria apply. And we have seen cases where people have been rejected for even a 1 month break in trying to get the 12 months needed for common-law.

So yes there is no specific definition, and that is why people always need to try and err on the side of caution. You don't want to give CIC any excuse to question your application. CIC is not exactly the most reasonable organization out there, so you shouldn't assume they will always follow the logic and thought process of us regular people. If CIC does feel 3 months is too much, the app can be cancelled and there really isn't any bargaining you can do no matter how much you try to talk common sense to them.

 

[CdnandTrini]

Yes CIC has lots of discretion, and that is the main point of concern when couples spend time apart. If you don't feel 3 months would cause CIC to cancel an app then what specific number of months apart would you say is the limit... 5 months? 8 months? 12 months? The problem is, everyone has their own opinion and there is no telling what a random visa officer at CIC will think. If a visa officer is a hard ass and thinks even 1 month apart is too long, then there isn't really anything you can do about it if they decide to cancel the app.

In the detailed rules for conditional PR, under the definition of cohabiting they link to the manual section that talks about cohabiting to qualify for common-law. So in general you should assume the same criteria apply. And we have seen cases where people have been rejected for even a 1 month break in trying to get the 12 months needed for common-law.

So yes there is no specific definition, and that is why people always need to try and err on the side of caution. You don't want to give CIC any excuse to question your application. CIC is not exactly the most reasonable organization out there, so you shouldn't assume they will always follow the logic and thought process of us regular people. If CIC does feel 3 months is too much, the app can be cancelled and there really isn't any bargaining you can do no matter how much you try to talk common sense to them.

Yes the power of discretion can be a double edged sword for sure and is def. abused by some CIC folks. Ideally they would take into account all of the factors in an application (case by case) when judging time apart but as you said it can all come down to the visa officer and does not always follow common sense. If CIC has linked the conditional PR to the other section for common law it's probably because they have no idea what they will do when and if the time comes that they have to evaluate a conditional PR case ! I still think they tend to judge the one year time table for common law more severely, based on what I have read. 100% agreement on CIC not being very reasonable!