PMM said:
Hi
thaiguy said:
It's difficult to tell from his post whether he received a 6 mo. tourist and then a 1 year study permit, or 6 mo. tourist and 6 mo. study permit.
If the study permit was for 1 year, he would be eligible, right?
If his original admission was for 6 months, then he is out of luck, even if he got a 1 year extension. The Regs read admission for 1 year, and Buffalo adheres pretty closely to it.
PMM
It's a shame that the original post is not clear at all.
But if this person was actually given a tourist visa for 6 months and then later on approved by the U.S. for a 1 year study visa, then this person is not totally out of luck. Applicants like these (not 1, not 2, not 3, but more) have already made it to Canada.
CIC's language does not mean that the applicant should have been initially admitted to the United States for one year.
If a non-immigrant resident in the United States was initially admitted for 6 months and changed his or her status to another visa type such as J1, F1 or H1-B, then that person has satisfied being admitted as a lawful resident for a period of one year of more.
This is what CIC says: "
You have been lawfully admitted into the United States for a period of at least one year."
To be "admitted" into anything does not mean /does not connote "at the initial stage or initially." All "admitted" means is to be "acknowledged." If Canada had wanted to impose or stipulate a "when" acknowledged by the U.S., then she would have categorically expressed that clearly.
Therefore, there is no time limitation or restraint on the phrase "lawfully admitted . . . for a period of at least one year;" i.e.
there is no time restraint on "when" acknowledged to remain in the U.S. for 1 year or more. This means that as long as the United States has approved a non-immigrant to stay within its borders for a period of 1 year of more - even if the person came to the U.S. on a B1 /B2 Tourist visa - that person has become eligible to apply for Canada immigration.
If CIC had wanted otherwise, then their language would have been on the following lines: You were initially admitted lawfully into the United States for a period of at least one year. But the CIC language DOES NOT say so, and CANNOT be interpreted otherwise.
Furthermore, non-immigrants that were initially accepted into the United States on tourist visas, and had their statuses changed to more extensive visas have successfully immigrated to Canada, and I repeat not 1, not 2, not 3, but more.
Such applicants will need to provide proof of legal entry into the U.S., for example via a tourist visa; proof of being admitted or acknowleged to remain in the U.S. for 1 year via the current I-94, and proof of the actual visa that allowed the applicant to remain in the U.S. for one year or more.
And such applicants are eligible to apply for Canada immigration.
Where does ill-luck come in for this potential applicant? This particular applicant will only be out of luck if by some ill fate, he is removed from the U.S. after he would have applied for Canada immigration. This is because his initial filing to Buffalo means that if at all he is called for an interview, the location would be the U.S., and if he has been removed from the U.S. then his no-show for a possible interview might be grounds for CIC to reject his application.
But if he is not called for an interview in the U.S., and yet still he later on finds himself outside of the U.S. after applying for Canada's immigration, he would still be able to continue his application process from outside of the U.S. and land in Canada upon meeting all other requirements for a successful application.
But he can always take his chances and apply from within the U.S. hoping that his Canada immigration process goes as planned without any interrupting incidences from the U.S. that might force him out of the U.S.
All said and done, it is a "catch 22" situation for this person, but he is not totally out of luck.
