does the new 2 years rule apply to those who as there pr one year ago

[good234]

hello everyone does the new 2 years rule apply to those who as there pr one year ago

 

[computergeek]

hello everyone does the new 2 years rule apply to those who as there pr one year ago

No. It only applies for applications with a lock-in date of October 26, 2012 or later. If you have already landed you are not affected by it.

 

[good234]

me and my man we are married for 5years and we live together for all those years after 4 years of our marrage he got is pr and after 1 year 2moths we broke up and sepreted .will the 2years apply to him if i call cic that we broke up and he did stay 2 years with me after he got is pr please help

 

[truesmile]

No, it will not. He's got his PR, all you can do now is move on.

 

[good234]

what about the 2years that said we must be together befor he can keep the pr

 

[computergeek]

what about the 2years that said we must be together befor he can keep the pr

That new law only applies to applications received by CIC on or after October 26, 2012

So it clearly does not apply if he landed before October 26, 2012.

 

[good234]

thank you computergeek

 

[good234]

.

 

[SenoritaBella]

There is something about the new 2 year rule that I find troubling and there are potential risks for domestic violence/abuse. Sometimes the kinds of questions asked by sponsors scare me. e.g. "what about the 2years that said we must be together befor he can keep the pr"... huh? ??? I can't help but wonder why anyone would want to be with someone who may be there because they "must be" for 2 years?

 

[good234]

.

 

[meeshy]

Can someone please explain this rule or send a link to the website stating this, I had no idea such rule exsisted, although it makes sence.

 

[computergeek]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2012/2012-10-26.asp
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2012/ob480.asp

 

[truesmile]

There is something about the new 2 year rule that I find troubling and there are potential risks for domestic violence/abuse. Sometimes the kinds of questions asked by sponsors scare me. e.g. "what about the 2years that said we must be together befor he can keep the pr"... huh? ??? I can't help but wonder why anyone would want to be with someone who may be there because they "must be" for 2 years?

Read her short story a few posts prior (if you haven't) . . . sounds like she wants to 'revoke' PR that her "ex" now has. Not gonna happen!

 

[meeshy]

ok thank you!

 

[SenoritaBella]

Yeah, I saw that ... that's why to me the new rule is just creating more problems. A scorned lover can now blame an alrready doomed relationship on "marriage of convenience".

Read her short story a few posts prior (if you haven't) . . . sounds like she wants to 'revoke' PR that her "ex" now has. Not gonna happen!