- Mar 24, 2014
- 3
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Ottawa
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 13-03-2015
- AOR Received.
- 22-04-2015
- Med's Request
- Upfront
- Med's Done....
- 06-01-2015
- Interview........
- Waived
- LANDED..........
- 23-07-2015
Hi folks. I've recently through this forum learned about "dual intent" whereby a person can stay in Canada for an extended period of time while their permanent residency application is in process, provided the person can satisfy the CBSA that they intend to leave if and when the application is refused. Usually this intent accompanies a visa, but, as the US is visa-exempt, I know that's not often the case. In addition, this assumes you'll be staying in Canada for the duration. My situation is slightly different, but I'd like to see if I can still take advantage of this provision all the same.
I maintain a residence just inside the US border, and have done so for the past two years. I have a job in the US which enables me to work remotely out of my residence. My wife and kids are all living in Canada, within an hour's drive from the border. Right now, I stay in the US during the work week and "visit" our home in Canada on the weekend. Once my sponsorship approval comes through, I'd like to stay in Canada and just commute back and forth to the US every day during the week to do my work.
Am I right in thinking that this should be acceptable to CBSA under the "dual intent" provision?
I maintain a residence just inside the US border, and have done so for the past two years. I have a job in the US which enables me to work remotely out of my residence. My wife and kids are all living in Canada, within an hour's drive from the border. Right now, I stay in the US during the work week and "visit" our home in Canada on the weekend. Once my sponsorship approval comes through, I'd like to stay in Canada and just commute back and forth to the US every day during the week to do my work.
Am I right in thinking that this should be acceptable to CBSA under the "dual intent" provision?