INLAND APPLICATIONS 2013

[bruneian]

Hi Bruneian,

Do you know how to push CIC to make decision after AIP and medical received?

Hi carter, I had my MP involved. They can't expedite your application obviously, but maybe many inquiries will get them going again.

 

[shyla36]

So other than 5hrwd whose app date is july 18, do we have others who got aip with app date later than july 22.? If so, no update again? Wow, is all i can say!!!

 

[JohnnyP]

nothing. none. zero. nada. rien.

I wonder if the Toronto star article had any negative effect on the officers... or there is only 1 officer working on the applications and he/she is on long summer vacations.

So other than 5hrwd whose app date is july 18, do we have others who got aip with app date later than july 22.? If so, no update again? Wow, is all i can say!!!

 

[civic]

nothing. none. zero. nada. rien.

I wonder if the Toronto star article had any negative effect on the officers... or there is only 1 officer working on the applications and he/she is on long summer vacations.

So because of the article they are taking a revenge on us? That's the most horrible theory I can imagine.

CIC: You all will be punished for bringing the problem to public.

 

[civic]

Hi carter, I had my MP involved. They can't expedite your application obviously, but maybe many inquiries will get them going again.

How can we request MP to bring the concern for debate sessions in House of Commons? I dont think MP inquiries work. This is not one or two individual cases. This is a whole system that deals with inland sponsored spouses.

 

[Linden]

just to add, we went to south east asia 4 months ago for a vacation. I am from a visa exempt country but i am NOT visa exempt (long story short i am stateless). It was before we'd received AIP. The CBSA officer at the airport only asked for my PGWP and we are free to go. I also applied for a TRV that is a sticker on my travel doc for non-visa exempt people. I did this months before we leave. we want to travel again soon, but will probably wait for my PR card this time.

Right though you had a PGWP at that time and a PGWP allows you to travel.

If you have a valid work permit I'm don't why CBSA would not allow re-entry for short trips just because there is an inland application in process. People that are on those work permits who dont apply for PR are able to travel freely.

 

[torontomike]

Ughhh... here it is July 10 already... no movement on my wife's stage 2 approval that can be discerned. Her AIP (Stage 1) was done February, her meds were done and in by March... yet nothing. She is frustrated because she can't go visit her family or friends in the US until this is approved. Have they just stopped working on applications? The spreadsheet doesn't even show much anymore.

 

[Daizey]

Right though you had a PGWP at that time and a PGWP allows you to travel.

If you have a valid work permit I'm don't why CBSA would not allow re-entry for short trips just because there is an inland application in process. People that are on those work permits who dont apply for PR are able to travel freely.

Hmm, I guess you're right. If it was a short trip and you already had your OWP, they probably would be less likely to turn you away. I guess I've always been scared to death to try. I had a harrowing experience with the Toronto airport customs officers already, so I've only got bad experiences to go by. Even then, if it can be avoided, I wouldn't chance it for a quick trip anywhere. Guess I'm just paranoid like that. Haha.

 

[torontomike]

Hmm, I guess you're right. If it was a short trip and you already had your OWP, they probably would be less likely to turn you away. I guess I've always been scared to death to try. I had a harrowing experience with the Toronto airport customs officers already, so I've only got bad experiences to go by. Even then, if it can be avoided, I wouldn't chance it for a quick trip anywhere. Guess I'm just paranoid like that. Haha.

I don't blame you, at their whim they can end it all for you.

 

[Daizey]

Ughhh... here it is July 10 already... no movement on my wife's stage 2 approval that can be discerned. Her AIP (Stage 1) was done February, her meds were done and in by March... yet nothing. She is frustrated because she can't go visit her family or friends in the US until this is approved. Have they just stopped working on applications? The spreadsheet doesn't even show much anymore.

I definitely understand your wife's frustrations, but try to keep thinking positively. At least you were among the lucky ones that received first stage approval before the grinding halt of applications. I'm sure you'll get everything done very soon! This waiting sucks, but we'll all get there in time. I just hope I can visit my family in the US for Christmas, that's as much as I'm hoping for.

 

[torontomike]

Well, we are at like 5 months into Stage 2 here. That means, I suppose, that the DM should appear by early October. But I am wondering if they have this kind of backlog on Stage 1 if they will inevitably shift resources away from Stage 2 approvals to deal with that.

 

[GatorSPO]

How can we request MP to bring the concern for debate sessions in House of Commons? I dont think MP inquiries work. This is not one or two individual cases. This is a whole system that deals with inland sponsored spouses.

You'll never get a government MP to speak out against the party, especially with how tightly the Tories control their message. Best bet is the MP's who's sitting as immigration critic for the opposition so, contact her office and lay out the story: http://lysaneblanchettelamothe.ndp.ca/ probably good for a sound-bite or nip against the government during question period. With luck, something that will stick and drive more attention to the issue, but honestly probably not; parliament is focused on other things at the moment and our plight just doesn't seem to resonate with the public like other things

 

[Linden]

You'll never get a government MP to speak out against the party, especially with how tightly the Tories control their message. Best bet is the MP's who's sitting as immigration critic for the opposition so, contact her office and lay out the story: http://lysaneblanchettelamothe.ndp.ca/ probably good for a sound-bite or nip against the government during question period. With luck, something that will stick and drive more attention to the issue, but honestly probably not; parliament is focused on other things at the moment and our plight just doesn't seem to resonate with the public like other things

Also with they'll probably be busy hashing out all the proposed changes for the Temporary Foreign Worker program and new citizenship requirements when it comes to immigration. Anyway worth a try.

 

[RRSweet]

I'm sooo over this process guys! Why have able-bodied people sitting on their butts for nearly a year when they can contribute to society! Pure stupidity! We are in debt to our eyeballs!!!! Thank goodness for decent credit or we'd be screwed! ??? I truly hope and pray people are hearing that are not on this forum, because I cannot fathom 2 weeks without doing a damn thing!

 

[computergeek]

I agree that the onus is on the applicant to provide proof of it not applying to canadian laws. However the example you gave is not a good example. There is no laws on apostasy in Canada at all thus no comparison to make. You are comparing apples to oranges in comparing laws that exist outside Canada to laws that don't exist in Canada. No apples to apples comparisons.

Criminal DUI in Canada requires a BAC of 0.08 (http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/impaired_driving/impaired_driving_bac.html). Thus, a conviction with a BAC below that level is not a crime in Canada - no more than apostasy. It's an apples to apples comparison.

However there are worldwide laws regarding underage sex and drinking and driving in examples I have provided. This way I can argue about the merit of it. Comparing apples to apples in examples. I would not provide samples of foreign convictions or laws that we don't even have Canadian laws on.

The point is that in order to make a determination, you have to determine what the crime would be under Canadian law. If it's not a criminal offence, then it's not the basis for a determination of criminal inadmissibility.

But let's take your example of underage sex: the age of consent actually varies by location. Some jurisdictions allow differences in age to control as well, while others do not. In at least one case I recall, a 15 year old male was charged with statutory rape of a 16 year old girl - because the law was gender specific. Thus, if someone is convicted of statutory rape it may not be equivalent to the Canadian offence - so no matter that this person has a criminal record, once the CIC officer determines that it wasn't a crime in Canada, it is not pertinent.

I chose apostasy as a clear example (precisely because it is not a crime in Canada), but they are all treated the same for the purposes of immigration law. And all of them would cause a vastly slower processing time - the determination of the criminal equivalent in Canada can be quite challenging (as the person asking about illegal status pointed out - that's a felony in the US but it isn't a crime in Canada.)