INLAND APPLICATIONS 2013

[Lorelai12]

You are correct. My apologies.

FWIW, anyone that is out of status (even those that have submitted a PR application) are still at risk of removal. Some, just seem to move towards the front of the line, while others remain near the back.

PS No apologies necessary!

 

[laksidesvibe]

You are correct. My apologies.

FWIW, anyone that is out of status (even those that have submitted a PR application) are still at risk of removal. Some, just seem to move towards the front of the line, while others remain near the back.

That is incorrect, since Joe Volpe's ministerial tenure the policy has been that once a PR application has being submitted and there isn't a pending removal order, out of status applicants are allowed to stay till a decision (they are still bound by being out of status and cannot work )......in most cases where the person isn't a failed refugee claimant but still out of status and isn't a criminal, CBSA delays removal orders for an extended period of time to allow the individual try to regular is status.

Long an short, if you are out of status (and haven't had a removal order from CBSA) and have a PR application on the go , no one is gonna bundle you up in a crate and ship you to Lord knows where for the duration of that application...

However, if you do get contacted by CBSA while a PR application is on the go and you have no pending removal orders while out of status (and your spousal PR app is pretty legit) then .......congrats, you might get your application going faster

Got this from my lawyer and my neighbor whose a CBSA agent.

 

[Ponga]

That is incorrect, since Joe Volpe's ministerial tenure the policy has been that once a PR application has being submitted and there isn't a pending removal order, out of status applicants are allowed to stay till a decision (they are still bound by being out of status and cannot work )......in most cases where the person isn't a failed refugee claimant but still out of status and isn't a criminal, CBSA delays removal orders for an extended period of time to allow the individual try to regular is status.

Long an short, if you are out of status (and haven't had a removal order from CBSA) and have a PR application on the go , no one is gonna bundle you up in a crate and ship you to Lord knows where for the duration of that application...

However, if you do get contacted by CBSA while a PR application is on the go and you have no pending removal orders while out of status (and your spousal PR app is pretty legit) then .......congrats, you might get your application going faster

Got this from my lawyer and my neighbor whose a CBSA agent.

Exactly, but you even said it yourself; not everyone is allowed to remain in Canada, which is basically what I said, right?

Perhaps you could also ask your neighbor why CIC changed the language in the Inland Guide last September that now states that legal status is required for those that wish to apply for sponsorship. It would also be good to know if the CBSA Administrative Deferral of Removal policy really did officially end in November 2011, as has been reported by at least two immigration lawyers. They believe that the CBSA is still following that policy, to a point, but that it is no longer officially in place.

 

[laksidesvibe]

I used the term most because other than not having a criminal record or being a failed refugee claimant, an individual might be a special interest case in terms of terrorist affiliation, gang affiliation etc....something that singles a person out. I attempted to report myself to the CBSA at my provinces border crossing to St Pierre et Miquellon because I felt it would expedite my case and after showing them I had a application in process (my AOR) and letting them know I was out of status, they simply told me it's CIC's job to make a decision on my case. They did let me know if I intended to make the crossing to St Pierre, it'll be a different story as I would not have a visa to come back to Canada (I was born in a non-visa exempt country to Canada)

I did ask my neighbor about the change in wording on the CIC website and even he found it confusing. You can't have a policy of accepting out-of-status applications in principle and have wording that contravenes that. In truth, everyone is confused by it but as far as i know a lot of out-of-status folks are still getting AIP after waiting and people without status have applied after the wording changed and still get AOR. On the Facebook group, an individual that sponsored her out of status partner after the wording changed not only got AOR but an OWP! (that individual reported applying for a restoration of status and had it refused proving they where indeed out of status but still got OWP....please note, this is the only case reported).

About the CBSA policy that ended November 2011, I know nothing about that and will definitely ask (you guessed it, my neighbor ). I do know that in my province, the CBSA office actually has to deal with drug traffickers on the sea's, illegal fishing and smugglers and would rather spend their time doing that than chasing people who arent criminals but want to live in peace in canada. In many jobs, personal preference for tasks usually prevail and my CBSA agent neighbor says a lot of his colleagues will rather not be chasing non-criminals that are the responsibility of CIC.

 

[Ponga]

Thanks for the information. I applaud you for trying to turn yourself in to CBSA, in the hopes that it would expedite your case. LOL!

It's good to know that even CBSA is somewhat baffled by the change of language to the Inland Guide.

The way that I see it...
CBSA is the `bouncer' at the door, determining if you can get into the party [Canada]

CIC is the bartender that doesn't really care how you got into the party and will keep serving you drinks until you start a fight and the bouncers toss you out.

 

[screech339]

I used the term most because other than not having a criminal record or being a failed refugee claimant, an individual might be a special interest case in terms of terrorist affiliation, gang affiliation etc....something that singles a person out. I attempted to report myself to the CBSA at my provinces border crossing to St Pierre et Miquellon because I felt it would expedite my case and after showing them I had a application in process (my AOR) and letting them know I was out of status, they simply told me it's CIC's job to make a decision on my case. They did let me know if I intended to make the crossing to St Pierre, it'll be a different story as I would not have a visa to come back to Canada (I was born in a non-visa exempt country to Canada)

I did ask my neighbor about the change in wording on the CIC website and even he found it confusing. You can't have a policy of accepting out-of-status applications in principle and have wording that contravenes that. In truth, everyone is confused by it but as far as i know a lot of out-of-status folks are still getting AIP after waiting and people without status have applied after the wording changed and still get AOR. On the Facebook group, an individual that sponsored her out of status partner after the wording changed not only got AOR but an OWP! (that individual reported applying for a restoration of status and had it refused proving they where indeed out of status but still got OWP....please note, this is the only case reported).

About the CBSA policy that ended November 2011, I know nothing about that and will definitely ask (you guessed it, my neighbor ). I do know that in my province, the CBSA office actually has to deal with drug traffickers on the sea's, illegal fishing and smugglers and would rather spend their time doing that than chasing people who arent criminals but want to live in peace in canada. In many jobs, personal preference for tasks usually prevail and my CBSA agent neighbor says a lot of his colleagues will rather not be chasing non-criminals that are the responsibility of CIC.

I just don't like the way CBSA treat the people that are not conforming to Immigration Laws and seeing them as "non-criminal" for violating the laws. I understand the need to pool resources to go after the "criminals" like drug traffickers and the like. In the grand scheme of things, just how much of the "criminals" are caught in comparing to the "non-criminals" who are not caught. I have my hunch that there are a lot more people violating immigration laws than there are "criminal" drug traffickers.

It is no difference from speeding. It is still breaking the law to go over the speed limit, no matter how small you went over. If all offenses are the same, police would pull over every speeders. Like shooting fish in a barrel. But police sees more bang for their buck if they pull someone going 30, 40, or 50 km over or more than someone who is 10-20km over.

 

[Ponga]

I just don't like the way CBSA treat the people that are not conforming to Immigration Laws and seeing them as "non-criminal" for violating the laws. I understand the need to pool resources to go after the "criminals" like drug traffickers and the like. In the grand scheme of things, just how much of the "criminals" are caught in comparing to the "non-criminals" who are not caught. I have my hunch that there are a lot more people violating immigration laws than there are "criminal" drug traffickers.

It is no difference from speeding. It is still breaking the law to go over the speed limit, no matter how small you went over. If all offenses are the same, police would pull over every speeders. Like shooting fish in a barrel. But police sees more bang for their buck if they pull someone going 30, 40, or 50 km over or more than someone who is 10-20km over.

Yes, but a person that has overstayed is not necessarily a criminal:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship-pathways/canada.php

Penalties for Violating Immigration Laws

Sanctions for Unlawful Entry and Overstaying
The IRPA does not specifically criminalize unlawfully entering the country or unlawfully overstaying a visa.

It further describes how CBSA prioritizes those `criminals' for removal

individuals who are removed from Canada are removed in priority if: they pose a threat to the security of Canada; they are involved in crime, organized crime or crimes against humanity; they are failed refugee claimants; or they are otherwise inadmissible (e.g., expired visas, misrepresentation of their identity, including marriages of convenience and fraudulent documents)

 

[Ponga]

Just to add:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/ae-ve/2010/dr-rd-eng.html
(see Exhibit 7, about half way down the page)

And this, further down:
GTEC has maintained the size of the criminality inventory (priority 1 and 2 cases), the non-criminal inventory, including overstays and misrepresentations, has increased by almost 50 percent.

 

[laksidesvibe]

In the landing interviews, I believe one of the questions they ask is "During your application for PR (weather in status or out of status), where you harassed by the police?"...the question is there because being an immigrant (in or out of status)is not and never was a criminal offence in itself or cause for harrassment.

It's a known fact that canada's aging population needs immigrants in the short to medium term. So raising minor immigration offences to the state of drug trafficking is punitive/ unfounded and a sure way to desuade immigration (I understand some individuals might want that but no prosperous progressive nation does except Japan which has a major age imbalance and their GDP and economy shrinking annually). Using "policy statements" to correct the imbalances that the law may not is a sure way to not creating a generation of undocumented people (like the hell that's the United states).

In all this, let's not forget that contravening immigration law by over staying a visa and being without status comes with it's own punishment which for many family's is damning enough. Being punitive helps no one and I'm happy the majority of the CBSA in my province have plenty common sense and are unwilling to do this.

I just don't like the way CBSA treat the people that are not conforming to Immigration Laws and seeing them as "non-criminal" for violating the laws. I understand the need to pool resources to go after the "criminals" like drug traffickers and the like. In the grand scheme of things, just how much of the "criminals" are caught in comparing to the "non-criminals" who are not caught. I have my hunch that there are a lot more people violating immigration laws than there are "criminal" drug traffickers.

It is no difference from speeding. It is still breaking the law to go over the speed limit, no matter how small you went over. If all offenses are the same, police would pull over every speeders. Like shooting fish in a barrel. But police sees more bang for their buck if they pull someone going 30, 40, or 50 km over or more than someone who is 10-20km over.

 

[ting0916]

RECEIVED THIS 5 MINS AGO, PLS TELL ME IT IS A SA


XXXX,

This refers to the Application to Sponsor a Member of the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class you submitted to this office on behalf of XXXXX.

You have met the requirements for eligibility as a sponsor. The Application for Permanent Residence (APR) for your relative will be processed separately and he/she will be contacted shortly.

 

[sophieee]

RECEIVED THIS 5 MINS AGO, PLS TELL ME IT IS A SA


XXXX,

This refers to the Application to Sponsor a Member of the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class you submitted to this office on behalf of XXXXX.

You have met the requirements for eligibility as a sponsor. The Application for Permanent Residence (APR) for your relative will be processed separately and he/she will be contacted shortly.

Yes, it is! Congrats!

 

[screech339]

In the landing interviews, I believe one of the questions they ask is "During your application for PR (weather in status or out of status), where you harassed by the police?"...the question is there because being an immigrant (in or out of status)is not and never was a criminal offence in itself or cause for harrassment.

It's a known fact that canada's aging population needs immigrants in the short to medium term. So raising minor immigration offences to the state of drug trafficking is punitive/ unfounded and a sure way to desuade immigration (I understand some individuals might want that but no prosperous progressive nation does except Japan which has a major age imbalance and their GDP and economy shrinking annually). Using "policy statements" to correct the imbalances that the law may not is a sure way to not creating a generation of undocumented people (like the hell that's the United states).

In all this, let's not forget that contravening immigration law by over staying a visa and being without status comes with it's own punishment which for many family's is damning enough. Being punitive helps no one and I'm happy the majority of the CBSA in my province have plenty common sense and are unwilling to do this.

I have never heard or read any posts that an agent asked "have you been harassed by police?" question at a landing interview. That is nonsense. I think you are making that up. CIC agents has no reason or business to be asking that question to anyone prior to landing. The questions that have been asked is nowhere close to that kind of question. Usually the standard questions like "have you been convicted in Canada". "Have you been denied entry to Canada or any country", or the common "do you have any dependents not listed or declared in COPR".

 

[MissFrowz]

Of course - the moratoriums lifted the same day - that must be what it is. My husband is a failed refugee but I'll bet they are doing it for everyone as removals are set to begin in June for anyone who does not have status. Thank you for your kind message and Congratulations to you!! DM is coming soon!! I am very happy for you!!!

Lorelai21 you were right! Today my Ecas is showing DM! No emails from CIC though. Now to wait for the landing letter from Vancouver office. LOL I'm busy getting excited when I haven't even confirmed with the call centre if it is a positive DM!

 

[Linden]

My partner just landed today in Vancouver. It was a breeze. Now to get on with our lives. Thanks to to everyone for the information on this forum.

 

[laksidesvibe]

I have no reason to make anything up sir. I did not know much about spousal sponsorship until December 2014 and i credit this site for informing me. It will be wrong to say things i cant verify.

As to your claim that its nonsense, ive heard it asked 4 times exactly and on the Facebook group just 4 hours ago, a Lady that had concluded her landing interview wrote this as her third question and i quote, "Did you have any problem with the police during your immigr. process?"....Her first name if Audrey if you'll like to verify.

I would stop now cos i think this thread is meant for good news and not bickering.

I have never heard or read any posts that an agent asked "have you been harassed by police?" question at a landing interview. That is nonsense. I think you are making that up. CIC agents has no reason or business to be asking that question to anyone prior to landing. The questions that have been asked is nowhere close to that kind of question. Usually the standard questions like "have you been convicted in Canada". "Have you been denied entry to Canada or any country", or the common "do you have any dependents not listed or declared in COPR".