Is legal status now required for In-Canada Spousal or Common-Law sponsorship?

[Carlaganda23]

well there have been at least 3 reports of inland applicants who have been reported "illegal", and upon investigation by CIC, their applications have jumped to the front of the line and immigration is "Working with them" to get an approval. So, the way i see it, it's based on officer discretion, as is all things CBSA and CIC.

it may be nice to think that because "it is written", EVERY officer and visa office interprets it the same or even follows that specific "law" or guideline. That's just not reality. The bottom line is, the "trend" (FACTUAL evidence based on real life experiences) suggests there are plenty of people who do not have legal status with PR applications submitted, and CIC has not gone about trying to deport them. call me crazy, but i tend to go by what ACTUALLY is happening TODAY than what is assumed to "suppose" to happen because something was written down as a "law" in 2005.

Yes, let's wait and see what is the result of this change in Guidelines. But yes, it would be nice if they will follow whatever manual policy that applies to out of status inland applicants. I hope they will clarify this issue, cause I know some applicants that are out-of-status that are members on this forum and their applications are still on the queue.

 

[Ponga]

Who can say... Was it ever "law" or was it just CIC procedures. I was just agreeing that the change to the updated published Guide seems to be deliberately made.

It was merely a policy (not an actual law) under the spousal sponsorship:

In February, 2005 former immigration minister Joe Volpe announced that Canadians would now, in certain cases, be able to sponsor their out-of-status spouses and common-law partners from within Canada. In September, 2005 an Operational Bulletin was issued clarifying how this policy would be applied. This bulletin included an “Administrative Deferral Policy” which set out certain criteria which would determine who would be allowed to stay here while their sponsorship was being processed and who could be removed before the process was completed.

[from ip08, section 12]:

12. Legal status in Canada

The current Regulations require that to be eligible for the spouse or common-law partner in
Canada class, the applicant have temporary legal status in Canada. However, under the spousal
policy, persons who are otherwise eligible for consideration under this class (and who are not
inadmissible for reasons other than “lack of status”) including those who have applied for
consideration on H&C grounds and submitted a sponsorship, may have this requirement waived.
This does not mean however that there is no longer any requirement to have legal status in
Canada. Persons who wish to study or work in Canada must still seek to obtain and
maintain the required permits. Applicants who do not have legal status in Canada may be
removed from Canada at any time.
Other than for lack of status, applicants must not be in any other violation of the Act or
Regulations or be subject to a removal order.

Since CIC has not published an Operational Bulletin for ip08, to remove this `policy', or `regulation' we have to wonder what that means for applications that CIC has received prior to this change. However, this blurb from CIC may be enough for them to not have to post, or publish everything that is changed:
In exceptional circumstances, operational bulletins may also be issued for one-time-only instructions or to provide urgent instructions to staff for a brief period while the relevant operational chapters are being updated.



Personally, I would think that the AOR lock-in date would in fact cover out of status applicants that had applied months ago and are patiently waiting, but...who knows.

 

[Carlaganda23]

It was merely a policy (not an actual law) under the spousal sponsorship:

In February, 2005 former immigration minister Joe Volpe announced that Canadians would now, in certain cases, be able to sponsor their out-of-status spouses and common-law partners from within Canada. In September, 2005 an Operational Bulletin was issued clarifying how this policy would be applied. This bulletin included an “Administrative Deferral Policy” which set out certain criteria which would determine who would be allowed to stay here while their sponsorship was being processed and who could be removed before the process was completed.

[from ip08, section 12]:
12. Legal status in Canada

The current Regulations require that to be eligible for the spouse or common-law partner in
Canada class, the applicant have temporary legal status in Canada. However, under the spousal
policy, persons who are otherwise eligible for consideration under this class (and who are not
inadmissible for reasons other than “lack of status”) including those who have applied for
consideration on H&C grounds and submitted a sponsorship, may have this requirement waived.
This does not mean however that there is no longer any requirement to have legal status in
Canada. Persons who wish to study or work in Canada must still seek to obtain and
maintain the required permits. Applicants who do not have legal status in Canada may be
removed from Canada at any time.
Other than for lack of status, applicants must not be in any other violation of the Act or
Regulations or be subject to a removal order.

Since CIC has not published an Operational Bulletin for ip08, to remove this `policy', or `regulation' we have to wonder what that means for applications that CIC has received prior to this change. However, this blurb from CIC may be enough for them to not have to post, or publish everything that is changed:
In exceptional circumstances, operational bulletins may also be issued for one-time-only instructions or to provide urgent instructions to staff for a brief period while the relevant operational chapters are being updated.



Personally, I would think that the AOR lock-in date would in fact cover out of status applicants that had applied months ago and are patiently waiting, but...who knows.

Good stuff Ponga, I would agree about the lock-in date. Apparently, most of the changes they have a lock-in date, as what I've noticed in CIC and they usually put on their website about the changes. In my opinion, I would think that they should emphasize it on their website and make it clear to all the applicants who are in the queue, so we are not confused and living in limbo. Me and my partner just a bought a house ( obviously on his name because I'm not qualified to own because I'm not a PR yet)... Our life is put on hold on this long daunting process, I can't wait to be normal working person and start our own family.

 

[Ponga]

It really is surprising.

I'm sure there are people ready to apply Inland that have no idea that this `free pass' to status (that's been in place for over 9 years) has apparently ended.

 

[Carlaganda23]

It really is surprising.

I'm sure there are people ready to apply Inland that have no idea that this `free pass' to status (that's been in place for over 9 years) has apparently ended.

Did you confirm it to the CIC Ponga by calling their Call Centre?

 

[Linden]

Here it is, Ministers Public Policy Under A25(1) IRPA Section 5.27, 5.28, 5.31

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp

So, if law has been passed, on what grounds it will get invalidated? I was thinking, there would be a certain steps and procedure to change it. Also, most VO use the IRPA guidelines on their decisions in CIC application, as far as I'm concern.

Well if it's in the Immigration Act and Regulations that trumps everything else. This is the law. Of course laws can change, and maybe this will be updated in the Immigration Act.

 

[Ponga]

Well if it's in the Immigration Act and Regulations that trumps everything else. This is the law. Of course laws can change, and maybe this will be updated in the Immigration Act.

No idea if this spousal policy was ever part of the Immigration Act, or simply just a temporary `policy', but since CIC has deliberately changed the languagge for an In-Canada sponsorship application...? ? ?

And to Carlaganda23- I have no plans to call CIC's infamous Call Centre. LOL!

 

[Carlaganda23]

No idea if this spousal policy was ever part of the Immigration Act, or simply just a temporary `policy', but since CIC has deliberately changed the languagge for an In-Canada sponsorship application...? ? ?

And to Carlaganda23- I have no plans to call CIC's infamous Call Centre. LOL!

They always mislead us, as for the Policy. I can see that it is in IRPA( Immigration and Refugee PolicyAct) all of the VO's relied their decisions based on IRPA.

 

[vik999]

Need ur help and guidance.

Entered Canada in May and Applied for Inland PR in May2014, got AOR with filenumber in August. Applied for Visa Extenstion in second week of Sept( used paper app), haven't received any confirmation?. Is there anything to wrry.? please suggest. My stay is valid till November 9th from my entry date on visitor visa.

Should I contact CIC or wait? CIC website says atleast 2 months for VV extenstion..

 

[Carlaganda23]

Need ur help and guidance.

Entered Canada in May and Applied for Inland PR in May2014, got AOR with filenumber in August. Applied for Visa Extenstion in second week of Sept( used paper app), haven't received any confirmation?. Is there anything to wrry.? please suggest. My stay is valid till November 9th from my entry date on visitor visa.

Should I contact CIC or wait? CIC website says atleast 2 months for VV extenstion..

I guess you can call them and ask what happen to your application. Ask for an inquiry, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ponga]

They always mislead us, as for the Policy. I can see that it is in IRPA( Immigration and Refugee PolicyAct) all of the VO's relied their decisions based on IRPA.

Well, there must be a valid reason why CIC would make a change to the Guide.

Communicating that reason to the public, is a different story perhaps.

 

[Linden]

Well, there must be a valid reason why CIC would make a change to the Guide.

Communicating that reason to the public, is a different story perhaps.

Are you sure CIC has a valid reason? Do you trust that CIC does everything correctly. We all know how correct the phone reps at CIC are.

 

[Carlaganda23]

Are you sure CIC has a valid reason? Do you trust that CIC does everything correctly. We all know how correct the phone reps at CIC are.

No, I won't...

 

[Ponga]

Are you sure CIC has a valid reason? Do you trust that CIC does everything correctly. We all know how correct the phone reps at CIC are.

Well, if you can't trust Citizenship and Immigration Canada with an immigration related matter that they have published themselves, then...WTF?

 

[Smsm81]

Well, if you can't trust Citizenship and Immigration Canada with an immigration related matter that they have published themselves, then...WTF?

The point is they keep changing the rules and forums... sometimes the new forums have very small different than the old ones. sometimes I wonder why we have to write our names in all the forums? but it is a must and we have to follow the rules.