Lawful Admission Policy for PR applications

[frege]

There is no contradiction. I'll give an example:
Admitted to the US on ANY type of work or study permit on Jan 1, 2012 and that permit is valid for 1 year. On January 2, 2012 you can apply for permanent residence to Canada (any program) and choose the appropriate US visa office for processing of your application.

Your quote discussed losing status after being admitted. Two different things.

Regarding your other point, refugee claimants are not processed the same way as other applications. They must prove torture and persecution, fear for life and safety, not be in a "safe third country", have no protection available ANYWHERE in their own country from police, government, etc. It's comparing apples to oranges. It's a very specialized section of immigration law and NOBODY on here that I've seen is qualified to discuss it at more than a basic level. However, that said, if a refugee claimant married a Canadian before their refugee application has been decided, the Canadian can apply to sponsor them for permanent residence as a member of the family class. A refugee claim is not an application for PR.

The part in red was "The applicant is not required to have been residing in the country for one year
at the time of application, but to have been lawfully admitted to that country for a minimum oneyear
period at the time of application." This sounded to me as though it meant "lawfully admitted for a one-year period including the time of application." The other passage clarifies that that's not what's meant. Perhaps "contradiction" is too strong a term, but my first reading of the part in red was not compatible with the example you and they both give.

About refugee claimants, here's a scenario. A person escapes persecution in China and makes their way to Australia, where they claim refugee status. While their asylum claim is being processed, they fall in love with and marry a Canadian. Where do they submit their application to be reunited with their Canadian spouse? CIC says Beijing, or else wait for the asylum claim to be processed and approved in Australia, which could be very long. That doesn't seem fair to me. What is the actual harm in allowing their sponsorship application to be processed at the Sydney visa office?

 

[chipits]

About refugee claimants, here's a scenario. A person escapes persecution in China and makes their way to Australia, where they claim refugee status. While their asylum claim is being processed, they fall in love with and marry a Canadian. Where do they submit their application to be reunited with their Canadian spouse? CIC says Beijing, or else wait for the asylum claim to be processed and approved in Australia, which could be very long. That doesn't seem fair to me. What is the actual harm in allowing their sponsorship application to be processed at the Sydney visa office?

I know this isn't your point, but refugee claimaints in Australia are basically jailed for indeterminate amounts of time (normally upwards of two years) while their claims are processed, often offshore on places like Christmas Island or in Nauru. They wouldn't be able to meet a Canadian to marry, or go to Sydney for an interview anyway.

It's a complete joke that this is the way Australia treat their refugee claimants.

 

[SenoritaBella]

It may not seem 'fair', but it is to protect program integrity i.e. prevent people from jumping the queue or taking unfair advantage of processing times in certain countries by making claims there. They can apply in their home country and if there is an interview, I'm sure there are ways to work around that since they can't safely go back(assuming it's not a bogus claim).

I've met genuine refugees and generally they are so happy to just be safe, not have to fear anymore, etc and are happy to wait for the process to play out.

The part in red was "The applicant is not required to have been residing in the country for one year
at the time of application, but to have been lawfully admitted to that country for a minimum oneyear
period at the time of application." This sounded to me as though it meant "lawfully admitted for a one-year period including the time of application." The other passage clarifies that that's not what's meant. Perhaps "contradiction" is too strong a term, but my first reading of the part in red was not compatible with the example you and they both give.

About refugee claimants, here's a scenario. A person escapes persecution in China and makes their way to Australia, where they claim refugee status. While their asylum claim is being processed, they fall in love with and marry a Canadian. Where do they submit their application to be reunited with their Canadian spouse? CIC says Beijing, or else wait for the asylum claim to be processed and approved in Australia, which could be very long. That doesn't seem fair to me. What is the actual harm in allowing their sponsorship application to be processed at the Sydney visa office?

 

[cempjwi]

I think the applicant has to be in the third country on a visa (or whatever) that is good for one year or more, when the application is sent in. He/she does not actually have to have been in the country for one year straight with no breaks: as soon as someone gets a visa good for a year, and has used it to enter the country, he/she can then use that visa as proof he/she can apply from that country.
But the applicant does have to be in the third country while applying for the PR visa for Canada. Having had a visa good for a year in the past, but not having one now, will not work.

The manuals say that having lost legal status is not a problem unless the admission granted into the country where you live and where you lost your status was for less than a year. After having lost my status i never left the US. This policy was created to avoid people moving to a country where the Visa Offices processing times are shorter (like someone traveling to Canada or the US as a visitor in order to shorten the processing wait time - which is not my case, i did not come to the US to make the process shorter).

 

[temmyt]

So what happens if the visa office decides not to process the application due to the applicant's status, do they A. Refuse the application or B. Send it to the applicant's home country.
I ask because we are in the same situation.
Thanks!

 

[scylla]

So what happens if the visa office decides not to process the application due to the applicant's status, do they A. Refuse the application or B. Send it to the applicant's home country.
I ask because we are in the same situation.
Thanks!

They send it to the applicant's home country visa office.

 

[cempjwi]

The relevant part of the quoted passage seems to me to be this:

"For example, a person who has entered a country
lawfully but at some time subsequent to lawful admission has lost legal
immigration status is considered to have been lawfully admitted, whether or not
status has been restored at the time of the application to the visa office. Such
applicants may or may not qualify for a visa, but their application must be
accepted for processing and assessed on its merits;"

So I'd say that if you were present in the US when the application was submitted, and had been residing there continuously since the time you were admitted with permission to stay for one year, then you're all right. The vacations aren't relevant as long as your residence was in the U.S.

What I find remarkable is how they single out refugee claimants. If you've overstayed your visa, they say that's fine. But if you're escaping persecution in your home country and just haven't had a chance to prove it yet, then they think you should go back there to apply. Brilliant!

Thanks. There was a lot of research done before we applied and due to difficulties underdtanding the policies we took a few months before we decided to apply. As noted, the policiy of course is to avoid people from 'moving' to coutries where processing times are shorter. I obviously did not try to do that as 8 years passed between the time I lost my status here in the US and I got married to a Canadian. It is not like it can be argued that I came to the US just to find a place where processing times are shorter.

 

[JoeUH]

They send it to the applicant's home country visa office.

This is what happened with us. My wife is in this situation, and the last time she entered the US her visa was only good for less than a year, but she had lived in the US many years and had been admitted for at least a year. CIC only seems to care about the most recent admittance, even if you're only gone for a couple weeks.

 

[JoeUH]

I got a PM that I couldn't reply to so I'll just reply here. Yes, we applied in October 2012 to Mississauga, putting that we would like to be processed in the US or Ottawa due to my wife's history in the US. We got the sponsor approval back yesterday that we are going on to Stage 2, and that our visa office is in Dakar (which handles the country where my wife has citizenship).

 

[cempjwi]

I got a PM that I couldn't reply to so I'll just reply here. Yes, we applied in October 2012 to Mississauga, putting that we would like to be processed in the US or Ottawa due to my wife's history in the US. We got the sponsor approval back yesterday that we are going on to Stage 2, and that our visa office is in Dakar (which handles the country where my wife has citizenship).

We applied on July 31st 2012. Sponsorship approval received on Oct 15th 2012. However, our file was sent to Ottawa, not the visa office that handles the country of citizenship of the sposored applicant. File is still sitting there for review; no other updates.