Letter of explanation (out of status and unauthorized work)

[Canada sponsorship]

What was once overlooked may not be overlooked now. How long can you show you were dating before your wedding? Had you lived together before you lost status and for how long? Did either of your families attend the wedding? IRCC is looking for family sponsorship cases where applicants have not had a pathway to PR themselves. They are aware that marriages are being arranged to try and secure status for temporary residents who have not been able to secure PR or a WP on their own.

We have now lived together for 4 months
We have joint bank accounts with money given to us at our wedding. We attached pictures of bridal shower, bachelor party, engagement pictures and lots of pictures of outings, with friends and family.
Attached joint vehicle insurance, lease, financial support as well. I believe our relationship is genuine and we got married to stay together and build future here in Canada. I was prepared to leave Canada after my pgwp expired, but I am significantly attached to my wife and she is significantly attached to me. Emotionally and physically.
Edit- accidentally wrote 4 years instead of months

 

[armoured]

Would you at least agree that it is NOT clear if more than one could be a potential issue?

I think that's a bizarre interpretation, and one would have to believe some odd things about how such policies are conceived and then implemented to think that would be intentional without language that explicitly made it clear that it was no more than one. And if unintentional, it would be easily challenged before a tribunal or a court (i.e. they would change that language pretty early on, as soon as it was discovered, to avoid further issues).

I am in fact surprised anyone would suggest such a thing would be a policy without some concrete cases to indicate it was true.

So if you have them, now would be the time to mention them. Otherwise I'm sticking to my base assumption that this is, ahem, not a thing.

 

[REDBLACK99]

We have now lived together for 4 months
We have joint bank accounts with money given to us at our wedding. We attached pictures of bridal shower, bachelor party, engagement pictures and lots of pictures of outings, with friends and family.
Attached joint vehicle insurance, lease, financial support as well. I believe our relationship is genuine and we got married to stay together and build future here in Canada. I was prepared to leave Canada after my pgwp expired, but I am significantly attached to my wife and she is significantly attached to me. Emotionally and physically.
Edit- accidentally wrote 4 years instead of months

I'm very interested in your situation, tell us what the outcome was?

 

[scylla]

I'm very interested in your situation, tell us what the outcome was?

Almost certainly this person was approved. In cases where an out of status person is being sponsored for PR by their Canadian citizen or PR spouse, overstays are forgiven and it's generally the same for unauthorized work. However this answer is specific to spousal sponsorship situations, not economic immigration.

 

[REDBLACK99]

Do you think IRCC really noticed whether you are working illegally or not cause my bro worked for almost a year and applied for work permit and was granted, he married a wp holder

 

[scylla]

Do you think IRCC really noticed whether you are working illegally or not cause my bro worked for almost a year and applied for work permit and was granted, he married a wp holder

Depends on the circumstances. Also, sometimes it doesn't catch up to you until you apply for PR.

 

[canuck78]

Do you think IRCC really noticed whether you are working illegally or not cause my bro worked for almost a year and applied for work permit and was granted, he married a wp holder

IRCC did minimal enforcement or investigation in the past few years but that has changed. What may have been possible before may no longer be possible.

 

[REDBLACK99]

Depends on the circumstances. Also, sometimes it doesn't catch up to you until you apply for PR.

Very good point, thanks.

 

[Canada sponsorship]

I'm very interested in your situation, tell us what the outcome was?

Hello sorry for late reply.
I applied for visitor record extension and wrote an extensive letter of explanation and explained the unauthorized work and intent behind it and they approved me a month and half after applying.
Received AOR for sponsorship and applied owp as well.
Waiting for owp right now

 

[Canada sponsorship]

I think that's a bizarre interpretation, and one would have to believe some odd things about how such policies are conceived and then implemented to think that would be intentional without language that explicitly made it clear that it was no more than one. And if unintentional, it would be easily challenged before a tribunal or a court (i.e. they would change that language pretty early on, as soon as it was discovered, to avoid further issues).

I am in fact surprised anyone would suggest such a thing would be a policy without some concrete cases to indicate it was true.

So if you have them, now would be the time to mention them. Otherwise I'm sticking to my base assumption that this is, ahem, not a thing.

I talked to a lawyer before applying for spousal sponsorship and they said it is alright as it counts under public policy. They told me to not write a letter of explanation and just mention it in personal history as well which was surprising.

But I applied for visitor record extension as I couldn't complete the application for sponsorship before my visitor record (initial) expired. I mentioned all this in LOE for visitor record extension and was approved as well.
Received AOR for sponsorship and applied owp.

 

[armoured]

I talked to a lawyer before applying for spousal sponsorship and they said it is alright as it counts under public policy. They told me to not write a letter of explanation and just mention it in personal history as well which was surprising.

I think you misunderstood my point; I agreed that your situation was covered under public policy, i.e. I agreed with your lawyer.

I was saying that it is not plausible in this instance to think that the policy as described covered three or four different things (eg overstaying, working without authorization, etc) but not more than one of them (UNLESS of course it specified that the list was only to be interpreted using the conjunction 'or').

In other words, an overstay + unauthorized work clealry covered by the policy, as your lawyer said, just as either of those separately would be.

 

[Canada sponsorship]

I think you misunderstood my point; I agreed that your situation was covered under public policy, i.e. I agreed with your lawyer.

I was saying that it is not plausible in this instance to think that the policy as described covered three or four different things (eg overstaying, working without authorization, etc) but not more than one of them (UNLESS of course it specified that the list was only to be interpreted using the conjunction 'or').

In other words, an overstay + unauthorized work clealry covered, as your lawyer said.

Yes I know you were agreeing with that the situation is covered under public policy, I wasn't replying to your post to tell you that your information was wrong but rather replying to let you know what lawyer said and give you the insight of what exactly the lawyer said.
Have a good day