New Sponsorship Package Information Share

[christinebear]

I don't know about you, but I have mixed feelings about the new packet coming out in a few hours. I've been working with the old packet, but plan on switching to the new one since it's supposed to be simpler. I'm staring at the huge thing is my (now old) PR packet and I'm a little...peeved...that I spent so much time filling it out and googling everything, since it was so confusing.

I am glad that many families will not have to wait 24 months (hopefully). But I do I have to wait longer now? This new packet has given me more questions than answers! I guess it'll be a learn as we go thing. If you learn anything, please share.

I'm wondering about the work permits for people who doing Inland. Will there be any changes in fees? I do like the "link" feature for better update coverage.

It appears to be more good than bad, I'm just wondering if there will be other changes.

 

[iSuperman]

Just gone through the guide provided and it is much easier to understand and follow. Starting to fill the application now.

 

[CDNPR2014]

i`m currently looking through the application and i find this interesting on the checklist. it looks like there are different application "classes" (section 4), and this seems to be how they will determine eligibility for the OWP. It will be interesting to see where these different classes are processed. even though there is 1 application, it looks like there are still 2 streams - In Canada Class and Family Class.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/IMM5533E.pdf

 

[profiler]

i`m currently looking through the application and i find this interesting on the checklist. it looks like there are different application "classes" (section 4), and this seems to be how they will determine eligibility for the OWP. It will be interesting to see where these different classes are processed. even though there is 1 application, it looks like there are still 2 streams - In Canada Class and Family Class.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/IMM5533E.pdf

See, that's not what he said. Is it possible this is a transition? Perhaps a bit of the Bait & Switch, or the "Shell" game? hmm...

 

[CDNPR2014]

See, that's not what he said. Is it possible this is a transition? Perhaps a bit of the Bait & Switch, or the "Shell" game? hmm...

well technically, he said there would be 1 application package (which is true) and that all processing will be within 12 months - no matter where the application is. he didn't say there wouldn't be different "classifications" of applicants.

 

[profiler]

well technically, he said there would be 1 application package (which is true) and that all processing will be within 12 months - no matter where the application is. he didn't say there wouldn't be different "classifications" of applicants.

I think I might have to listen again to his little speech. I seem to recall he said "It doesn't matter where you are" and in that slice of time he mentioned it. I'll find the speech and see if I can find it..

 

[CDNPR2014]

I think I might have to listen again to his little speech. I seem to recall he said "It doesn't matter where you are" and in that slice of time he mentioned it. I'll find the speech and see if I can find it..

right, it doesn't matter where you are in terms of how long it will take to get approved. they have to determine OWP eligibility somehow...

 

[Aquakitty]

It's out now. Looks good so far. Wow, they offer a text message service when they receive your package. And the drop-down list for the country-specific packages makes a lot more sense. Many people get confused on if they should use their country's package or the package for where they are living.

Looks like most changes are behind the scenes. The biggest is eliminated the inside vs. outside Canada packages. Forms seem to be similar, but include questions about living location and have better descriptions on who is to fill it out (for the spousal package).

 

[CDNPR2014]

The biggest is eliminated the inside vs. outside Canada packages. Forms seem to be about the same.

yes, but there are still 2 classes- in canada class and family class. the classification is selected on the checklist, not determined by the application forms.

they also limited the amount of relationship "proof" to submit. page 6 of the checklists shows only a certain number of proofs are now aloud.

 

[Aquakitty]

yes, but there are still 2 classes- in canada class and family class. the classification is selected on the checklist, not determined by the application forms.

they also limited the amount of relationship "proof" to submit. page 6 of the checklists shows only a certain number of proofs are now aloud.

Cool, there's also question in the sponsorship package about living location.

 

[profiler]

yes, but there are still 2 classes- in canada class and family class. the classification is selected on the checklist, not determined by the application forms.

they also limited the amount of relationship "proof" to submit. page 6 of the checklists shows only a certain number of proofs are now aloud.

I disagree with #7 actually. In our case, I owned the house before my wife and I even met. So it's well established that hydro and gas has always been my name on the bill. We only have cell phones (different accounts). And with her barely working (<6 mos) it's tough to establish credit -- so it makes absolutely no sense to transfer those bills to her, only to have to pay a deposit on them. That's what they told me they'd have to do. So, I think that's wrong.

Same problem with the title to the home. So not only am I expected to pay $1300 to apply to sponsor, but an extra $1000 to add her to the title?? She owns the property by us both signing the marriage license!

She does have government issued ID.

 

[kangamoose]

I disagree with #7 actually. In our case, I owned the house before my wife and I even met. So it's well established that hydro and gas has always been my name on the bill. We only have cell phones (different accounts). And with her barely working (<6 mos) it's tough to establish credit -- so it makes absolutely no sense to transfer those bills to her, only to have to pay a deposit on them. That's what they told me they'd have to do. So, I think that's wrong.

Same problem with the title to the home. So not only am I expected to pay $1300 to apply to sponsor, but an extra $1000 to add her to the title?? She owns the property by us both signing the marriage license!

She does have government issued ID.

I have to agree with you on that one, we would have had trouble meeting those requirements as well.

 

[profiler]

I have to agree with you on that one, we would have had trouble meeting those requirements as well.

Well, if you look just below, there is also "Provide (max 20) photos from wedding, etc. We provided 75.

Provide letters supporting your relationship -- 4 were notarized and provided. I also provided proof that she is on insurance policies as either insured or a beneficiary.

The utility thing should also include bank accounts (we have individual accounts because we haven't had the need to join yet). Both state the same address. Why would that not suffice as documentary evidence? Add it to the OWP they issued to our home, her DL/Health cards that show the same address.... It's pretty obvious, no?

</rant>

 

[CDNPR2014]

I disagree with #7 actually. In our case, I owned the house before my wife and I even met. So it's well established that hydro and gas has always been my name on the bill. We only have cell phones (different accounts). And with her barely working (<6 mos) it's tough to establish credit -- so it makes absolutely no sense to transfer those bills to her, only to have to pay a deposit on them. That's what they told me they'd have to do. So, I think that's wrong.

Same problem with the title to the home. So not only am I expected to pay $1300 to apply to sponsor, but an extra $1000 to add her to the title?? She owns the property by us both signing the marriage license!

She does have government issued ID.

yes, i can see how that can be difficult for some people. perhaps it's their way of limiting the amount of "in canada class" applicants? a person can apply through "family class" and while living in canada. it will be interesting to see how this requirement plays out...

 

[kangamoose]

Well, if you look just below, there is also "Provide (max 20) photos from wedding, etc. We provided 75.

Provide letters supporting your relationship -- 4 were notarized and provided. I also provided proof that she is on insurance policies as either insured or a beneficiary.

The utility thing should also include bank accounts (we have individual accounts because we haven't had the need to join yet). Both state the same address. Why would that not suffice as documentary evidence? Add it to the OWP they issued to our home, her DL/Health cards that show the same address.... It's pretty obvious, no?

</rant>

I did see that, but that still doesn't help with providing proof for the question "Are you and your common law partner currently living together?" Provide a lease/ proof of property ownership, proof of joint utilities and important documents showing the same address. You need to provide 2 out of the 3.

What you have stated is in a different section.