New Sponsorship Rules: Canada Makes it Even Harder for us!!!

[EricandLinda]

Apparently there has been a new rule that came into effect yesterday. CIC hasn't updated it on their website or on their automated info system when you call their offices.

For Spousal Sponsorship, YOU CAN NO LONGER APPLY FOR AN OPEN WORK PERMIT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SPONSORSHIP APPLICATION. A few agents told me this. All of them had to put me on hold and talk to their superiors etc. This change will be reflected very soon.

This means you can't apply for an open work permit until AFTER stage one approval. It also means that in terms of an open work permit, you can't get implied status.

On top of that, all the CIC agents told me that stage one takes 10-11 months MINIMUM for an in-land application.

Great, so my spouse has to sit at home and do nothing for half a year. How great of our Canadian government.

 

[zardoz]

Apparently there has been a new rule that came into effect yesterday. CIC hasn't updated it on their website or on their automated info system when you call their offices.

For Spousal Sponsorship, YOU CAN NO LONGER APPLY FOR AN OPEN WORK PERMIT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SPONSORSHIP APPLICATION. A few agents told me this. All of them had to put me on hold and talk to their superiors etc. This change will be reflected very soon.

This means you can't apply for an open work permit until AFTER stage one approval. It also means that in terms of an open work permit, you can't get implied status.

On top of that, all the CIC agents told me that stage one takes 10-11 months MINIMUM for an in-land application.

Great, so my spouse has to sit at home and do nothing for half a year. How great of our Canadian government.

Wow!! If this is true, it's a "game changer" for a very large number of people...

 

[Alurra71]

As far as the implied status goes, yes indeed. It would change some things, however, even when you did include the OWP with your sponsorship application they didn't process it until AFTER AIP anyhow, so how is this to be any different? I don't see a difference.

 

[screech339]

As far as the implied status goes, yes indeed. It would change some things, however, even when you did include the OWP with your sponsorship application they didn't process it until AFTER AIP anyhow, so how is this to be any different? I don't see a difference.

Makes a huge difference. You would then have to submit a work extension or a visitor extension or a study extension separately.

Another huge factor now is that those on IEC and PGWP will not get the assumption of being on "implied status". These people will have to quit working when their IEC / PGWP expires. They can no longer assume to be able to work pass expire date.

I think this new rule if true, is meant to re-enforce those on IEC / PGWP to actually quit working the way it is intended.

 

[Alurra71]

Screech, that could only help those who won't listen anyhow!

I was only responding regarding the OWP itself. I guess I never took into account the standard work permits that can benefit from implied status. In either case, it is not really making it harder to sponsor your spouse, not really. It is only giving you a few more steps to do if your spouse wishes to work or continue working. Gives everyone a sense of responsibility to keep up with their dates and such I suppose.

 

[Rob_TO]

I think there will always be some sort of "implied" visitor status for inland applicants, no matter if they submit an app for OWP or not. In other words, I don't think anyone with an inland app in progress will ever be deported by CIC no matter what the official definition of "implied" really is now.

The big issue here is there could now be a few extra months delay in waiting to apply for and get an OWP after stage 1 approval, as opposed to including it with the app and having it approved simultaneously as stage 1 is approved.

 

[EricandLinda]

I was also told that if you didn't apply for an OWP with the spousal application, that it can be done online after Stage One approval. The processing time is 10 days for this. I don't know how true that is.

 

[Alurra71]

I was also told that if you didn't apply for an OWP with the spousal application, that it can be done online after Stage One approval. The processing time is 10 days for this. I don't know how true that is.

It is true. You can indeed do this. You can also take your AIP printout letter and get it done on the spot at a land border crossing. That is what I did.

 

[Rob_TO]

It is true. You can indeed do this. You can also take your AIP printout letter and get it done on the spot at a land border crossing. That is what I did.

Ok so at worst this is a 10 days or so delay over the current process, and a bit of extra hassle for the paperwork. Not a lot to get upset about!

 

[EricandLinda]

It is true. You can indeed do this. You can also take your AIP printout letter and get it done on the spot at a land border crossing. That is what I did.

That's good. Then I guess it doesn't really take that much time for an OWP then. It all hinges on WHEN stage one is approved.

How long is the OWP for after stage 1 approval.... until stage 2 is completed?

 

[screech339]

I think the intention is that it is your responsibility to maintain status in Canada. I think if you throw out the OWP with application process and you can get "out of status" if you didn't extend your permit before it expires. So how can you get "implied status" if you can go "out of status" if you didn't renew your extension.

I think it help CIC enforce those on IEC / PGWP to actually quit their work on last day of expire date instead of giving them the penalty of assuming "implied status". Innocent or not.

 

[Ponga]

I think there will always be some sort of "implied" visitor status for inland applicants, no matter if they submit an app for OWP or not. In other words, I don't think anyone with an inland app in progress will ever be deported by CIC no matter what the official definition of "implied" really is now.

There are many Inland applicants that hope you're right, but since CBSA is no longer following their Administrative Deferral of Removal policy for those with an In-Canada sponsorship application in place...who knows!

Apparently, CBSA suspended it in Nov, 2011, ish.

 

[screech339]

I think also it is meant to give protection from being penalized for "working under implied status" under IEC and PGWP. In other words, you cannot use the "implied status" excuse to work beyond IEC and PGWP.

 

[screech339]

So in conclusion, the new rule, if confirm, doesn't make it a lot harder for anyone. Just put the responsibility on the applicant to submit extensions before the visa permit expires. Sure there is more steps to do now but doesn't make the process harder or longer. You only need to make sure CIC gets the extension before it expires. Only then would you get "implied status" as a visitor, work, or study visa.

Those on IEC or on PGWP will not be able to extend their work visa and force them to file a visitor extension and have them quit jobs as intended.

 

[QuebecOkie]

Okay, I posted another thread a little while ago asking about OWP issues (helping a friend get his app together), and zardoz was kind enough to steer me to this thread. So I'm trying to figure out what the implications of this change are. Seems that the change will affect the timeline of the OWP (by a few weeks? something like that? as near as we can guess...) since the principal applicant will have to wait and submit an OWP app after AIP is received.

On to status issues... I told my friend that his PGWP was not extendable. So, with his PGWP expiring in a few months, does he need to maintain status after submitting an inland app with his common-law partner? He's not visa-exempt. Even though I was visa-exempt, I maintained my visitor status with an extension request during my inland process. If he wishes to maintain status after his PGWP expires, would he complete form IMM 5708 (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/IMM5708E.pdf) separately, stating that he has an inland application in progress? (After he has AOR for the PR app.) That seems like the best thing I can figure out on my own. The language seems wishy-washy coming from CIC.

Spouses and common‑law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada who wish to apply for permanent resident status are no longer required to have legal immigration status provided that they have an eligible sponsor.

Is the sponsor "eligible" by being a person who will/could be found to be eligible according to CIC standards, or is the sponsor "eligible" after he/she is approved as a sponsor?