one-year pilot OWP for spouses and common-law partners

[MapleLeafMan]

they can NOT guarantee what CIC/CBSA decides to do if you are investigated. they are now basically telling you, "yeah, you're right, we lied and screwed up, but you're fine... this law says they "can't" remove you, so don't worry" again, IF you are investigated, what you quoted confirms what we said about CIC/CBSA working WITH the applicant to avoid a removal.

How about "The CBSA has agreed to grant a temporary ADR to applicants who qualify under this public policy"?

 

[rhcohen2014]

How about "The CBSA has agreed to grant a temporary ADR to applicants who qualify under this public policy"?

What about it? just because it's written, doesn't mean it's guaranteed in every situation. again,this is saying what we are telling you. i'm not sure how many times i can write "CIC/CBSA generally works WITH the applicant to avoid removal". This is what that means.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

What about it? just because it's written, doesn't mean it's guaranteed in every situation. again,this is saying what we are telling you. i'm not sure how many times i can write "CIC/CBSA generally works WITH the applicant to avoid removal". This is what that means.

But it also says that they have agreed to grant it? Doesn't that mean they have to honor it if they openly and publicly has agreed to it?

 

[Rob_TO]

But it also says that they have agreed to grant it? Doesn't that mean they have to honor it if they openly and publicly has agreed to it?

As everyone is telling you, most likely nothing will happen to you. But nothing is "guaranteed" with CBSA.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why your lawyer didn't simply apply for OWP at same time as your inland app, which would have given you legal implied status during this entire time, and not having to even worry about fighting potential removal orders.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

As everyone is telling you, most likely nothing will happen to you. But nothing is "guaranteed" with CBSA.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why your lawyer didn't simply apply for OWP at same time as your inland app, which would have given you legal implied status during this entire time, and not having to even worry about fighting potential removal orders.

Yes, it is rather strange. They will probably say that they are so experienced and bla bla, and therefore they know that I am fine in practice even if I'm not 100% fine in theory. This is still
completely unacceptable for a professional law firm. Maybe they will try to claim that temporary status and Implied status are two different things? Or are they? Im pretty sure they've said before that I do not have temporary status, but implied status.

 

[screech339]

Despite mapleleafman being out of status, has it been more than 90 days since his visitor visa expired? If it not, mapleleafman can apply for status of restoration.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

Despite mapleleafman being out of status, has it been more than 90 days since his visitor visa expired? If it not, mapleleafman can apply for status of restoration.

Yes it has.

 

[Rob_TO]

Yes, it is rather strange. They will probably say that they are so experienced and bla bla, and therefore they know that I am fine in practice even if I'm not 100% fine in theory. This is still
completely unacceptable for a professional law firm. Maybe they will try to claim that temporary status and Implied status are two different things? Or are they? Im pretty sure they've said before that I do not have temporary status, but implied status.

You don't have implied status. Implied status is only given when requesting to extend a previous status, such as you get when applying for OWP.

You are very clearly out of status right now, and your lawyer is relying on rules surrounding CBSA's general policies not to remove people with inland apps in progress. However that does not change the fact you are currently out of status, a fully preventable situation had they simply advised you to submit OWP at the beginning.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

You don't have implied status. Implied status is only given when requesting to extend a previous status, such as you get when applying for OWP.

You are very clearly out of status right now, and your lawyer is relying on rules surrounding CBSA's general policies not to remove people with inland apps in progress. However that does not change the fact you are currently out of status, a fully preventable situation had they simply advised you to submit OWP at the beginning.

It's pretty ridiculous. Can't wait to hear what their reason not to submit OWP was.

 

[screech339]

It's pretty ridiculous. Can't wait to hear what their reason not to submit OWP was.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/visa/validity/implied.asp

A temporary resident must apply to extend their period of authorized stay before it ends. If they have done so, their period of authorized stay as a temporary resident is extended by law until a decision is made [R183(5)]. Such a person is considered to have implied status as a temporary resident during that period.

I am surprised the lawyer didn't pick up on this tidbit. You would have had implied status if you submitted a visitor extension before your current visa expired or submitted OWP with PR application.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/visa/validity/implied.asp

A temporary resident must apply to extend their period of authorized stay before it ends. If they have done so, their period of authorized stay as a temporary resident is extended by law until a decision is made [R183(5)]. Such a person is considered to have implied status as a temporary resident during that period.

I am surprised the lawyer didn't pick up on this tidbit. You would have had implied status if you submitted a visitor extension before your current visa expired or submitted OWP with PR application.

They are probably gonna claim that I am fine in practise but not in theory. This may be true, still a very bad job done. Not the reason you hire reputable law firms.

 

[beholder69]

They are probably gonna claim that I am fine in practise but not in theory. This may be true, still a very bad job done. Not the reason you hire reputable law firms.

The thing is: you might be fine but their mistake of not sending an OWP application with your PR one keeps you from receiving the OWP under the pilot program, which you might even have had already received by now

 

[MapleLeafMan]

The thing is: you might be fine but their mistake of not sending an OWP application with your PR one keeps you from receiving the OWP under the pilot program, which you might even have had already received by now

Yes exactly, I am losing several months of income, atleast 6 months or possibly more, AND there is a small risk that I could get deported.
Could there be any reasonable explanation to why they did not advise that we should send work permit or extend visa at time of PR application?

 

[Rob_TO]

Yes exactly, I am losing several months of income, atleast 6 months or possibly more, AND there is a small risk that I could get deported.
Could there be any reasonable explanation to why they did not advise that we should send work permit or extend visa at time of PR application?

The only situation I can think of, applies to someone currently on a study permit that actually needs that permit to attend school here, and would lose that permit if they applied for OWP.

However for someone here as visitor, there is zero reason I can think of not to apply for OWP along with PR app.

 

[beholder69]

Yes exactly, I am losing several months of income, atleast 6 months or possibly more, AND there is a small risk that I could get deported.
Could there be any reasonable explanation to why they did not advise that we should send work permit or extend visa at time of PR application?

Reasonable? No. As I said above though, have personally met a lot of people who have received very, very bad advice and service from lawyers.

Last one was from a couple who are friends of mine, right where I live. First of all they advised an Inland application this September, which itself is crazy! The applicant had valid visitor status in Canada. With an Outland app they'd quite possibly have complete PR in 7-9 months. There was no pilot program back then, it was a time when everything was stalled, no processing of applications, backlog getting bigger.

Even when the pilot program started, I was the one to update them and the lawyer didn't know anything. In fact he told them on the phone "oh really, please inform me of any updates you get on the matter"