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

[rhcohen2014]

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"

in my opinion, based on what i`ve learned from this forum is that attorneys and consultants are nothing more than glorified paper pushers. they charge thousands of dollars to "double check" applications and mail them out. i'd love to get paid to do that! unless there is a criminality or major dependant issue, there is no reason to use an attorney for family class pr.

 

[beholder69]

in my opinion, based on what i`ve learned from this forum is that attorneys and consultants are nothing more than glorified paper pushers. they charge thousands of dollars to "double check" applications and mail them out. i'd love to get paid to do that! unless there is a criminality or major dependant issue, there is no reason to use an attorney for family class pr.

Yep, totally agree 8)

 

[MapleLeafMan]

in my opinion, based on what i`ve learned from this forum is that attorneys and consultants are nothing more than glorified paper pushers. they charge thousands of dollars to "double check" applications and mail them out. i'd love to get paid to do that! unless there is a criminality or major dependant issue, there is no reason to use an attorney for family class pr.

We decided to use a firm because we wanted to go from 99% safe to 99.9%. Oh the irony. This is extremely stressfully since it's our entire future depending on it.

 

[PTJ]

Hi Guys,

Just a quick one. Does the "one-year pilot OWP for spouses and common-law partners" apply to spouse of a protected person who applied for PR at the same time (still waiting for 1st stage) with her Protected Person spouse bearing in mind that they're not PR yet?

 

[Ponga]

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

Tell your lawyer that this temporary CBSA policy ended in November 2011. They may still be following it, unofficially.

 

[Ponga]

I was referred to this by my lawyer: Pursuant to Sections 5.3, 12, Appendix F, and Appendix H of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Operational Manual, Inland Processing (IP-8), Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada Class, under the spousal policy, many clients can benefit from an administrative deferral of removal (“ADR”) if there is evidence that they have a pending spousal application by the time they are deemed removal-ready by the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”). In general, the date that the Case Processing Centre (“CPC”) has locked in the application is the proof that an application has been made. For cases where a client attests that they have made an application that has not been locked in, clients may present a copy of their application as well as a copy of their fees receipt to show that an application has been made in the event that they are requested to do so. Accordingly, the enclosed copy of your application together with your UPS Tracking Receipt should serve as sufficient proof of a pending spousal application, should you ever be requested or otherwise required to demonstrate such in the future.

This is the same information that I provided to you in a post last night.

Your lawyer is spoon feeding you `information' to try to reassure you, but this is NOT IMPLIED STATUS. PERIOD!

 

[MapleLeafMan]

This is the same information that I provided to you in a post last night.

Your lawyer is spoon feeding you `information' to try to reassure you, but this is NOT IMPLIED STATUS. PERIOD!

Yes, I do realize this now. But it's still true that most of the times one benefits from this? Deferral of removal as stated?

 

[screech339]

Yes, I do realize this now. But it's still true that most of the times one benefits from this? Deferral of removal as stated?

It just means that CBSA "may" back away from ordering a deportation order out of honoring CIC's "no legal status" requirement so long as the inland application has been sent in. It still doesn't mean you have "implied status". You are still technically "out of status".

 

[MapleLeafMan]

It just means that CBSA "may" back away from ordering a deportation order out of honoring CIC's "no legal status" requirement so long as the inland application has been sent in. It still doesn't mean you have "implied status". You are still technically "out of status".

Yes, I understand by now that I do not have implied status. The most important thing for me now is to make sure that I will most likely be fine anyway, and that I most likely will benefit from the above, which is the case, right?

 

[Ponga]

Yes, I understand by now that I do not have implied status. The most important thing for me now is to make sure that I will most likely be fine anyway, and that I most likely will benefit from the above, which is the case, right?

With all due respect, and I realize that you are still in a bit of shock over this, but...nobody [here] can tell you anything more than we [all] have already said...over and over.

You will probably be fine, but there is no guarantee.

 

[rhcohen2014]

Yes, I understand by now that I do not have implied status. The most important thing for me now is to make sure that I will most likely be fine anyway, and that I most likely will benefit from the above, which is the case, right?

no one can confirm what will happen or if anything will happen. nothing we say is going to change the situation. nothing your attorney says will change the situation. having us all tell you , "yes yes, you will be ok" is not going to change the situation. the bottom line is unfortuntely, until your application is approved, you probably will always be "looking over your shoulder".

 

[MapleLeafMan]

With all due respect, and I realize that you are still in a bit of shock over this, but...nobody [here] can tell you anything more than we [all] have already said...over and over.

You will probably be fine, but there is no guarantee.

Yes, true. I guess I just enjoy hearing that I probably will be fine.
My lawyer must have done it like this because in their experience, you're always fine.
Still extremely unprofessional.

 

[Ponga]

Yes, I understand by now that I do not have implied status. The most important thing for me now is to make sure that I will most likely be fine anyway, and that I most likely will benefit from the above, which is the case, right?

Actually...you could do this:

Go to a public pay phone and call CBSA. Ask them a general question regarding a person that has submitted an Inand (in-Canada) spousal sponsorship application that had legal status when the application was received, but has since fallen out of status. Tell them that you hired a powerful lawyer that failed to offer you the OWP option to give you implied status.

Since they won't know who you are, you have nothing to fear, right? Listen to what they tell you. Ask them if the ADR policy really is still in place.

Maybe that will calm your nerves a bit?

 

[MapleLeafMan]

Actually...you could do this:

Go to a public pay phone and call CBSA. Ask them a general question regarding a person that has submitted an Inand (in-Canada) spousal sponsorship application that had legal status when the application was received, but has since fallen out of status. Tell them that you hired a powerful lawyer that failed to offer you the OWP option to give you implied status.

Since they won't know who you are, you have nothing to fear, right? Listen to what they tell you. Ask them if the ADR policy really is still in place.

Maybe that will calm your nerves a bit?

Do I understand this correct.
CBSA has to find out that I am out of status. It is pretty unlikely that they would find out, CIC is not likely to inform them? Even if they find out, they have to decide to start the process to deport me, which is unlikely.
If they decide to start this process and try to deport me, I could and most likely would still benefit from ADR?

 

[Jamesdavid3]

Can we get back on topic please

This discussion might as well take place in the INLAND 2014 thread.