Starting New Job Under Implied Status

[scylla]

Another thread was unearthed recently, note the first post where the OP states that the friend was denied sponsorship because she worked illegally. She was an IEC holder and continued working as she believed she had implied status. CIC rejected her application.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/apply-inland-after-iec-expire-keep-working-and-now-aip-refuse-t163087.0.html

There's also the other thread (which I can never find) where someone was approved for a PR visa but then refused landing at the border for the same reason. Unfortunately they never came back to tell us if and how their case was resolved...

 

[Rob_TO]

Should repeat the links provided in 1st page of this thread. Very good walk through CIC regulations as to why implied status does not apply to IEC.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/immigration-citizenship-canada-33/implied-status-iec-815262/
http://britishexpats.com/wiki/Implied_Status_after_an_IEC_Work_Permit_ends

 

[SchnookoLoly]

I found the episode of Border Security where they address this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xMKC2w1-Dk

The guy goes to the border to renew his work permit. His IEC permit had expired and his work told him he could keep working as he had applied for a new work permit. CBSA clearly states that his work permit is not extendible and thus he had to stop working. He could remain *in* Canada as a visitor as he had applied for a new work permit, but he was not permitted to continue working.

Bookmark that link! I"ll go update the BE wiki with the appropriate link.

I'm still looking for threads where people have posted that they've been rejected, if you have any handy please post them and I'll add them to the wiki article as well.

 

[Rob_TO]

I found the episode of Border Security where they address this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xMKC2w1-Dk

The guy goes to the border to renew his work permit. His IEC permit had expired and his work told him he could keep working as he had applied for a new work permit. CBSA clearly states that his work permit is not extendible and thus he had to stop working. He could remain *in* Canada as a visitor as he had applied for a new work permit, but he was not permitted to continue working.

Bookmark that link! I"ll go update the BE wiki with the appropriate link.

I'm still looking for threads where people have posted that they've been rejected, if you have any handy please post them and I'll add them to the wiki article as well.

I think it's funny that the CBSA officer in that episode told the person he should have contacted CIC to ask before he kept working, but most likely a random CIC agent would have told him it was perfectly fine to keep working under implied status.

This is one link to someone being caught: http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/apply-inland-after-iec-expire-keep-working-and-now-aip-refuse-t163087.0.html

 

[SchnookoLoly]

Yep I got that link, already added it to the BE article. Looking for any others!

 

[Ponga]

Doesn't it seem that CIC could, if they really wanted to, add any one of the following statements to their language on their website:


Those holding a valid IEC work permit, or PGWP that submit an Inland application for spousal sponsorship along with an Open Work Permit application, will benefit from implied status that will allow them to continue to work at/for their current employer pending the completion of their PR application.

Or...


Those holding a valid IEC work permit, or PGWP that submit an Inland application for spousal sponsorship along with an Open Work Permit application, will benefit from implied status that will allow them to continue to work at/for their current employer, or for a new employer, pending the completion of their PR application.

Or...


Those holding a valid IEC work permit, or PGWP that submit an Inland application for spousal sponsorship along with an Open Work Permit application, will benefit from implied status but will not have authorization to work pending the completion of their PR application.

 

[SchnookoLoly]

You'd think.

 

[Sheps]

Honestly, I think since it is a condition of the work permit, that the condition itself should be on the work permit.

Edit: Clarity: This is my opinion of what they should really do to fix the problem. Put it as a "Condition: This work permit cannot be extended or renewed; as such, this work permit is not eligible for any implied status"

 

[Ponga]

Should repeat the links provided in 1st page of this thread. Very good walk through CIC regulations as to why implied status does not apply to IEC.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/immigration-citizenship-canada-33/implied-status-iec-815262/
http://britishexpats.com/wiki/Implied_Status_after_an_IEC_Work_Permit_ends

I agree wholeheartedly that the BE site has a lot of valuable information, however...it is merely another forum for people to gather information to make their own decisions, right?

Since, AFAIK, it is not run by a lawyer, immigration consultant or any other person that is truly qualified to interpret what is written by CIC/CBSA, isn't it just that; the opinions of those that are deciphering the information?

 

[SchnookoLoly]

I agree wholeheartedly that the BE site has a lot of valuable information, however...it is merely another forum for people to gather information to make their own decisions, right?

Since, AFAIK, it is not run by a lawyer, immigration consultant or any other person that is truly qualified to interpret what is written by CIC/CBSA, isn't it just that; the opinions of those that are deciphering the information?

Yes, 100%. I wrote the article on implied status! I am not a lawyer, nor an expert, I just collated it into one spot that could be easily referenced with as much link to CIC's literature as possible. But ultimately, it's still my interpretation of the rules.

 

[Rob_TO]

I agree wholeheartedly that the BE site has a lot of valuable information, however...it is merely another forum for people to gather information to make their own decisions, right?

Since, AFAIK, it is not run by a lawyer, immigration consultant or any other person that is truly qualified to interpret what is written by CIC/CBSA, isn't it just that; the opinions of those that are deciphering the information?

Even lawyers/consultants often don't know how to interpret CIC rules, as seen in the countless threads on here where lawyers have given completely wrong advice to people on various topics.

Heck even CIC doesn't seem to understand their own rules, as often different agents will tell you completely different info on the same topic. CIC should really make this question specific to IEC/PGWP visas, as part of their official Q&A section of their website.

 

[screech339]

Even lawyers/consultants often don't know how to interpret CIC rules, as seen in the countless threads on here where lawyers have given completely wrong advice to people on various topics.

Heck even CIC doesn't seem to understand their own rules, as often different agents will tell you completely different info on the same topic. CIC should really make this question specific to IEC/PGWP visas, as part of their official Q&A section of their website.

Completely 100% agree that there should be a dedicated section on website that specifically on PGWP and EIC in the "inland" spousal sponsorship. A lot of confusion in that people at CIC seems to connect it to economic PR with spousal PR which are two completely difference PR processes. Would like it to spell it out clearly so it can finally settle the argument of whether EIC/PGWP get "implied status" or not.

In my opinion, CIC should issue a separate OWP application form for "inland" applicants only. The current application for OWP is not an easy form to find or easy to complete/fill out. The new form and guide would have specific rules / lines that would say holders of current IEC/PGWP will not be granted "implied status" to work under the current visa.

 

[DohCanada]

or a post graduate work permit after already having one), however you can apply for a open work permit on the basis of being a skilled worker for example.

DohCanada, the problem with your logic, is while it is good "in law", the actual response from CIC is that you cannot extend the conditions of the original work permit (the permit is issued for either 1 or 2 years, that is the condition). You could apply for a judicial review, and the judge might side with you, or he might not, but the person is taking a chance that they will get caught by CIC. That could potentially mean an exclusion order they have to fight and a fight they may or may not win (but it would definitely clear up some things as there currently is no case law on canli to discuss implied status and youth exchange programs).

I wouldn't risk it, but it is up to the individual person.

I think CIC needs to clarify what "category" is. Is it the program they are applying under, or the type of permit they are receiving (open, closed, etc).

CIC officers make unsupportable decisions all the time. With respect to in Canada spousal applications, your only avenue of appeal is a judicial review to the Federal Court so you would expect that at least one of these IEC extenders who was allegedly caught for working because they were under the mistaken impression that they had implied status would have petitioned the court for a JR at some point. Yet there are no Federal Court decisions.

1. I have seen a number of links that purportedly link to anecdotal claims of people being deported or caught working illegally because the IEC may not be extended. It seems the very few examples where people have run into trouble involve people who have assumed they had implied status while waiting for a second IEC permit. This is not allowed by virtue of the function of this particular program which requires that applications be made from outside Canada. You can't have implied status when you're not in Canada. Other examples include people who are returning to Canada. You don't have implied status once you leave Canada. The others are more or less in line with "I have a friend who has a friend who got deported because they thought they had implied status under IEC etc. etc." Oh really? I have a friend who has a friend who proved that income tax is unconstitutional so they refused to pay without consequence for serious! Equally, there are a large number of people on these forums who had and IEC issued work permit, applied for an OWP with their PR application and then worked with implied status until they were given an OWP without being deported or being called out. It makes me think that all these call centre agents who are telling people it's ok and all these people who are "getting away with it" may be onto something. In the absence of a single verifiable story of someone actually losing their status occurring after the IEC program was transferred to CIC in 2013 (because that means their regulations now apply to it without question), I feel this risk is something of an urban legend.

2. CIC decisions must be made with reference to IRPA and IRPA regulations. It even says so in their manual:
"Decisions must be based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations The provision of the Act or Regulations must be cited in the record of a refusal. It is not acceptable to explain refusals with references to policies outlined in this, or any other manual. All communications, including refusal letters, should direct the reader’s attention to the appropriate legislative provision". So these people who are allegedly getting in trouble for the aforementioned IEC violation, what are the statutory grounds for their woes?
In the case of spousal sponsorship OWP applications, there is not room for discretion under the Act or the Regulations. Conditions on work permits are picked from a list in the Regulations... The Minister doesn't appear to have issued instructions saying no extensions even if you are legitimately applying for PR through spousal sponsorship, so under what authority is this decision being made?

3. Which brings me to the infamous CIC email that gets cut n paste over and over again. I have seen a letter that was uploaded to an applicant that specifically said he had implied status while waiting for an OWP even though his work permit was issued under IEC. The opinion was that THIS letter was obviously wrong and not based in reality. Isn't it just as conceivable that the letter that says no implied status for IEC work permits is incorrect? I mean it says "thank you for your inquiry". What was the original inquiry anyway? was it something like please tell me about implied status? The IEC program doesn't let you extend your visas, you have to apply for another one because that is how that particular application process works which is supported by s. 205 (b) of the regulations. Plus which the one forum example of someone getting into trouble for this was from 2013, prior to the IEC being transferred to Immigration Canada. This particular person just withdrew the application according to the friend so who knows, it may have been a random error. Maybe one of those poorly trained temps that the Toronto Star was banging on about...

4. The help centre is full of mistakes, errors and incomplete answers. I have submitted tons of feedback as I was just completing my own application process because it contradicted itself in a couple places. If you check the dates that various pages were last updated, you will notice that the information doesn't always keep up with the changes to legislation or the latest program changes. The self-assessment questionnaire that you need to answer to get an online application form has in the past been found to contain errors that force people to lie in order to get the form at all. If you had to have a decision reviewed, guaranteed a ruling won't be based on the help centre and judging from CIC's own policy manual, they won't rely on it either.



The CIC and CBSA officers have a great deal of discretion when it comes to certain decisions only. Examples include whether one's relationship is genuine or whether they believe one will leave on the expiration of one's work permit. (and yes, it's scary and ulcer inducing. I know first hand). I don't see any way that the decision to deny implied status to someone with an IEC work permit is any way defensible by IRPA/IRPA Regs now that the program has been brought under the tender loving careful administration of the CIC.

Interestingly, the Minister has issued a policy that allows In Canada spousal applicants with a lack of status to be exempt from the requirement to be in status and not to be inadmissible due to lack of status. For the purpose of this policy only, lack of status includes persons who have worked or studied without authorization under the act. He's allowed to issue policies and instructions under the act.

Oh and that same policy manual says they can't give opinions on hypothetical situations, hence why no one around here can get an answer to a hypothetical question.

I'm really not convinced that extending a work permit in this fashion is de facto or de jure forbidden. CIC agents make lots of mistakes and unfortunately when they hurt those of us affected by their mistakes greatly but nothing we do can stop the odd f* up.


(please forgive the bad grammar, can't be arsed to proof read today)

 

[DohCanada]

oh and one final thing. because I haven't rambled on enough obviously...

If you want to satisfy yourself that I am not pulling ideas out of my proverbial behind then read Campana Campana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 49 (CanLII) available on the canlii website for free.

specifically paragraph 15: "Relying on operational manuals or practices that have developed over time cannot be a substitute for the appropriate authority of law."

 

[Ponga]

Interestingly, the Minister has issued a policy that allows In Canada spousal applicants with a lack of status to be exempt from the requirement to be in status and not to be inadmissible due to lack of status. For the purpose of this policy only, lack of status includes persons who have worked or studied without authorization under the act. He's allowed to issue policies and instructions under the act.

That's exactly how I interpreted the information in ip08.

A person that is deemed to have `Lack of Status' would in fact include a person that worked beyond the validity of their WP.


Ironically, CIC updated the Inland Guide last September, removing the previous section about legal status not being required, as long as the applicant has an eligible sponsor, and replacing it with language that says legal status is now required.

The Guide has since been updated again, earlier this year, and that new language remains.

What does this now mean for a person in Canada without status that has applied for spousal sponsorship AFTER September 2014?