TRP Expiry Date different from "Must Leave Canada By"

[madhazelnut]

Hello,

my friend has received her TRP after she applied for an extension of stay. The weird thing about the TRP is that it has an Expiry Date in July 2019, however there is also a CONDITIONS section which states: "Must leave Canada by March 1st 2019".

What is the validity of the document and when should the person actually leave Canada by then?

Thank you.

 

[canuck78]

Pretty clear that she must leave by March 1st. Without more information it is hard to comment but she must be inadmissible for some reason.

 

[madhazelnut]

There are 3 conditions:
- unless authorized, prohibited from engaging in employment
- must leave Canada by 2019/03/01
- unless authorized prohibited from attending any educational institutions...

Do you happen to know what the meaning of the "Expiry date" is then?

 

[canuck78]

Slightly different now that I know that the TRP wasn't granted recently. Very hard to comment without more details about your friend and what they are doing in Canada and when they entered.

 

[madhazelnut]

Actually I found out pretty randomly about the fact that there is a condition there about leaving when she showed it to me today! They are in the process of applying for common law partner reunion and needed the visitor visa extension in order to do that...

 

[madhazelnut]

Oh, didn't see the entering part of your reply.

Last time she entered Canada in November, after going on a short vacation in Mexico. Before that she entered in January 2018.

 

[canuck78]

Still doesn't make total sense. There must be a reason they don't qualify for a TRV.

 

[madhazelnut]

Well, she entered Canada initially on a multi-entry Visa which allows her to enter Canada until something like 2020, however she can't remain more than 6 months, hence the reason of application for this extension.

 

[canuck78]

Well, she entered Canada initially on a multi-entry Visa which allows her to enter Canada until something like 2020, however she can't remain more than 6 months, hence the reason of application for this extension.

Does she have a TRV or TRP?

 

[madhazelnut]

She had/has a visitor's Visa (so, I'm guessing a TRV?). Then she applied for an extension of stay and received a document that says "VISITOR RECORD/FICHE DE VISITEUR". With the details that I gave above. She is staying in BC, if this makes any difference.

 

[canuck78]

This changes everything. You've been asking about a TRP. Your friend was given a limited time to remain in Canada because CBSA felt she had been staying in Canada too long and was no longer a visitor. One of the risks of leaving Canada. Your friend should have indicated they are trying to become common law because she may have gotten the full 6 months. Have they filed for spousal sponsorship yet? They should have already filed for a visitor extension but they have to apply before the end of February if they haven't gotten AOR.

 

[madhazelnut]

They have filed the sponsorship paperwork in parallel, as far as I know. The question is whether she is now allowed to stay in Canada past that March date or not..

Either way - thanks for taking the time to answer this!

 

[canuck78]

If she has filed the sponsorship already she has implied status. If it gets sent back because they filled out something incorrectly then they run into some complications. It is Feb 27th they should've really figured this out by now.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

They have filed the sponsorship paperwork in parallel, as far as I know. The question is whether she is now allowed to stay in Canada past that March date or not..

Either way - thanks for taking the time to answer this!

Did they apply inland with an OWP? When did they apply?

 

[canuck_in_uk]

If she has filed the sponsorship already she has implied status. If it gets sent back because they filled out something incorrectly then they run into some complications. It is Feb 27th they should've really figured this out by now.

Sponsorship apps don't grant status. No mention of an inland app with an OWP, so no way to say Implied Status.