TRV refused for child of permanent residents

[badicioiu]

It is common that TRV applications are denied for young children of PRs since you have compelling reasons to stay in Canada (otherwise your sponsorship application would need to be denied since you don't intend to live in Canada, you wouldn't have become PRs, and wouldn't be able to retain status) and it is generally unlikely that the parents will leave their established lives in Canada to keep the baby in status. Therefore, the long term intent is immigration (you've already applied for sponsorship) and dual intent requires proving that you will leave Canada when the TRV status expires.

However, since you have applied for a TRV and have a rejection letter, you may now apply for a Temporary Resident Permit - TRP. The TRP is for people who are not otherwise admissible to Canada and therefore have had TRPs denied but who have H&C reasons to be admitted.

You can read some information on TRPs here on CIC's website . You'll need to check with your local VO for specific instructions on how to apply for this based on your nationality and residency and will need to explain the compelling reasons that exist for the child to be admitted as part of your application.

Well, this is not an official information. There is nowhere in official documentation that TRP is for babies born to PRs out of the country.
Here is the official info in OP 20:
Persons eligible for a temporary resident permit
Any person who is:
• inadmissible and seeking to enter Canada if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the
circumstances [A24(1)];
• in Canada and is inadmissible, subject to a report or reportable for violation of the Act, or
does not otherwise meet the requirements of the Act;
• not eligible for renewal of status.

There is nowhere in the rejection letter that the baby was found inadmissible. The only thing is that particular officer didn't believe something and I have to make him believe.
The baby was found ineligibile for TRV because that officer did not believe something. This is different than inadmissible.
Inadmissibility should be an objective thing, believing something totaly subjective. There is no application for TRP at my visa office. A person has to apply for TRV and explain why is inadmissible and why is it so compelling to be in Canada.
What I should say? My baby is inadmissible because of his family status? My baby is inadmissible because she has two PR parents?
What is compelling for them ? Difference between life an death? Not this situation here.

Let's put this another way. I will prove to VO that I have no ties in Canada other than my job and I'm here not to settle , but only to work, as long as I want, even if I have PR status. And in fact all my ties are back home. Because this is the situation now. I only have a job here. Let's say I'll prove I'm not interested to stay here, to buy things, to make loans etc and I'm regularly sending money out of the country. And withdraw the PR application for the baby. Would they believe that the baby has family ties back home and issue TRV?
This is getting more and more absurd.

 

[OhCanadiana]

Let me confirm my understanding of the situation based on my understanding of the information you have provided thus far:
1. You and your wife are Canadian PRs
2. You want to travel and enter Canada with your child
3. Your child was denied a TRV
4. Other than family sponsorship, which will take time, there is no other category for your child to apply to enter Canada (s/he is not eligible for a work permit or a study permit, etc.).
5. I am assuming your child's nationality is not visa-exempt because otherwise you would not have needed to apply for a TRV.

If any of these is not correct in your situation, please advise.

If the above is correct, then your child is currently inadmissible to Canada.* You can show this with the TRV denial. And, therefore you have opened another option for your family.

The Canadian government and CIC understand that there are times when none of the established paths consider the full situation. Therefore, they established Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) so that a person can be granted temporary residence in Canada if circumstances justify that they do so. As you quoted, "Any person who is: inadmissible and seeking to enter Canada if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances" can get a TRP.

Therefore, instead of re-applying for a TRV under the logic of a regular TRV, I would encourage you to consider applying for a TRP openly and use your time to very clearly present a compelling case to justify why the Officer should issue your child a TRP (it's not automatic).

~~~
* Since your child's nationality requires a visa and you don't have one you won't even be able to board a commercial carrier to get to Canada, let alone enter Canada.

Well, this is not an official information. There is nowhere in official documentation that TRP is for babies born to PRs out of the country.
Here is the official info in OP 20:
Persons eligible for a temporary resident permit
Any person who is:
• inadmissible and seeking to enter Canada if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the
circumstances [A24(1)];
• in Canada and is inadmissible, subject to a report or reportable for violation of the Act, or
does not otherwise meet the requirements of the Act;
• not eligible for renewal of status.

There is nowhere in the rejection letter that the baby was found inadmissible. The only thing is that particular officer didn't believe something and I have to make him believe.
The baby was found ineligibile for TRV because that officer did not believe something. This is different than inadmissible.
Inadmissibility should be an objective thing, believing something totaly subjective. There is no application for TRP at my visa office. A person has to apply for TRV and explain why is inadmissible and why is it so compelling to be in Canada.
What I should say? My baby is inadmissible because of his family status? My baby is inadmissible because she has two PR parents?
What is compelling for them ? Difference between life an death? Not this situation here.

Let's put this another way. I will prove to VO that I have no ties in Canada other than my job and I'm here not to settle , but only to work, as long as I want, even if I have PR status. And in fact all my ties are back home. Because this is the situation now. I only have a job here. Let's say I'll prove I'm not interested to stay here, to buy things, to make loans etc and I'm regularly sending money out of the country. And withdraw the PR application for the baby. Would they believe that the baby has family ties back home and issue TRV?
This is getting more and more absurd.

 

[SenoritaBella]

Temporary Resident Permits(TRPs) are issued to persons who are inadmissible to Canada for medical or security reasons BUT who have compelling reasons to remain in Canada or travel to Canada.

The baby does not have compelling reasons to travel to Canada - a) she is with her mother who is a PR, b) the father is a PR and can visit mom and baby wherever they are. Also, the baby's inadmissibility can be overcomed IF the parents can satisfy the officer that the child would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. It is not likely that a TRP will be granted.

To the OP:

When you apply for a TRV, focus more on satisfying the officer that you(or the baby) will leave Canada at the end of your authorized stay and not so much on your sponsorship application. Because you did not show that the child has stronger ties to her home country, it appeared to the officer that a TRV was simply a means to get your baby to Canada and it is less likely she would leave. I think the following work against you:
1. your wife is on maternal leave and does not have to return to work until December 2013
2. the baby has stronger ties to Canada than her home country - both parents are PRs and father is in Canada
3. sponsorship application progress
4. the baby is with her mother and can wait until her PR card arrives
5. you can visit them

Truth be told, what are the odds that anyone in this situation would ask their wife and baby to go back home if they already made it to Canada, the wife is a PR and there is a sponsorship application for the baby? Most people in this situation will apply for extension of TRV, get a lawyer, etc. Those visa officers have seen and heard it all.

If you apply again, focus more on proofing that your baby has stronger ties to her home country.

Let me confirm my understanding of the situation based on my understanding of the information you have provided thus far:
1. You and your wife are Canadian PRs
2. You want to travel and enter Canada with your child
3. Your child was denied a TRV
4. Other than family sponsorship, which will take time, there is no other category for your child to apply to enter Canada (s/he is not eligible for a work permit or a study permit, etc.).
5. I am assuming your child's nationality is not visa-exempt because otherwise you would not have needed to apply for a TRV.

If any of these is not correct in your situation, please advise.

If the above is correct, then your child is currently inadmissible to Canada.* You can show this with the TRV denial. And, therefore you have opened another option for your family.

The Canadian government and CIC understand that there are times when none of the established paths consider the full situation. Therefore, they established Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) so that a person can be granted temporary residence in Canada if circumstances justify that they do so. As you quoted, "Any person who is: inadmissible and seeking to enter Canada if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances" can get a TRP.

Therefore, instead of re-applying for a TRV under the logic of a regular TRV, I would encourage you to consider applying for a TRP openly and use your time to very clearly present a compelling case to justify why the Officer should issue your child a TRP (it's not automatic).

~~~
* Since your child's nationality requires a visa and you don't have one you won't even be able to board a commercial carrier to get to Canada, let alone enter Canada.

 

[badicioiu]

SenoritaBella,
regarding the points against me :
1 - she has the option to extend maternal leave, with 1 unpaid year, but she has to be in Canada until July 2013 to keep PR status
3 - sponsorship application in progress is not a tie to Canada and they say an application for TRV in this case must be processed the same way
4 - the mother has already a PR card
5 - I cannot visit them whenever I want, I have a job here

In fact, the baby, in this moment, has many ties to home country because her parents have many ties to home country:
- citizenship in home country - if they look at PR as a tie to Canada, why not look at citizenship as a tie to home country ? Which is more strong then?
- an apartment on mortgage and car loan
- my wife has a well paid job, according to the home country standards
- all grandparents in home country, they have their own properties

The only real tie to Canada is the fact that I work here, that's all.

As long as it's not illegal to apply for extension, what is the problem? Their problem is not this, their problem is breaking the immigration law. There might be people who do break the laws, but I can prove I'm not that kind.

 

[OhCanadiana]

Temporary Resident Permits(TRPs) are issued to persons who are inadmissible to Canada for medical or security reasons BUT who have compelling reasons to remain in Canada or travel to Canada

Can you cite your source for this? AFAIK, there are neither Bulletins nor other amendments limiting applicability of TRPs to ‘medical or security inadmissibility’ as you suggest. And, neither the CIC site on TRPs quoted above nor the CIC manuals quoted above discuss this limitation you allude to.


badicioiu (OPs) – you need to pursue the path you believe makes the most sense for your family. FWIW, other PRs have successfully traveled to Canada with their foreign-born children on TRPs (since TRVs are commonly denied) and have reported their experience in this forum (and others). For example:

http://www.settlement.org/discuss/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=229&whichpage=1 has the most detailed explanation of the process

The following two threads are written by PRs who successfully traveled back to Canada with their foreign-born baby on TRPs and were then looking to sponsoring them as family members; you can search for others:

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/baby-in-canada-on-trp-now-what-is-the-next-step-to-get-pr-t43671.0.html

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/-t55266.0.html

Good luck with whatever path you decide to pursue

The only advice I will give you is make sure you have clarity on the rules before spending time and money on your next step, especially since adding confusion will only make your case progressively harder. Be very clear to yourself and CIC why you are eligible for the path you decide to pursue and explain it to them very clearly since your situation is not common and requires the deciding officer to understand the details involved.

 

[SenoritaBella]

Every case is unique, some may have received TRPs but it doesn't mean everyone who applies gets it. The OP is welcome to apply though, nothing to lose really. See links below:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/permits.asp
Temporary resident permits
"If you are otherwise inadmissible but have a reason to travel to Canada that is justified in the circumstances, you may be issued a temporary resident permit.

To be eligible for a temporary resident permit, your need to enter or stay in Canada must outweigh the health or safety risks to Canadian society, as determined by an immigration or a border services officer. Even if the reason you are inadmissible seems minor, you must demonstrate that your visit is justified.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip01-eng.pdf (from 2007)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op20-eng.pdf (from 2005)

 

[OhCanadiana]

Every case is unique, some may have received TRPs but it doesn't mean everyone who applies gets it.

That's true for all visas.

For TRPs you must help the officer understand the justification so they can document it in the system - a TRP is essentially the exception clause when someone is not eligible for a TRV. That's why I've suggested a couple times to the OP that he would need to verbalize the compelling reason very clearly should he decide to pursue a TRP.

The OP is welcome to apply though, nothing to lose really. See links below:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/permits.asp
Temporary resident permits
"If you are otherwise inadmissible but have a reason to travel to Canada that is justified in the circumstances, you may be issued a temporary resident permit.

Yes, that is the link I referred the OP to yesterday on CIC's website.

Since PRs have a right to enter Canada and not providing the TRP to the child inhibits the parents from exercising their right (or requires separating a small child from his/her parents which runs against the family unification goal of CIC and has other H&C considerations) and since there are other reasons (e.g., at least one PR parent need to be in Canada to sponsor the child) the OP can build a case should he chose to do so. He just needs to decide what path he wants to pursue and explain it clearly in his application.

To be eligible for a temporary resident permit, your need to enter or stay in Canada must outweigh the health or safety risks to Canadian society, as determined by an immigration or a border services officer. Even if the reason you are inadmissible seems minor, you must demonstrate that your visit is justified.

Assuming the child is healthy, this is easy to do - there are no health or safety risks by having the child in Canada. If not, if the child has insurance and no transmissible disease, there is also no health consideration.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip01-eng.pdf (from 2007)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op20-eng.pdf (from 2005)

Both of these go into additional details (IP-01 is relevant only to show that they are not excluded from receiving a TRP ... all the sections on TRPs for human trafficking cases aren't really relevant - I hope! OP-20 is more relevant as it provides additional details on the processing, along the same lines as discussed above, and is the regulation the OP quoted himself yesterday).

TRPs are tricky since they aren't very common and have no set application format since they are intrinsically subjective but they do provide a possible solution to the OP should he choose to proceed and request one.

 

[SenoritaBella]

1. If the baby can't get a TRV or TRP, your wife has to decide whether to leave the baby with her grandparents/extended family and return to Canada to keep her PR status or stay and lose her PR and you can sponsor her as well.

Order the baby's GCMS/caips notes to get a better idea of the VO's reasons.

As much as we like to blame visa officers, the truth is we have to take responsibility for our own decisions. Had you or your wife spent at least 1095 days in the last 4 years in Canada, you would be Canada citizens now and your baby will not need a TRV or TRP. Had your wife spent 730 days in the last 5 years in Canada, she won't be in a time crunch to retain her PR status. Goodluck in your endeavours.

SenoritaBella,
regarding the points against me :
1 - she has the option to extend maternal leave, with 1 unpaid year, but she has to be in Canada until July 2013 to keep PR status
3 - sponsorship application in progress is not a tie to Canada and they say an application for TRV in this case must be processed the same way
4 - the mother has already a PR card
5 - I cannot visit them whenever I want, I have a job here

In fact, the baby, in this moment, has many ties to home country because her parents have many ties to home country:
- citizenship in home country - if they look at PR as a tie to Canada, why not look at citizenship as a tie to home country ? Which is more strong then?
- an apartment on mortgage and car loan
- my wife has a well paid job, according to the home country standards
- all grandparents in home country, they have their own properties

The only real tie to Canada is the fact that I work here, that's all.

As long as it's not illegal to apply for extension, what is the problem? Their problem is not this, their problem is breaking the immigration law. There might be people who do break the laws, but I can prove I'm not that kind.

 

[AnaMaria]

Good luck whatever path you will take. If I may, allow me to give you some suggestion: calm down a little bit, take a deep breath, think it through with clear mind.

I can see that you are devastated and sad and mad. And I agree the decision seems very harsh. But claiming it as "illegal" sounds very strong accusation. Do not let your emotion control your situation.

 

[badicioiu]

Everybody thank for your comments.
I'm not very much convinced right now to go to the TRP path. For me it seems the least probable to obtain, because I have no idea what would they consider compelling. What is the thing which is the most compelling possible? The difference between life and death maybe. It's not the case here, and I won't lie about the situation.
And in case TRP is given, it is as temporary as a TRV, is not more and it can be cancelled at any time.
On the other hand, visiting seems more logical to ask. I can make a case out of this without trying to impress a VO that the situation is desperate.
What is for sure TRV in this case is not forbidden by the immigration laws. A lot of persons visit their relatives in Canada and forbidding explicitly or implicitly children to visit parents you know how it's called.
I agree I did not make a good case the first time.
What I can prove is a certain situation, logical reasons, clear argumentation and credibility from the immigration point of view. How they will look at these , I don't know.
But bear with me that the refusal reasons are questionable according to CIC resources and regulations. It's not rocket science to observe that.
It's true that we have responsibility for our own decisions. I made this decision that brought me to this forum without knowing what I will get into.
It's true that in the eyes of an immigration service anybody is an illegal immigrant until they are satisfied you're not. But some people are never satisfied.

 

[hbushra]

Hello Senorita Bella and all the others.
I am in a desperate need of some kind of advice.

My husband is in Canada and i am in Pakistan. I applied for the TRV twice (one in sep 2011 and other one in March 2012) and got refusals both times based on the grounds that i couldn't satisfy the VO of my return although i have an excellent job (sr.Mgmt) in Pakistan . My husband has been in Canada since 2008, and he went there on a student visa. He came back only once to get married with me which was in 2011 Nov. He went back to Canada in Jan 2012 with an intent to complete his studies but he couldn't (due to his youngest brother's death in Pakistan). Later, in Oct 2012 he filed a refugee claimant application and ever since then he is waiting for his hearing date to arrive. CIC took his passport so he cannot travel anymore. Now, how can i meet him? i already applied for TRV with 0 success. now what are the chances of getting approved if i applied again? with an intent to overcome VO's concerns. should i go for TRP instead? since my husband can't travel back here anymore and i really want to save my marriage. It will take 4-5 years for the process to get completed.

please help/advise asap.

 

[hbushra]

also i have applied for FSW 2013 recently from pakistan. but not sure if i will fall under the cap or not.

 

[scylla]

Now, how can i meet him? i already applied for TRV with 0 success. now what are the chances of getting approved if i applied again? with an intent to overcome VO's concerns. should i go for TRP instead? since my husband can't travel back here anymore and i really want to save my marriage. It will take 4-5 years for the process to get completed.

please help/advise asap.

Given that your husband has filed a refugee claim and you have applied for FSW, I think there is zero chance you will be approved for a TRV. To be approved for a TRV, you must prove that you have strong ties to your home country and have no plans to remain in Canada long term. It's going to be impossible for you to prove this given the FSW application and your husband's refugee claim.

 

[hbushra]

but its my application and i paid for it then how come they would judge me on my husband's status.

 

[scylla]

but its my application and i paid for it then how come they would judge me on my husband's status.

CIC will naturally consider your husband's status when making a decision on your TRV application because you are married. If he has claimed refugee status in Canada and wants to stay long term - then you, as his spouse, likely want to stay long term as well. This is an easy and obvious conclusion to arrive at.