Wife's Work Permit Expiring July 2nd. Spousal app submitted April... what to do?

[EricandLinda]

My wife's open work permit expires July 2nd, 2014. We have submitted our spousal application (Outland) back in mid April. Since her work permit is expiring, would she need to change her status to visitor? She's from a country that does not need a VISA to visit Canada. Could she just stay here for 6 months after July 2nd, then go to the US border, then re-enter? Is she a visitor under implied status since our spousal application is being processed... although sponsor approval hasn't been granted yet.

Thanks

 

[Rob_TO]

There is no implied status with outland app.
She needs to apply to convert her current permit into a visitor one. Or she needs to leave/re-enter Canada as a visitor.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Use this app http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/visitor.asp. She should ask for a year; show proof of the PR app and proof of sufficient funds.

 

[EricandLinda]

There is no implied status with outland app.
She needs to apply to convert her current permit into a visitor one. Or she needs to leave/re-enter Canada as a visitor.

So on the day her permit expires, we can just drive to the US and then re-enter?

 

[scylla]

So on the day her permit expires, we can just drive to the US and then re-enter?

You can try - but there's never a guarantee she will be allowed to re-enter and for how long. I think your chances of smoothly obtaining an extension for her stay are higher if you file for an extension from within Canada (rather than driving to the US and returning).

 

[canuck_in_uk]

You can try - but there's never a guarantee she will be allowed to re-enter and for how long. I think your chances of smoothly obtaining an extension for her stay are higher if you file for an extension from within Canada (rather than driving to the US and returning).

Agreed. Going to the border is a bit more risky than applying online, as she will actually be speaking to a border officer and will be subject to that officer's personal opinion. Applying online is a bit less subjective, as the officer only has the facts of the app and not an actual person standing in front of them to question and analyze.

 

[Ponga]

Agreed. Going to the border is a bit more risky than applying online, as she will actually be speaking to a border officer and will be subject to that officer's personal opinion. Applying online is a bit less subjective, as the officer only has the facts of the app and not an actual person standing in front of them to question and analyze.

While this makes perfect sense...it stinks that this is the reality.

Being denied entry because a CBSA officer is having a bad day, or hates your new haircut, should NOT be a good enough reason to deny a person!!

Just sayin'

*edited to clarify*

What I should have added was..." If there is an otherwise valid reason to deny the person and the BO chooses not to give them a break". I was not suggesting that the mood of the BO, or coiffure of the person seeking entry, was the only factor in assessment of their inadmissibility.

 

[scylla]

While this makes perfect sense...it stinks that this is the reality.

Being denied entry because a CBSA officer is having a bad day, or hates your new haircut, should NOT be a good enough reason to deny a person!!

Just sayin'

You shouldn't assume people run into issues just because an officer is having a bad day or doesn't like what you're wearing. The reality is that visitors are supposed to do just that - visit Canada - not live here. So it's not surprising this rule is sometimes enforced and people sometimes run into issues when they have been effectively living in Canada before they are officially allowed. Yes - sometimes the officers are certainly mean and unduly harsh. But others are really just doing their jobs and following the rules (it's not their fault that the rules they have to follow can sometimes make lives miserable for others).

And yes - I know how difficult this is for people who are going through the process. My own husband effectively lived in Canada for three years as a visitor before becoming a PR. He spent way more time in Canada than he probably should have and we were both well aware that each border crossing carried risk. His border crossings caused me more than one sleepless night.

Making a blanket statement that the reason why people are denied entry is because the officer is having a bad day or doesn't like what you're wearing is unfair.

 

[screech339]

Making a statement that you got denied entry because you were wearing the wrong clothes or you looked at him in the wrong way is an unfair statement. However mood of the border agent can affect how one's opinion of you coming into Canada can make a difference. While it may be that the agent didn't like your clothing, he/she will use other legal means to deny you to come in. And the more you protest or question them why you were denied entry, the more they will make your time at the border all the more miserable and easier excuse to justify your denial.

 

[Ponga]

Well I suspect that the -1 that I just received is from one of the last two that posted before me. While they are both respected veteran members here, I will not reciprocate the gesture.

I am not the first, nor will I be the last to comment on the FACT that a CBSA officer can deny a person entry based upon their mood (if they have an otherwise reason for denying the person entry and need something to sway their decision). Both of you have heard those stories, so please don't pass judgement. I'm simply voicing my opinion, which is what happens in a public forum.

Besides...why was the OP advised to apply via snail mail; To avoid the face-to-face interaction!!

Whatever.

 

[Ponga]

Making a blanket statement that the reason why people are denied entry is because the officer is having a bad day or doesn't like what you're wearing is unfair.

How on earth was my comment a blanket statement? Did you not see that I said "...Being denied entry because a CBSA officer is having a bad day, or hates your new haircut, should NOT be a good enough reason to deny a person."

I did NOT say every person, so this in fact is NOT a blanket statement.