Moving to Canada in a month - applying outland vs. inland?

[duelcitizen]

Hello all,

I am a Canadian citizen living with my common-law partner in the US. I've accepted a full-time job offer in British Columbia to start mid-June. We are planning to apply for sponsorship under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class, but I'm a bit lost on when exactly to apply - before or after entering Canada? It seems like it will be more straightforward if we apply once we've landed in Canada, especially because our address is about to change, but I don't want my spouse turned away at the border next month either. Seems risky to have him enter on a visitor visa instead of the temporary resident visa. He's a US citizen & has only lived in the US if that makes a difference. Help?

Thank you,
Kate

 

[armoured]

As a US citizen, your spouse can visit but not 'move'. He should not show up with all worldly belongings. This can be handled differently at the border - most of the time they'd let someone enter unless clearly entering for a different purpose, but might get a talking to. (You can have your household stuff shipped, customs is not going to go through and question why you have men's underwear in there).

Once here though - you can apply to sponsor inland and spouse can basically remain in Canada until it's done. You can only apply 'in Canada class' when ... in Canada.

If you don't want even the risk of him being turned away at the border: have him travel eg fly separately, with luggage etc appropriate for a visit, and just say he's up for a visit. If asked directly, sure, visiting spouse. If asked directly - yes, he might apply for that later. (It's okay to be undecided). He should just answer questions, not volunteer info.

Note on this: if your spouse will need to travel back and forth a lot, or won't remain (mostly) in Canada, then should apply outland (the other class, whatever that's called).

 

[Ponga]

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...esidents/visitors/dual-intent-applicants.html

 

[duelcitizen]

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...esidents/visitors/dual-intent-applicants.html

Thank you for this!! We are looking into whether he can declare dual intent at crossing & then file once landed. In the meantime, starting on getting our required documents from the US in order.

 

[armoured]

Thank you for this!! We are looking into whether he can declare dual intent at crossing & then file once landed. In the meantime, starting on getting our required documents from the US in order.

No, no no no.

Don't 'declare' dual intent. I think that sounds lawyer-y - say that, and you are telling them that you've done research. About staying.

Just say coming to visit. If it should come up that spouse is in Canada, visiting. Will you file to sponsor/be sponsored? Maybe, we're not quite there yet. Probably. Eventually. Might we change our mind? Maybe. But regardless, would only ever stay as long as allowed to. It's a visit.

My opinion only. Yes, 'dual intent' is a thing. But it doesn't work the way some think i.e. "hey I'm here, dual intent, now you let me in, right?" (Did I pronounce it wrong?) "Dualio intentio?" in one's best Hermione imitation.

No. It's not a magic incantation. It's a policy that outlines more carefully to officers how they justify their refusal. (Which is: they can't say they're refusing because you intend to apply for PR. They have to say they don't believe you won't overstay. And if anything, saying dual intent indicates you thought about it- like knowing too much about the rules of evidence and what legal test makes you an accomplice to the bank robbery that took place while you were idling your engine just outside.)

Keep it simple. It's a visit. You're allowed to change your mind later.

 

[duelcitizen]

No, no no no.

Don't 'declare' dual intent. I think that sounds lawyer-y - say that, and you are telling them that you've done research. About staying.

Just say coming to visit. If it should come up that spouse is in Canada, visiting. Will you file to sponsor/be sponsored? Maybe, we're not quite there yet. Probably. Eventually. Might we change our mind? Maybe. But regardless, would only ever stay as long as allowed to. It's a visit.

My opinion only. Yes, 'dual intent' is a thing. But it doesn't work the way some think i.e. "hey I'm here, dual intent, now you let me in, right?" (Did I pronounce it wrong?) "Dualio intentio?" in one's best Hermione imitation.

No. It's not a magic incantation. It's a policy that outlines more carefully to officers how they justify their refusal. (Which is: they can't say they're refusing because you intend to apply for PR. They have to say they don't believe you won't overstay. And if anything, saying dual intent indicates you thought about it- like knowing too much about the rules of evidence and what legal test makes you an accomplice to the bank robbery that took place while you were idling your engine just outside.)

Keep it simple. It's a visit. You're allowed to change your mind later.

Appreciate the words of caution. Because we are filing as common-law and don't have the marriage certificate, not moving together could throw a wrench into our application. We do plan to get married, so I suppose we could sooner than planned and then just have our actual ceremony with friends & family later. More to look into. Friends of ours did file as common-law before moving and successfully crossed together with their car full of belongings about 5 years ago -- wife was issued a visitor visa, even though they asked for a temporary resident visa, and had to return for the correct visa a couple of months later. One would wish for a more standardized method, but knowing that entry is subject to agents' discretion... never know what you're going to get.

 

[armoured]

Appreciate the words of caution. Because we are filing as common-law and don't have the marriage certificate, not moving together could throw a wrench into our application. We do plan to get married, so I suppose we could sooner than planned and then just have our actual ceremony with friends & family later. More to look into. Friends of ours did file as common-law before moving and successfully crossed together with their car full of belongings about 5 years ago -- wife was issued a visitor visa, even though they asked for a temporary resident visa, and had to return for the correct visa a couple of months later. One would wish for a more standardized method, but knowing that entry is subject to agents' discretion... never know what you're going to get.

You run the risk regardless - unless you get married, which I'd suggest because well it's obvious why - of one being denied entry, which would in effect end the joint habitation and hopes of doing inland (until married). Difference above is that your friends filed as common law before moving.

Just travel separately if you're worried. One person travelling with a couple pieces of luggage to visit is a no-brainer. Since it's rather a key part of your plan going forward, to me that would be worth the candle. (of both marriage and travelling separately)

 

[Ponga]

No, no no no.

Don't 'declare' dual intent. I think that sounds lawyer-y - say that, and you are telling them that you've done research. About staying.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...esidents/visitors/dual-intent-applicants.html
Having 2 intents (initially for temporary residence and eventually for permanent residence) is legitimate.

I do agree that the OP should not volunteer information regarding Duel Intent. However, IMHO, there's nothing wrong with a FN having accurate information on how things work in case they are questioned and should not be concerned about that information being "lawyer-y".

 

[armoured]

I do agree that the OP should not volunteer information regarding Duel Intent. However, IMHO, there's nothing wrong with a FN having accurate information on how things work in case they are questioned and should not be concerned about that information being "lawyer-y".

My point was regarding stating the phrase dual intent. Dual intent is legitimate, yes - but like pleading the 5th (in American parlance), the person you are speaking with may draw inferences that will not help you. In other words: don't use the phrase 'dual intent.'