Trying to apply for TRV with dual intent on H&C Ground.

[Bornlucky]

Okay, so i contacted my lawyer and he said that he was actually going to make me apply for a TRV and attach document about my family situation in order to get Humanitarian consideration.
Then if it gets approved, once in Canada, my spouse can sponsor me and it shall take more than 12 months. But i still don't get how my spouse will be able to sponsor me if she doesn't meet RO.
He also said that i will be able to work after approximately 5 months after PR application.

So basically, am applying for TRV ( But explaining why i should be considered as "valid" on humanitarian basis and then once in canada my spouse sponsor me)

Does it make any sense?

Hi - you have a complicated immigration matter, and an immigration lawyer and that's a good idea. It may be that your counsel is applying for a Temporary Resident PERMIT. There is no such application form and so the request accompanies a TRV application (it seems).

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...28.257415487.1535081587-1583276896.1492655494

Requesting this sort of thing will take a competent counsel and you're looking at the advice that you get and testing it - very wise, and wiser still if you again test all information that you receive regarding the voodoo that are H&C considerations and who has what authority inland, outland and at the Immigration Appeals Division, for example.

It sounds like it ought to be all the same, but it is applied differently for various reasons and through differing means. Theoretically, your case has the potential to be run through each of these compassionate ringers but it isn't likely.

Good luck

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Hi - you have a complicated immigration matter, and an immigration lawyer and that's a good idea. It may be that your counsel is applying for a Temporary Resident PERMIT. There is no such application form and so the request accompanies a TRV application (it seems).

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...28.257415487.1535081587-1583276896.1492655494

Requesting this sort of thing will take a competent counsel and you're looking at the advice that you get and testing it - very wise, and wiser still if you again test all information that you receive regarding the voodoo that are H&C considerations and who has what authority inland, outland and at the Immigration Appeals Division, for example.

It sounds like it ought to be all the same, but it is applied differently for various reasons and through differing means. Theoretically, your case has the potential to be run through each of these compassionate ringers but it isn't likely.

Good luck

OP is not inadmissible, so a TRP is not relevant to the situation.

 

[Samsmithcanada]

Don’t let the lawyer apply with a letter explaining your situation, particularly if it mentions her RO. That will open a whole big can of worms with IRCC. I hope the lawyer you used specializes in real estate, cause they don’t seem to have a very good grasp on immigration.
Applying for a TRV and including information about how you spouse will sponsor you while you remain in Canada is a guaranteed refusal. It’s called a Temporary Resident VISA for a reason.....you are here Temporarily. Your chances would be better (not much better mind you) if you applied with no explanation, other than you plan on a holiday to visit the inlaws.
There is a chance, if you were approved, to extend your stay on a TRV, but the risk is IRCC would refuse an extension and send you home. Keep in mind that you would have no access to health care in Canada for your children or yourself until you obtained a PR 3 years down the road, assuming you could get a TRV and your wife got in unreported. it would be an uphill battle.

Considering all of you guys answers, it clearly looks like my lawyer doesn't know what he is doing.
Let's say i apply for TRV without explanation and get approved. What will be my reason to extend my stay in Canada. And how would i extend it during 3 years until my spouse get to sponsor me?

 

[Samsmithcanada]

Hi - you have a complicated immigration matter, and an immigration lawyer and that's a good idea. It may be that your counsel is applying for a Temporary Resident PERMIT. There is no such application form and so the request accompanies a TRV application (it seems).

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...28.257415487.1535081587-1583276896.1492655494

Requesting this sort of thing will take a competent counsel and you're looking at the advice that you get and testing it - very wise, and wiser still if you again test all information that you receive regarding the voodoo that are H&C considerations and who has what authority inland, outland and at the Immigration Appeals Division, for example.

It sounds like it ought to be all the same, but it is applied differently for various reasons and through differing means. Theoretically, your case has the potential to be run through each of these compassionate ringers but it isn't likely.

Good luck

Hi, am so lost. Should i apply for TRV with explanation or not.

 

[canuck78]

Considering all of you guys answers, it clearly looks like my lawyer doesn't know what he is doing.
Let's say i apply for TRV without explanation and get approved. What will be my reason to extend my stay in Canada. And how would i extend it during 3 years until my spouse get to sponsor me?

You need to declare your family members in the TRV applications and TRVs aren't approved without a valid reason for travel.

 

[Buletruck]

I’d worry about extending your visa after you get a TRV, if you get one. You’ve got several major hurdlles to overcome before you need to worry about that, like actually getting a TRV and your wife getting through immigration without being reported. You could, if you appealed, find your self waiting 2 years just to find out they refuse your appeal and have to leave.

 

[Bornlucky]

OP is not inadmissible, so a TRP is not relevant to the situation.

No disrespect, however a permit may be issued to someone who "does not meet the requirements of the Act..." and this is distinct from being inadmissible. For example, it is possible to have a Convention refugee abroad issued a permit prior to being fully examined for permanent residence where the circumstances require this sort of relief. Dire circumstances in this example and one that illustrates how difficult it could be to receive one to overcome allowing an existing PR status to lapse - not at all comparable, really in weight or scope, but that's another matter.

Temporary resident permit

• 24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

What is this lawyer doing? I don't know because this means for receiving immigration advise gets a lot of traffic, opinions and some mistaken assumptions and right or wrong, it cannot replace having good counsel. These comments can most certainly help the person when speaking with their representative - test your counsel with the new questions you have.

Good luck

 

[canuck_in_uk]

No disrespect, however a permit may be issued to someone who "does not meet the requirements of the Act..." and this is distinct from being inadmissible. For example, it is possible to have a Convention refugee abroad issued a permit prior to being fully examined for permanent residence where the circumstances require this sort of relief. Dire circumstances in this example and one that illustrates how difficult it could be to receive one to overcome allowing an existing PR status to lapse - not at all comparable, really in weight or scope, but that's another matter.

Temporary resident permit

• 24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

What is this lawyer doing? I don't know because this means for receiving immigration advise gets a lot of traffic, opinions and some mistaken assumptions and right or wrong, it cannot replace having good counsel. These comments can most certainly help the person when speaking with their representative - test your counsel with the new questions you have.

Good luck

I will clarify: OP just doesn't qualify for a TRP.

Every single TRV refusal is based on not meeting the requirements of IRPA, primarily that the officer is not convinced "that the foreign national will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay". OP will be refused a TRV based on that requirement, given as "purpose of visit", because he is a high risk to overstay; he will likely be given "Family ties" and several other reasons as well. He will not be issued a TRP for that.

 

[Bornlucky]

I will clarify: OP just doesn't qualify for a TRP.

Every single TRV refusal is based on not meeting the requirements of IRPA, primarily that the officer is not convinced "that the foreign national will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay". OP will be refused a TRV based on that requirement, given as "purpose of visit", because he is a high risk to overstay; he will likely be given "Family ties" and several other reasons as well. He will not be issued a TRP for that.

Well then we've moved on from the requirement to only be inadmissible in order to receive a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP), so that does offer more clarity. I assume that an individual seeking a TRP will provide reasons to hopefully lead the officer to form an opinion that the TRP issuance would be justified because the TRV won't be issued.

Regarding this particular person, I was curious if this was the approach of the counsel because that is what it appears to be. It is assumed by me that the counsel concedes that a TRV won't be issued and that they are actually looking for a TRP based upon whatever reasoning is provided. There is no TRP application so if you know another means to have one considered it would be good to know.

Maybe this isn't what they are doing, but this is what it looks like. I simply hope that these posts allow them to better understand what their lawyer is saying and doing - and I would reiterate here that their counsel is offering advice that they should value more than my own or any other commentary online.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Well then we've moved on from the requirement to only be inadmissible in order to receive a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP), so that does offer more clarity. I assume that an individual seeking a TRP will provide reasons to hopefully lead the officer to form an opinion that the TRP issuance would be justified because the TRV won't be issued.

Regarding this particular person, I was curious if this was the approach of the counsel because that is what it appears to be. It is assumed by me that the counsel concedes that a TRV won't be issued and that they are actually looking for a TRP based upon whatever reasoning is provided. There is no TRP application so if you know another means to have one considered it would be good to know.

Maybe this isn't what they are doing, but this is what it looks like. I simply hope that these posts allow them to better understand what their lawyer is saying and doing - and I would reiterate here that their counsel is offering advice that they should value more than my own or any other commentary online.

Being inadmissible basically is the requirement for a TRP, with very few exceptions for more extreme situations.

Why do you think the OP should value the lawyer's advice? OP stated that the lawyer said to apply for a "TRV with dual intent on H&C Ground". There are no H&C grounds, so that is pretty bad advice.

 

[Bornlucky]

Being inadmissible basically is the requirement for a TRP, with very few exceptions for more extreme situations.

Why do you think the OP should value the lawyer's advice? OP stated that the lawyer said to apply for a "TRV with dual intent on H&C Ground". There are no H&C grounds, so that is pretty bad advice.

Thanks, I am reasonably familiar with the basics and I didn't bother looking up the Instrument of Designations and Delegations to really drill into the final authority for the issuance of the TRP but someone might wish to in order to see the line of accountability.

I don't know that there are no H&C grounds but it seems that you do. The lawyer is accountable for the advice that they offer and the service that they provide. I assume that the application will have more details than are apparent here - Best Interests of the Child, for only one example.

If you're convinced then they will have a very good challenge for their counsel to respond to as they offer him feedback that is provided here - maybe he'll agree with you. It is possible that he has had earlier successes doing this and they should ask if this is the case? Perhaps you have statistics that say it is hopeless so that they have even more information when they communicate with their counsel.

It is up to this person to decide whether to accept the advice of their counsel, but they need to know what he is talking about and they should present the concerns that this thread has detailed here. It seem to be a reasonable approach to me rather than dismissing it completely.

Have a great day

 

[jddd]

Not my own experience but of someone who was assisted in a legal clinic in Toronto that I am fully aware of because I translated for her. She filed to sponsor her spouse, her spouse was not inadmissible but was also unable to acquire a TRV due to them applying for one under dual intent. (The rejection said that the officer did not believe the spouse would go back to their country and it was right). The lawyer of the legal clinic applied for a TRP on the spouse's behalf citing health problems of the sponsor and their daughter (fully documented by doctors and social workers). The TRP was approved and per their GCMS notes, the officer who approved the TRP believed that it was urgent for the spouse to be with the sponsor and their child as soon as possible, the officer also noted that the sponsor could not reasonably be required to go back to their country as their health problems are being monitored by doctors here. The spouse arrived a week after getting the TRP and got his permanent residency 2 months later.

I guess what I am saying is, you can "attempt" a TRP even if you are not inadmissible, but as you and your family have been living in your country, and not "dependent" on being in Canada, your chances of approval are low to none. Not one of you is in Canada right now so it will be difficult even to prove that the Canadian child's best interest is here. Wishing you luck.

 

[Buletruck]

The trouble is the OP isn’t elligible to sponsor even if she was in Canada as she doesn’t meet RO. She can’t sponsor until she meets RO.

 

[jddd]

The trouble is the OP isn’t elligible to sponsor even if she was in Canada as she doesn’t meet RO. She can’t sponsor until she meets RO.

Agreed, I'm just trying to make sense of what the OP's lawyer may be referring to as to their "plans" because that is their starting point into figuring out how they can navigate sponsorship while being together in Canada. If they get approved for one, RO is the next (very big) problem.

 

[Samsmithcanada]

Hi guys, sorry been off lately.
So to keep you guys updated, we are looking for a second opinion this week from another lawyers.
The firm's name is Olalere Law Office. (Idk maybe you guys have some idea who they are)
We're having a conference call with them soon and i shall keep you guys updated about it.

In the meanwhile I've been digging for other alternative to get my family there.
I've heard about "OlyMel" recruiting people around the globe to work in their factories, which i might give a try.
Application takes about 9 months, with a 2 year contract to work in CA.
So if this is our last option, i shall apply for this, and while waiting for approval, my 2 non-Canadian kids will apply for TRV to travel with my spouse. (shall get it within 4 weeks if okay)
Then wait for me to get the approval from Olymel. As soon as i get it, my spouse takes off with the kids and keeps me updated whether she got reported for not meeting RO.
If she doesn't, perfect! She stays there and wait for me to come months later. And i shall do the necessary there in order to get my PR while working for the meat factory.
If she gets reported in the other hand, i wont go to CA to work, and she'll just enjoy some days there with her family and get back to our country and live on.