Search results

  1. k.h.p.

    Previous Relationship

    this exactly
  2. k.h.p.

    Canadian border closure

    They're letting immediate family members enter, provided that they quarantine. Given that tests are still 30%-40% wrong in their initial take, I doubt they'd be doing instant tests at the border.
  3. k.h.p.

    Spousal sponsorship

    By sending in an application. You will need to wait a few months.
  4. k.h.p.

    Update my spouse passport for permanent residence application

    You're not the main applicant unless you're the non-Canadian being sponsored. Have her fill out the form and put her information in both places, as unless you filled out a representative form, you cannot represent her.
  5. k.h.p.

    Exact length of quarantine

    More from the time you arrived at your final destination, without stopping, but yes.
  6. k.h.p.

    Previous Relationship

    Because you're asked, and it's misrepresentation if you don't answer it truthfully.
  7. k.h.p.

    Exact length of quarantine

    For ease of thinking the quarantine is 336 hours.
  8. k.h.p.

    Asking for a friend: Any chance her refuge request will be accepted?

    She needs to talk to a lawyer. The thoughts of people here aren't worth much in the context of half a reported conversation, sadly. Refugee and asylum cases depend heavily on the threats faced by someone in their home country. If "life becoming very hard" amounts to a threat to her life or...
  9. k.h.p.

    Canadian Citizenship by Descent

    I'm thrilled to hear this! Welcome to your (confirmed) family.
  10. k.h.p.

    GCMS NOTES WELL EXPLAINED HAS NEVER BEFORE UNTIL NOW

    The "ORG" tag has been used for grouping of applications before (there has been some "ORG: DELAYED BY COVID" or similar that I have seen) so it's possible it's an internal grouping of applications for some reason. Likely doesn't mean anything at all. I note this in context that the notes...
  11. k.h.p.

    GCMS NOTES WELL EXPLAINED HAS NEVER BEFORE UNTIL NOW

    "Passed - Bio" typically means that the criminality check was completed and verified using biometrics. It may update in the future, as you note, if the applicant is from the UK and an additional criminality check is pending (though is there no listing at all for the UK? It should say 'Not...
  12. k.h.p.

    GCMS NOTES WELL EXPLAINED HAS NEVER BEFORE UNTIL NOW

    These parts of the notes, and those sentences, are exempt from the Access to Information Act for various reasons and will not be released. s.16(1)(c) is an exemption that allows information relating to criminal investigations (or in your case, criminal background checks) to not be released.
  13. k.h.p.

    Securing a TRV for fiance

    sigh
  14. k.h.p.

    GCMS NOTES WELL EXPLAINED HAS NEVER BEFORE UNTIL NOW

    It's a reference to where in the physical archives your paper file application is stored. It's like an address. It doesn't matter at all, in the slightest, since it's a reference to a box, on a shelf, in a warehouse.
  15. k.h.p.

    Securing a TRV for fiance

    It's not a 100% guarantee that the visa will be granted, but it's far better than the 0% chance that an aurora-viewing visa will be granted before November. It's up to IRCC to determine if someone who had PR spousal sponsorships refused would be granted a visitor's visa, if that's the thrust of...
  16. k.h.p.

    Securing a TRV for fiance

    I said, multiple times that you are refusing to read, "apply once you are married" because she should not be applying *now* to see aurora during COVID, as that visa application will just be ignored. The choice is this: - Apply before marriage (in 2 months) to see aurora, which would mean...
  17. k.h.p.

    Securing a TRV for fiance

    I'm sure you've been paying attention to recent developments where tons of people who would not normally be able to get visas for spouses are actually getting them. Applying that way is considerably more likely to have a positive result than applying for a visa to see aurora during COVID.
  18. k.h.p.

    GCMS NOTES WELL EXPLAINED HAS NEVER BEFORE UNTIL NOW

    It could also be something completely innocent: IRCC may be using junior analysts to conduct initial reviews and the "review required" flag could be because someone not authorized to exercise discretion in finalizing eligibility review needs a visa officer to finalize it.