+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445
innosense said:
I thought the form was modified to remove the option to select the visa office.
And aren't the words clear enough. Where you have been legally admitted for one year .... Obviously in the future.... Legally admitted for the next one year so u can go to their office if called for an interview.

How can you interpret this in a totally different way ?

That is how it has been interpreted by CIC.

Rhcohen2014 is correct. If cic does anything else then seriously wtf is wrong with them?

I disagree. Whatever is wrong with CIC means nothing. Law is as it has been written and interpreted by CIC.

Raja ji .... U r confusing the op. If are not clear about something better not to push it.

I am not confusing anyone. I am sharing the correct information. You need to get out of your own beliefs and accept the correct meaning of the term "Lawfully Admitted"

We are yet to see anyone being processed in the country where they r illegal. We have to go by the law of large numbers here. If we have not heard of something here , it most likely does not exist.

On the contrary, if you have not heard of something, it does not mean that it is not there. It is lack of knowledge.


Here is what the Law says, Read it for your knowledge:


Extract from the page on CIC Website at the following Link:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op01-eng.pdf


OP1
...

5.17. What is meant by “lawfully admitted”


The intent of R11 is not to expend energy on front-end R11 eligibility screening, but rather to protect program integrity by ensuring that applications are submitted to offices with the appropriate expertise and local knowledge. However, there may be times when R11 eligibility will determine case processing actions (file transfers, for example) and the following information on “lawful admission” should assist in determining R11 eligibility in these cases.

1.
For the purposes of R11, “lawful admission” is broadly defined and may cover many situations, a few of which are described below. However, the circumstances in which an individual has not been lawfully admitted and is therefore ineligible to apply at a visa office are limited to:

i) persons who entered a country without status and still have no status in that country. Under R11, they are not eligible to apply in the country where they currently are living without status.

ii) persons who, at the time of the submission of their application, are not physically in a country served by the visa office through which they are applying. An applicant cannot send an application to a visa office if they are not physically in a country served by that visa office (unless it is their country of nationality).

2.
For the purposes of R11, situations in which an individual is considered to have been “lawfully admitted” will include (but are not limited to):


i) persons who were lawfully admitted, but no longer have legal status when the application is submitted. For example, a person who has entered a country lawfully but at some time subsequent to lawful admission has lost legal immigration status is considered to have been lawfully admitted, whether or not status has been restored at the time of the application to the visa office. Such applicants may or may not qualify for a visa, but their application must be accepted for processing and assessed on its merits;


ii) persons who initially were not lawfully admitted, but have since gained legal status and have legal status at the time an application is submitted;

iii) where an individual enters a country illegally, and then makes a refugee claim, the claim must be finally determined. If positive, the person could be considered "lawfully admitted" on the date the positive decision is made on the claim. Making a refugee claim in itself does not regularize a person's immigration status and does not imply that the person has been "lawfully admitted." In Canada and the United States, during the processing of a refugee/asylum claim, the individual does not have lawful status. Therefore, a person would not be considered to be lawfully admitted until a positive decision has been received on the claim. However, other countries vary in their interpretation of what type of status an individual may have while awaiting a decision on a refugee claim. Therefore, officers should require applicants to provide documentary evidence of their lawful status. In all instances, a positive decision on a claim would certainly provide the individual with lawful status.
It is the opinion of Legal Services that the making of a refugee claim alone does not regularize a person's immigration status for the purpose of making an application for a visa (either permanent or temporary) to Canada.

The granting of the asylum decision is the determinative date of a person's immigration status. The date the decision is rendered on the asylum claim becomes the date the individual is considered to be “lawfully admitted.”
...
 
innosense said:
"You have been legally admitted..." Is present perfect tense... Passive voice.

It is not past perfect Tense eg. "You HAD been admitted ..."

present perfect tense, Passive voice...past perfect Tense, HAD...you can use any number of terms. CIC has clearly explained the meaning of term "Lawfully Admitted". Whether you accept it or not does not change the Law.

Again, for your convenience and knowledge, here is the link to CIC page which explains the Meaning of Lawfully Admitted:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op01-eng.pdf
 
I think people need to stop trying to outsmart each other. At the end of the day unless your willing to admit you work for CIC and you are posting on this forum and you somehow have inside knowledge, then CIC will determine how and where they handle an application. Second guessing in my opinion is not useful for anyone.

The OP's partner may be processed in a similar fashion to a US citizen or may not....lets face it nobody knows. Let all just relax and take a deep breath!
 
brucem said:
I think people need to stop trying to outsmart each other. At the end of the day unless your willing to admit you work for CIC and you are posting on this forum and you somehow have inside knowledge, then CIC will determine how and where they handle an application. Second guessing in my opinion is not useful for anyone.

The OP's partner may be processed in a similar fashion to a US citizen or may not....lets face it nobody knows. Let all just relax and take a deep breath!

I agree that it will be decided by CIC "Where the applicatiion is processed".

Many of the members on this forum try to help those who have questions. Most of us learn from others experience and knowledge.

OP has been made aware of CIC procedures. She will determine what to do and CIC will decide which office will process the application.

Let us keep sharing with others what we know and keep learning from others what we do not know.
 
Laila H said:
Hi , thanks for reply. Do you mean the time when he apply he has to be legal in US? We want they process his application on US

I can understand why you want the application to be processed in the US so that your husbad doesn't have to go back to Tunisia in case of an interview. But, based on your previous posts, it is more than likely that your husband will be called for an interview. If this happens, it would be quicker if the application goes through the Paris office rather than LA. Paris processing time is listed as 9 months whereas LA office is over 2 years. So I guess it depends which is more important to you - your husband not having to return to Tunisia OR getting him to Canada to be with you more quickly.

But as others do say, it is entirely up to CIC as to where your application will be processed.

Good luck!
 
Thanks for every one replies . Well , I was very confused. I read many old posts here. Some people did there process in US . They were not legal on the time of their application. They were legal long time ago. Also , I read posts of the applicant who's application process in their home country.
So , the best thing is that we have to apply and wait where they will send application.
Being honest for me there no logic for the application process in US . Since , he is here illegal more then 8 years . but we cant say any thing. It depend on CIC .
Thanks again for replies.
God bless all of you :-)
 
Laila H said:
Hi
My bf is in US ILLEGAL almost 10 years. It could be problem for him If he will go to get his FBI report?
Since , report will show he has been in US almost 10 years with out status .

Laila

Have you considered having him setup a UPS mailbox, which utilizes a street address to have his FBI report sent to? Another thing to consider, CIC is now accepting channeler reports. I'd do both, if I was him; pay for a UPS box and order a channeler report. Problem solved.
 
saria1 said:
Have you considered having him setup a UPS mailbox, which utilizes a street address to have his FBI report sent to? Another thing to consider, CIC is now accepting channeler reports. I'd do both, if I was him; pay for a UPS box and order a channeler report. Problem solved.

FBI Report through an authorized Channeler can only be ordered by US Citizens or Legal Permanent Residents. All others have to get it directly from FBI.

This information is available on FBI Website. A link to the page is noted below:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks/fbi-approved-channelers

Getting an FBI report will not be an issue due to Illegal Status. I am not sure but an open arrest warrant or serious criminal background may prompt FBI to alert the Police departments.
 
jamali said:
Paris processing time is listed as 9 months whereas LA office is over 2 years.

Good luck!

it does not take 2 years for an application that requires an interview for us citizens. the processing times listed on the cic website do not reflect what real life applicants face. the ottawa spreadsheet tracks the progress, and recent applicants who require interviews have been approved in 12-16 months. there are no reports of recent us applicants taking more than 16 months to process.
 
rhcohen2014 said:
it does not take 2 years for an application that requires an interview for us citizens. the processing times listed on the cic website do not reflect what real life applicants face. the ottawa spreadsheet tracks the progress, and recent applicants who require interviews have been approved in 12-16 months. there are no reports of recent us applicants taking more than 16 months to process.

well that's definitely better. So the processing times listed on the website are for worse case scenarios? I was reading someone's post regarding an interview in LA ... they applied in March 2013 and were informed a year later that their application was transferred to LA and just recently received an email regarding an interview ... so that's why I assumed it did take 2+ years ... i guess each case is different.

To the OP ... Paris office is still quicker, even if an interview is required.
 
jamali said:
well that's definitely better. So the processing times listed on the website are for worse case scenarios?

generally, yes

jamali said:
I was reading someone's post regarding an interview in LA ... they applied in March 2013 and were informed a year later that their application was transferred to LA and just recently received an email regarding an interview ... so that's why I assumed it did take 2+ years ... i guess each case is different.

there was a significant difference in the way 2013 applications were processed and how 2014 applications were processed. it was common for early 2014 applicants to be approved before 2013 applicants. during 2013 there were office closures, which lead to some applicaitons getting lost in the shuffle and needlessly transferred between ottawa and la. there has been no reports of this happening in 2014. for 2014 applicants, if an interview is called, it seems to be scheduled around 1 year mark of their application date.
 
The OP will most likely be called for an interview regardless of the visa office. Since it appears like Paris VO has a better timeline for people needing and interview, maybe that is better anyway. But it is a bit of a moot point because the applicant can't request the visa office so will just have to see where CIC decides to send it.