Is legal status now required for In-Canada Spousal or Common-Law sponsorship?

[Ponga]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5289ETOC.asp


The instruction guide was updated earlier this week and now says:

Maintaining legal status

Spouses and common law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada who wish to apply for permanent resident status are required to have legal immigration status in order to qualify under the Spouse or Common-law partner in Canada class.


Is this a typo, or has CIC pulled the plug on those without status that have not yet received AOR?

 

[zardoz]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5289ETOC.asp


The instruction guide was updated earlier this week and now says:

Maintaining legal status

Spouses and common law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada who wish to apply for permanent resident status are required to have legal immigration status in order to qualify under the Spouse or Common-law partner in Canada class.


Is this a typo, or has CIC pulled the plug on those without status that have not yet received AOR?

CIC have always said that the published guides are the ultimate reference.

BEFORE:

Maintaining legal status

Spouses and common‑law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada who wish to apply for permanent resident status are no longer required to have legal immigration status provided that they have an eligible sponsor. All other eligibility requirements continue to apply.

Important information. Applicants who wish to be able to continue to work and study in Canada must submit an application for extension before the work or study permit expires.

AFTER:

Maintaining legal status

Spouses and common law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada who wish to apply for permanent resident status are required to have legal immigration status in order to qualify under the Spouse or Common-law partner in Canada class.

Important information. Applicants who wish to be able to continue to work and study in Canada must submit an application for extension before the work or study permit expires.

Seems pretty deliberate to me.

 

[Ponga]

It certainly does.

So anyone that had not received AOR prior to that update will be SOL?!?!

 

[zardoz]

They have also updated the section on "Length of Undertaking" to account for the reduction in dependant age.
It may apply all the way up to AIP or even final DM, not just AOR.

 

[Carlaganda23]

They have also updated the section on "Length of Undertaking" to account for the reduction in dependant age.
It may apply all the way up to AIP or even final DM, not just AOR.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp

The statement oppose the guidelines.

 

[zardoz]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp

The statement oppose the guidelines.

Sorry but I don't understand your response.. Please could you clarify? The page that you referenced predates the new guide. Look at the "Date modified" at the bottom.

 

[Carlaganda23]

Sorry but I don't understand your response.. Please could you clarify? The page that you referenced predates the new guide.

I'm not sure if they changed the law regards to out of status. The amendment was passed last Feb. 2005. I never see any news about the change. It's just on the guidelines.

 

[Carlaganda23]

Sorry but I don't understand your response.. Please could you clarify? The page that you referenced predates the new guide. Look at the "Date modified" at the bottom.

If the laws have been passed, on what grounds it will get invalid? I thought there are certain procedures.

 

[zardoz]

I'm not sure if they changed the law regards to out of status. The amendment was passed last Feb. 2005. I never see any news about the change. It's just on the guidelines.

If the laws have been passed, on what grounds it will get invalid? I thought there are certain procedures.

Who can say... Was it ever "law" or was it just CIC procedures. I was just agreeing that the change to the updated published Guide seems to be deliberately made.

 

[Carlaganda23]

Who can say... Was it ever "law" or was it just CIC procedures. I was just agreeing that the change to the updated published Guide seems to be deliberately made.

Apparently it has been a law... I read it somewhere before, the cic immigration Minister made it. It was passed last Feb. 2005. I will research about the IRPA number.

 

[Carlaganda23]

Who can say... Was it ever "law" or was it just CIC procedures. I was just agreeing that the change to the updated published Guide seems to be deliberately made.

Here it is, Ministers Public Policy Under A25(1) IRPA Section 5.27, 5.28, 5.31

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp

So, if law has been passed, on what grounds it will get invalidated? I was thinking, there would be a certain steps and procedure to change it. Also, most VO use the IRPA guidelines on their decisions in CIC application, as far as I'm concern.

 

[rhcohen2014]

perhaps this update is part of the reason why inland applicants who are "caught" being out of status seem to get their applications fast tracked so that they no longer are without status?

 

[Carlaganda23]

perhaps this update is part of the reason why inland applicants who are "caught" being out of status seem to get their applications fast tracked so that they no longer are without status?

I don't think that's the case rhcohen, if you have any problem with CBSA there is a possibility they will fast track it. But other than that, any applicants who are under the radar, they will process it in normal time frame. I would think they have to update the amendments that was passé in IRPA A25. And I'm not sure what are the procedures to update it or change it. Time will tell how CIC will assess out-ot-status applicants because the law has been passed since Feb. 2005

 

[Carlaganda23]

I don't think that's the case rhcohen, if you have any problem with CBSA there is a possibility they will fast track it. But other than that, any applicants who are under the radar, they will process it in normal time frame. I would think they have to update the amendments that was passéd Public Policy A25 Under Section 5.28IRPA A25. And I'm not sure what are the procedures to update it or change it. Time will tell how CIC will assess out-ot-status applicants because the law has been passed since Feb. 2005

 

[rhcohen2014]

I don't think that's the case rhcohen, if you have any problem with CBSA there is a possibility they will fast track it. But other than that, any applicants who are under the radar, they will process it in normal time frame. I would think they have to update the amendments that was passé in IRPA A25. And I'm not sure what are the procedures to update it or change it. Time will tell how CIC will assess out-ot-status applicants because the law has been passed since Feb. 2005

well there have been at least 3 reports of inland applicants who have been reported "illegal", and upon investigation by CIC, their applications have jumped to the front of the line and immigration is "Working with them" to get an approval. So, the way i see it, it's based on officer discretion, as is all things CBSA and CIC.

it may be nice to think that because "it is written", EVERY officer and visa office interprets it the same or even follows that specific "law" or guideline. That's just not reality. The bottom line is, the "trend" (FACTUAL evidence based on real life experiences) suggests there are plenty of people who do not have legal status with PR applications submitted, and CIC has not gone about trying to deport them. call me crazy, but i tend to go by what ACTUALLY is happening TODAY than what is assumed to "suppose" to happen because something was written down as a "law" in 2005.