one-year pilot OWP for spouses and common-law partners

[28january]

I know, but I have a strong feelin they will claim that back in May, no status was as good as implied status. They will claim the only reason it's not as good anymore, is because of pilot program. I have a strong feeling this will be their defense.
How can I prove to them this is not the case?

Well for one, anyone who thinks that no status is as good as implied status shouldn't be giving people immigration advice, let alone charge them for it... But more importantly I thought you have it in writing multiple times that this top lawyer in the country reassured you over and over again that you have implied status when you didn't, you don't think that's enough evidence?

I'm so sorry this is happening to you...

 

[MapleLeafMan]

Ask them a very simple question. Ask them what concrete proof they have that by letting your status expire, you could not be deported.

If they claim that it's because the CBSA ADR protects you, tell them that you heard that ADR ended in late 2011. How does that protect anyone today?

And, once again, this is found in the ip08 document that your lawyer's representative sent you erlier:

From ip08 document (Appendix H) that outlines the `public policy' that allows those with `Lack of Status' to remain in Canada during sponsorship application processing:

F. ADMINISTRATIVE DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL
The Canada Border Services Agency has agreed to grant a temporary administrative deferral of removal to applicants who qualify under this public policy.


Individuals should keep copies of their application forms, fee remittances and mail receipt as applicable, as proof they have filed an application. Such proof in no way guarantees the grant of a deferral of removal (where relevant) however.

Tell her to read that last part in bold!

Good luck!

Thank you. Appriciate it. However, in email conversation today, they have already admitted that I am not guaranteed not to be removed. It sounds like they will try to blame this on recent changes, and that back in May 2014 this was not case - therefore they have done nothing wrong.
I'm not sure how to defend myself against that other than saying that they are wrong and that multiple knowledgeable people has told me so, that this was the case even in May and nothing has changed regarding this.

To answer January above yes I have it in writing. They will likely claim it was accurate until recent changes, that's what I think anyway. Not sure if it's the top lawyer, but experienced lawyer that works for a firm with high ratings and satisfactory.

 

[Ponga]

Thank you. Appriciate it. However, in email conversation today, they have already admitted that I am not guaranteed not to be removed. It sounds like they will try to blame this on recent changes, and that back in May 2014 this was not case - therefore they have done nothing wrong.
I'm not sure how to defend myself against that other than saying that they are wrong and that multiple knowledgeable people has told me so, that this was the case even in May and nothing has changed regarding this.

To answer January above yes I have it in writing. They will likely claim it was accurate until recent changes, that's what I think anyway.

For the last time...you NEVER had implied status, because your lawyer NEVER submitted an OWP, or visitor extension request for you WITH your Inland application, or even BEFORE your status expired. You N-E-V-E-R had implied status.

Repeat it over and over to her.."I NEVER had implied status" and if they show you something in writing that says you did, I'd definitely take screech39's advice and sue them!

 

[MapleLeafMan]

For the last time...you NEVER had implied status, because your lawyer NEVER submitted an OWP, or visitor extension request for you WITH your Inland application, or even BEFORE your status expired. You N-E-V-E-R had implied status.

Repeat it over and over to her.."I NEVER had implied status" and if they show you something in writing that says you did, I'd definitely take screech39's advice and sue them!

I know this. They will likely claim that recent changed and recent changes only makes deportation possible. They are likely to claim that no status used to be as good.

 

[Ponga]

I know this. They will likely claim that recent changed and recent changes only makes deportation possible. They are likely to claim that no status used to be as good.

THIS!

F. ADMINISTRATIVE DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL
The Canada Border Services Agency has agreed to grant a temporary administrative deferral of removal to applicants who qualify under this public policy.


Individuals should keep copies of their application forms, fee remittances and mail receipt as applicable, as proof they have filed an application. Such proof in no way guarantees the grant of a deferral of removal (where relevant) however.


I give up!!! :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\


EDIT:
Read this post (all 3 pages). Even though it's from 2010, it sounds very similar to your situation and...it EVENTUALLY has a happy ending.
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/spousal-public-policy-t59523.0.html

 

[MapleLeafMan]

THIS!

F. ADMINISTRATIVE DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL
The Canada Border Services Agency has agreed to grant a temporary administrative deferral of removal to applicants who qualify under this public policy.


Individuals should keep copies of their application forms, fee remittances and mail receipt as applicable, as proof they have filed an application. Such proof in no way guarantees the grant of a deferral of removal (where relevant) however.


I give up!!! :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\


EDIT:
Read this post (all 3 pages). Even though it's from 2010, it sounds very similar to your situation and...it EVENTUALLY has a happy ending.
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/spousal-public-policy-t59523.0.html

But couldn't she claim that is a recent change?

 

[Ponga]

I wonder if anyone that has received their OWP under this pilot program has had problems getting hired, since it says something like `Pending FC (Family Class Sponsorship) approval? Maybe employers are a bit weary to go through the trouble of hiring someone, if they're still `pending'?

Just curious.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

THIS!

F. ADMINISTRATIVE DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL
The Canada Border Services Agency has agreed to grant a temporary administrative deferral of removal to applicants who qualify under this public policy.


Individuals should keep copies of their application forms, fee remittances and mail receipt as applicable, as proof they have filed an application. Such proof in no way guarantees the grant of a deferral of removal (where relevant) however.


I give up!!! :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\


EDIT:
Read this post (all 3 pages). Even though it's from 2010, it sounds very similar to your situation and...it EVENTUALLY has a happy ending.
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/spousal-public-policy-t59523.0.html

Thanks for this link, but the main difference is that this person had been out of status for what? 7-8 years when application was made? And there was already a warrant out for him to my understanding, several years before application was even made.

 

[sophieee]

How to make a complaint about a lawyer or paralegal
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=644

 

[screech339]

I know this. They will likely claim that recent changed and recent changes only makes deportation possible. They are likely to claim that no status used to be as good.

They can't claim the recent changes made you go "out of status". Let's say for argument's sake, the OWP pilot never came to be. You would have still be "out of status" regardless. The OWP pilot has no bearing on why the lawyers let you go "out of status".

 

[Jamesdavid3]

I am definitely IN-STATUS now because they sent me my AOR months after I returned my application granting me Restoration.

COME ON OWP....

 

[screech339]

I am definitely IN-STATUS now because they sent me my AOR months after I returned my application granting me Restoration.

COME ON OWP....

You do realized that AOR is addressed to the sponsor. Not you as applicant. AOR doesn't mean you are back in status. It only means CIC got you application. Nothing more. Even you know that. You still got to wait for status of restoration to be completed first before being back in status. You are just grasping at straws now over AOR to get back in status.

By your logic, every "out of status" applicants who got AOR is back in status. Even you know this is so not true.

 

[anng]

Hi guys i would just like to ask what does condition 27 on OWP means? Thank you.

 

[Jamesdavid3]

You do realized that AOR is addressed to the sponsor. Not you as applicant. AOR doesn't mean you are back in status. It only means CIC got you application. Nothing more. Even you know that. You still got to wait for status of restoration to be completed first before being back in status. You are just grasping at straws now over AOR to get back in status.

By your logic, every "out of status" applicants who got AOR is back in status. Even you know this is so not true.

No the AOR was address to me, It had no information for the person sponsoring me.

 

[rhcohen2014]

No the AOR was address to me, It had no information for the person sponsoring me.

it doesn't matter who the AOR was addressed to. you are also currently out of status until a decision is made on your restoration of status. since you fell out of status before you sent in your corrected pr and OWP applications, that means you are STILL out of status until CIC tells you otherwise. an AOR just confirms the date they received your PR application. The AOR has nothing to do with implied status, your OWP or probably not even your restoration of status (unless that application was specifically mentioned in your aor - which is doubtful).