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

[screech339]

I recieved this from a representative as part of an email: "As I explained there were some changes on the government side that took effect early this year. There was no way we could have known about these changes as they were not announced until after the submission of your application. The recommendations that were made to you were the best options for you at the time."

This is ridiculous. They will never admit that they have done anything wrong, they are just trying to save themself. What do I do? How do I get this people to understand that they have screwed up?

Fight fire with fire. Hire another lawyer and sue them. LOL.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I recieved this from a representative as part of an email: "As I explained there were some changes on the government side that took effect early this year. There was no way we could have known about these changes as they were not announced until after the submission of your application. The recommendations that were made to you were the best options for you at the time."

This is ridiculous. They will never admit that they have done anything wrong, they are just trying to save themself. What do I do? How do I get this people to understand that they have screwed up?

They won't admit it; they'll just keep feeding you the same BS. The best option for you at the time was an outland app through London. The next best option was an inland PR app WITH an OWP app.

You should really fight them on this. File a formal complaint.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

When I talk to them tomorrow they will claim that what they did was best for me at the time, and that things are changed now. I have a feeling they might claim that I used
to have implied status, but do not anymore. Maybe something like that, idk.

How can I prove to them that they are wrong?

 

[28january]

Hi all. Just wondering how many people have received the OWP though the pilot program and when did you apply?

My husband and I applied for sponsorship/PR in March, 2014 and included the OWP application at the same time. We have seen that it had been received on March 14, 2014 on CAS online. (I had to call them to get my file number as they never mailed me any AOR) but thats all it says...we are desperate to get this OWP right away as I had our daughter a few months ago and have been on mat leave since. One income is hard but no income is near impossible!

Just wanting to see if this pilot project is actually being followed through on the timelines they have stated.

Also just want to double check he qualifies for the pilot program. He came on a visitor visa, we married feb, 2014, applied for sponsorship (inland) with OWP in march, 2014 and have kept extending his visitor visa since. Have confirmation of it being received online on CAS.

Thanks so much!

Valerie

Yours should be here soon! This is the link that I followed religiously :

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZnRF29FWdqOGQV8dW4bImBuIwjCfoy2R8ZycyX4jH0c/edit#gid=0

For some strange reason Jan to Mar 2014 applicants got theirs later, but I just got mine yesterday so hopefully yours is on your way too!

PS, did my medical upfront but I'm still not allowed to work in the health field.

 

[Ponga]

When I talk to them tomorrow they will claim that what they did was best for me at the time, and that things are changed now. I have a feeling they might claim that I used
to have implied status, but do not anymore. Maybe something like that, idk.

How can I prove to them that they are wrong?

You NEVER had implied status...EVER!

It's true that they thought they were doing what was best, but you now know that it was a total screw up on their part. As canuck_in_uk mentioned, an Outland application would have been the way to go and you would likely already have your PR (or very close). Now, you'll be lucky to have first stage (AIP) in October, followed by another [who knows how long] to actually get your landing interview.

Ridiculous.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

You NEVER had implied status...EVER!

It's true that they thought they were doing what was best, but you now know that it was a total screw up on their part. As canuck_in_uk mentioned, an Outland application would have been the way to go and you would likely already have your PR (or very close). Now, you'll be lucky to have first stage (AIP) in October, followed by another [who knows how long] to actually get your landing interview.

Ridiculous.

But they will claim that rules have changed. How? I wonder if they will try to refer that it used to say that people without status could still apply, and now it says that you need to have a status. They might claim that I used to be fine since people without status could apply, and that there was no need to make sure I had official implied status.

 

[Ponga]

But they will claim that rules have changed. How? I wonder if they will try to refer that it used to say that people without status could still apply, and now it says that you need to have a status. They might claim that I used to be fine since people without status could apply, and that there was no need to make sure I had official implied status.

The rule that they are talking about is the OWP pilot program that was announced December 22, 2014. Because you must have legal (or implied) status to be eligible, they're claiming that this is not their fault, because even by allowing your status to expire (which is what they did), you wouldn't have been eligible for the normal OWP that Inland applicants can get AFTER they reach AIP.

This pilot program only happened because of the Inlanders that were tired of waiting for OWP, so they started a petition, contacted the media, held peaceful demonstrations and...CIC listened to their cries for help!

EDIT:

Ate the very least, your lawyer should have explained that you would fall out of status, but that you would `probably' be ok, and let YOU decide if that's what YOU wanted. Since they did not, they totally dropped the ball, IMHO.

Most people, if given the choice, would NOT want to lose their status!

 

[MapleLeafMan]

The rule that they are talking about is the OWP pilot program that was announced December 22, 2014. Because you must have legal (or implied) status to be eligible, they're claiming that this is not their fault, because even by allowing your status to expire (which is what they did), you wouldn't have been eligible for the normal OWP that Inland applicants can get AFTER they reach AIP.

This pilot program only happened because of the Inlanders that were tired of waiting for OWP, so they started a petition, contacted the media, held peaceful demonstrations and...CIC listened to their cries for help!

EDIT:

Ate the very least, your lawyer should have explained that you would fall out of status, but that you would `probably' be ok, and let YOU decide if that's what YOU wanted. Since they did not, they totally dropped the ball, IMHO.

Most people, if given the choice, would NOT want to lose their status!

Im sorry, I'm not completely following. Are you saying that I won't be able to apply for a work permit even after intial assessment is done, in let's say, October?

 

[Ponga]

Im sorry, I'm not completely following. Are you saying that I won't be able to apply for a work permit even after intial assessment is done, in let's say, October?

You will be eligible to apply for OWP AFTER you receive AIP. Sorry if I somehow confused you on that.

 

[MapleLeafMan]

You will be eligible to apply for OWP AFTER you receive AIP. Sorry if I somehow confused you on that.

Phew.

But this is the part I do not understand: "because even by allowing your status to expire (which is what they did), you wouldn't have been eligible for the normal OWP that Inland applicants can get AFTER they reach AIP".

Edit: Is wouldn't a typo?

 

[Ponga]

Phew.

But this is the part I do not understand: "because even by allowing your status to expire (which is what they did), you wouldn't have been eligible for the normal OWP that Inland applicants can get AFTER they reach AIP".

Edit: Is wouldn't a typo?

Ok...last time.

Before the pilot program was introduced, all Inland applicants had to wait until they reached first stage approval (AIP) BEFORE they could apply for an OWP, if they did not include one with their Inland application. This included those that were out of status.

Since you do not qualify for the piot OWP, you (by default) must abide with the `regular' OWP rules, which means you have to now wait for AIP.

Does that help?

 

[MapleLeafMan]

Ok...last time.

Before the pilot program was introduced, all Inland applicants had to wait until they reached first stage approval (AIP) BEFORE they could apply for an OWP, if they did not include one with their Inland application. This included those that were out of status.

Since you do not qualify for the piot OWP, you (by default) must abide with the `regular' OWP rules, which means you have to now wait for AIP.

Does that help?

Yes, I understand. But how can they claim that they did what was best at the time, and that rules have changed, therefore its not the best anymore? Letting me run out of status was never the best option. I think they might try to claim that before, when application was made, i couldn't get deported and was as safe as someone on official implies status...now things have changed and its a different story. This is what it sounds like to me that they will try to claim. If they do not claim this, it is impossible for them to say that running out of status was just as good as not running out of status.

 

[28january]

Yes, I understand. But how can they claim that they did what was best at the time, and that rules have changed, therefore its not the best anymore? Letting me run out of status was never the best option. I think they might try to claim that before, when application was made, i couldn't get deported and was as safe as someone on official implies status...now things have changed and its a different story. This is what it sounds like to me that they will try to claim. If they do not claim this, it is impossible for them to say that running out of status was just as good as not running out of status.

But didn't they convince you that you were in fact on implied status the whole time? Pilot project aside, they screwed up when they didn't have you apply for OWP with your PR, WHICH IS WHAT GIVES YOU THE IMPLIED STATUS, and the rules about that didn't change!

 

[MapleLeafMan]

But didn't they convince you that you were in fact on implied status the whole time? Pilot project aside, they screwed up when they didn't have you apply for OWP with your PR, and the rules about that didn't change!

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?

 

[Ponga]

Yes, I understand. But how can they claim that they did what was best at the time, and that rules have changed, therefore its not the best anymore? Letting me run out of status was never the best option. Exactly our point! They should have NEVER done that without out explaining their logic for doing so! I think they might try to claim that before, when application was made, i couldn't get deported and was as safe as someone on official implies status WRONG WRONG WRONG! A person without status that applied Inland CAN be (and some have been) deported!...now things have changed and its a different story. This is what it sounds like to me that they will try to claim. If they do not claim this, it is impossible for them to say that running out of status was just as good as not running out of status.

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!