Visitor status will expire while outland app is in process- HELP!

[tricia-chile]

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping some of you can give me some opinions on this situation.

My husband and I sent in our outland application in Sept 2014 while we were living in Chile. We've since moved to Canada and my husband has been here as a visitor. Being from Chile, his visitor allowance is 6 months and will be up at the end of June. I'm assuming we need to apply for a temporary residence extention, however my question is- is it really that bad if we don't? Will it effect our application if he overstays his allowance by a few months? We should be receiving some news from the Mexico visa office any day now.. but then again, it could take longer, you never know.

Thoughts and opinions are much appreciated!

 

[susana]

What is the consequence for not keeping a valid status in Canada while the outland application is in process ? Your husband will be breaching the law and he will be inadmisible to Canada , so apply to extend his stay as a visitor and there is a huge chance he will be given a visitors record for a year or the validity of his passport.
Why risk it ? I do not get it.

 

[Ponga]

What is the consequence for not keeping a valid status in Canada while the outland application is in process ? Your husband will be breaching the law and he will be inadmisible to Canada , so apply to extend his stay as a visitor and there is a huge chance he will be given a visitors record for a year or the validity of his passport.
Why risk it ? I do not get it.

May I ask where you found this information?

This article seems to dispute that:
http://www.moyal.com/feb_11_2008.htm
...
My understanding is that it is not a criminal offence to overstay one's visit, though it is a criminal offence not to depart when you get a final order of removal ( i.e. s. 1253, Title 8 ). ...

And, this article:
http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2014/2014-02-15/html/reg2-eng.php

... The third type of removal order is an exclusion order, but it is not relevant to this regulatory amendment. An exclusion order is usually issued for less serious immigration violations and bars the person’s re-entry to Canada for one or two years, unless written permission to return is received. For example, an exclusion order would be issued in the case of a non-criminal overstay (e.g. someone who overstayed the time they were authorized to remain in Canada). ...

It's moot, because I concur with your advice for the applicant to apply to extend his stay, but...still curious.

 

[susana]

Ponga,

The IRPA does not specifically criminalize unlawfully entering the country or unlawfully overstaying a visa. Both of these types of actions however, fall under the general prohibition against contravening the law without exercising due diligence to prevent doing so.

iRPA R41 inadmissibility for non compliance , a person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this act .

(a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and
(b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection 27(2) or section 28.

If the foreign national, knowing that he needs to keep a legal status in Canada decides by omision no to do so, he is failing to comply with the IRPA regulations.

Why risk it ? Is better to keep legal status in Canada if you have an application procesed oversees , many times the visa office requests proof of legal status and Mexico is one of those .
i know this by experience !

 

[Ponga]

Yes, but why are those in Canada without status eligible for sponsorship via an Inland application? Would they not also be deemed inadmissible, even though they are already in Canada?

 

[susana]

Ponga, you know everything about the Public Policy that allows inland apllicants to have lack of status , you have coment about this many times, unfortunatelly this policy does not benefits spouses who submitted outside Canada , there is a very easy way to overcome the inadmissibility and is basically to leave Canada before a decision is made BUT if the applicant wants to stay with the spouse during the whole process is better to follow the regulations, don't you think ?

This is my personal opinion and not a legal advise .

 

[Ponga]

Ponga, you know everything about the Public Policy that allows inland apllicants to have lack of status , you have coment about this many times, unfortunatelly this policy does not benefits spouses who submitted outside Canada , there is a very easy way to overcome the inadmissibility and is basically to leave Canada before a decision is made BUT if the applicant wants to stay with the spouse during the whole process is better to follow the regulations, don't you think ?

This is my personal opinion and not a legal advise .

As I [originally] stated, I agree with you; a person should renew their status whenever possible.

What I don't agree with, is that a person in Canada without status that chooses to submit an Outland application, and removal action is never started by CBSA, would be denied PR based on being inadmissible.

I guess we can just, respectfully, agree to disagree.

 

[susana]

Absolutely. I respect your opinion.

short story, last month a person I know attended his landing interview, he applied outland but was a foreign worker , as per my advice he applied to extend his stay as a visitor and was under implied status. He was told by others he did not have to.

He went to the local CIC office for the landing, the officer requested his immigration document. He had the payment receipt an confirmation of submission. Even though he provided this documents to the officer, he checked the system and confirmed the person was under implied status. Why did the officer go for all this trouble ? He called me after and he was happy that he applied to extend his stay / change conditions.

CIC is getting stricter with the people who overstay and anytime CIC will require inland applicants to have a valid status in Canada. We will see ...