Why No Appeal?

[Pharoh]

I posted this elsewhere, but decided to start a thread on it, to get more feedback.

What is the logic behind not allowing Inlanders to appeal, while giving Outlanders that option? What is CIC thinking? How is that not cruelty?

It's like, you choose to be with your spouse while CIC intentionally drags out your application process by triple or more of what it takes for Outland to process... THEN, if they decide they don't like you, they say "well, since you decided to be with your spouse, we're going to punish you by telling you to piss off, and be out of the country within 30 days, or face deportation. If you believe this to be a mistake, we don't care, and will gladly have you deported."

By refusing someone the right to appeal... by refusing to acknowledge someone's voice... to dismiss any possibility of mistake by CIC, the IO's, etc... that's so low.... so terribly, terribly low. It fills me with anger when I think about it. If us outlanders can appeal, then why the hell can't inlanders do the same?

 

[pseudowolf]

Good point! I have no idea why they would do this. And you're right, it makes no sense. I wonder how many inlands get refused vs. outland?

-Wolf

 

[Lila]

We had originally wanted to apply inland but was told outland would be the better way. Seriously, it makes no sense to me either but it worked. It actually took us a litte over three months from the date his application started processing in Buffalo (later transferred to NY), and a little over 5 months in total.

 

[Baloo]

.....
they say "well, since you decided to be with your spouse, we're going to punish you by telling you to piss off, and be out of the country within 30 days, or face deportation.

But applicants can be with their spouse and apply outland,
and
If you apply inland and it is refused, you could submit a new, outland application with more proof ( in many cases it would be faster than an appeal).

 

[PMM]

Hi

Good point! I have no idea why they would do this. And you're right, it makes no sense. I wonder how many inlands get refused vs. outland?

-Wolf

Because:

1. Vegreville is not a visa office and only visa offices can refuse an application.
2. Vegreville doesn't refuse the application, they only refuse to process it in Canada.
3. The processing in Canada for spousal applicants, is based on a waiver of Section 11(1) of the Act. If CIC refuses to waive that section, there is no recourse, as the application was not refused.

 

[Baloo]

I haven't been able to find anywhere where CIC gives a reason for no right of appeal for an inland application but I expect it has something to do with the fact that the process is supposed to allow spouses/partners to apply, even when they are in Canada without valid temporary status. So, if they are found not to be "genuine", or to be inadmissible to Canada, CIC does not want them to be able to remain in Canada throughout a long, drawn out appeal.

Sounds like a plausible explanation.

 

[CharlieD10]

Hi

Because:

1. Vegreville is not a visa office and only visa offices can refuse an application.
2. Vegreville doesn't refuse the application, they only refuse to process it in Canada.
3. The processing in Canada for spousal applicants, is based on a waiver of Section 11(1) of the Act. If CIC refuses to waive that section, there is no recourse, as the application was not refused.

Thanks PMM!!

See relevant section below:

Place of application for permanent resident visa

11. (1) An application for a permanent resident visa — other than an application for a permanent resident visa made under Part 8 — must be made to the immigration office that serves
(a) the country where the applicant is residing, if the applicant has been lawfully admitted to that country for a period of at least one year; or
(b) the applicant's country of nationality or, if the applicant is stateless, their country of habitual residence other than a country in which they are residing without having been lawfully admitted.

 

[rjessome]

You know, under the old Act (pre 2004) ALL sponsorship applications had to be submitted outland.

And inland applicants are making a CHOICE to submit inland because the outland option is ALWAYS open to them.

 

[PMM]

Hi

You know, under the old Act (pre 2004) ALL sponsorship applications had to be submitted outland.

And inland applicants are making a CHOICE to submit inland because the outland option is ALWAYS open to them.

No they didn't, they were submitted to the local CIC (This was pre-Vegreville) and if accepted for processing the regulations were waived under 2(1) of the Regs 1978 and 1987 that required applying outside Canada at a visa office the same as now.

 

[rjessome]

Hi

No they didn't, they were submitted to the local CIC (This was pre-Vegreville) and if accepted for processing the regulations were waived under 2(1) of the Regs 1978 and 1987 that required applying outside Canada at a visa office the same as now.

Duh! Oops. :

The IRPA change was that they would now accept applicants who were out of status for inland processing, correct?

 

[PMM]

Hi

Duh! Oops. :

The IRPA change was that they would now accept applicants who were out of status for inland processing, correct?

Right. You could actually apply if you were out of status under the previous acts. What would happen (if the marriage was considered bona fide) was that a 27 report was written, and the recommendation was that a Ministers permit was issued (TRP now) This overcame the inadmissibility. This would give you status, and then the sponsorship was then processed. That process was also used, if a person was inadmissible, lets say for medical reasons, the Minister's permit was issued, and after 5 years on the permit, you could apply for PR status. The present method of "ministers guidelines" speeds up the process for those out of status. It really doesn't help those that are removal ready though. The problem with issuing a Minister's permit under the old acts, was that only the Minister could cancel the permit and that was only delegated to the Regional Director Generals of Immigration.

 

[Love_Young]

Yeah but some of us chose inland for more reasons. Like I have explained before, my husband gets sick often and I couldn't handle having to be away from him if he was to be put in the hospital again. He already has a limited life span than most. I wasn't applying outland and risk not being able to get another extension or cross back. He needs me.

I think that you should be entitled to appeal still. Do I think we should be allowed to stay the duration of the time it takes if needing an appeal? No, because we really have no right to be there until we are approved but we should be able to come back and still visit during the duration. Having to reapply yes is cheaper and not as time consuming but it still is very difficult. Especially since you are more than likely to be refused for the same reasons if you can't change the problems so then you are looking at losing time and money for applying again and possibly appeal. This is something I fear greatly as I said because with it being this time consuming it is also counting down on the time we can form a life together all in the while with my hubby's life span going down. Ugh...I shouldn't have the right to appeal because I chose to apply this way to be with my hubby during these circumstances? All I can do is pray that we don't have to worry about having to deal with this but unfortunately the chance is always going to be there.

 

[patiently_waiting]

Loveyoung, you are an angel and your application is going to be fine xx

 

[Love_Young]

Loveyoung, you are an angel and your application is going to be fine xx

Thanks dear. Can't wait til we are both approved.

 

[patiently_waiting]

Thanks dear. Can't wait til we are both approved.

me too