AmyDavid

This is an interesting local story here - the three businesses this family own are a really big part of the Lakefield community in which they are based and the local Canadians are up in arms that the family may have to leave and head back to the UK.

Personally I don't find the news article useful at all - it doesn't tell us anything really. We just know they have been refused PR twice. Why though? What is it that is causing them to be refused? If they were never eligible, why were they applying?

For what it's worth, I find it very hard to believe that they will obtain PR through the Humanitarian stream and if they do then it makes a mockery of the whole system.

Shard

+1

If they've set up businesses, would they not have come in on the investor program? Surprisingly little backstory in this article.

AmyDavid

It would be really interesting (to me as an immigration nerd) to know what their journey had been to date - like how have they been here 8 years, what visas have they been on, what routes have they used to apply for PR and why have they been refused twice? Are they doing it themselves, are they using a lawyer/consultant. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Shard

Yup, it would. Maybe Mr Exton is even on this site?

AmyDavid

I did think that!

R I C H

Not necessarily - I arrived as a visitor and applied for a TWP to set up a business.

Juggernaut1064

I have a lot walk into my office, here as a visitor, get their CDL and looking for an LMO/LMIA and a job, the other popular one is/was post graduate (open) TWP get their CDL and apply for residency.
I'm not sure if this still happens now due to recent rule changes.
The newest area for this is eastern block countries.

Tangram

Bollox to them

Steve_

Well this is self-employed: Entrepreneurs and investors: Self-employed people - which he clearly doesn't qualify for.

And the IIP was scrapped awhile ago now so that's no option either (except in Québec).

Not only that but Ontario requires 25% of directors of a corporation to be "resident Canadians": Resident Canadian Requirements for Directors of Ontario Companies

So by definition, even on TWP, he would be self-employed (because it can't be a corporation unless he's got a resident Canadian involved).

I'm just curious to know how they got this far into this mess to begin with, these rules aren't exactly new. At some point they must have been here legally.

And I couldn't help noticing they got a good-looking woman to saunter into camera view who doesn't look she's a regular consumer of ice cream...

My BS alarm is going off quite loudly.

Former Lancastrian

Unfortunately due to privacy laws CIC won't comment on what their version is and how they were denied twice and on what grounds the deportation is following.
They have been given a 2 year stay in order to seek PR status so they have not been issued a deportation order. Wow what a way to sensationalize a story as a lot can happen in 2 years.
So the thread title should read UK couple could be deported in approx 2 years.

BristolUK

This used to annoy me back in my DSS/DWP days.

I always felt that if someone "went to the papers" it could be considered that they have waived their right to privacy. At least on the same aspect, so that any erroneous or incomplete information could be corrected.

But rather than hide behind "we cannot comment on individual cases" I do think there are times when whichever agency is involved can "speak generally" to the point without breaking confidentiality.

For example: Single mum of three complains "they expect me to live on £35.70 a week" runs the story.
Rather than the spokesperson not commenting (why call them that if they don't speak? ) on the individual case they could make a general reference to the minimum benefit level for a lone parent of 3 and say that where less than that amount was paid there was other income making up the difference.

I'm sure CIC could do something similar.

Of course, the journalists could also do their own research of the publicly available information and come to their own conclusion where what they're being told is clearly not right or not the full story. Maybe if they did that a bit more then readers would be less cynical when there does seem to be a genuine miscarriage.

burton bunch

But wasn't that under a different scheme than the regular two shame ?

R I C H

It was just a regular 3yr TWP with permission to own and operate a specific business as a self employed individual. My wife was given an open (non employer specific) work permit on the back of my application.

burton bunch

Hi R I C H

So on your original twp did it state the details of this on your twp ?

Gay

R I C H

Absolutely. The name of the business and my role (owner/operator) was on the TWP. It excluded me from any business related activity not under this guise. It didn't specify/restrict the scope of the business - ie how it could/might develop over time. In fact, after a year or so I contracted myself through the business to perform some work as a freelancer on behalf of another company.