Alfaris

If anyone doesn't know my story yet.. My inland PR application has been approved, but I am not allowed to "land" because I don't have any passport or travel document except my U.S. green card.

On the advice of a good member of this board, I have looked through the IRPA Regulations. A passport or travel document is, in fact, required when landing at a port of entry. However, take a look at what the IRPA Regulations have to say about the inland process:

178. (1) An applicant who does not hold a document described in any of paragraphs 50(1)(a) to (h) [which lists some acceptable travel documents] may submit with their application
(a) any identity document issued outside Canada before the person's entry into Canada
...
(2) A document submitted under subsection (1) shall be accepted in lieu of a document described in any of paragraphs 50(1)(a) to (h) if
(a) in the case of an identity document, the identity document
(i) is genuine,
(ii) identifies the applicant, and
(iii) constitutes credible evidence of the applicant's identity

This rule is specifically referred to from section 72, which talks about the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class.

I believe that this legislation was enacted recognizing the fact that it may be difficult for some people to obtain a travel document once in Canada, and foreseeing a situation such as mine. However, someone at the CIC doesn't know their rules too well, probably because there are not many cases similar to mine. I have sent in copies of my green card three times already, receiving only refusals and additional requests for a travel document. Finally, my application was frozen.

When I presented a copy of these regulations to the MP's office, they were literally dumbfounded. After all their self-righteous speeches about how I need to know my place and wait until I have all the "proper ID", they had nothing to say once the law was in their face. However, they are still making me wait 10 business days while they communicate with the Minister's office about this. It is pretty well outlined what the punishment is for us, if we were to violate the Immigration Law in some way. Is there any punishment for the CIC, if they violate it? Perhaps we should deport some officers?

What do you guys think? Did I get the law wrong? Am I missing something? Or am I just so right that you want to give me five?
I am interested in additional facts, or simply your opinions!!

Thanks,

Alfaris

Andrew Miller

Section 178 of Regulations applies to refugee claimants. You are not a
refugee.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


"Alfaris" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > If anyone doesn't know my story yet.. My inland PR application has been
    > approved, but I am not allowed to "land" because I don't have any
    > passport or travel document except my U.S. green card.
    > On the advice of a good member of this board, I have looked through the
    > IRPA Regulations. A passport or travel document is, in fact, required
    > when landing at a port of entry. However, take a look at what the IRPA
    > Regulations have to say about the inland process:
    > 178. (1) An applicant who does not hold a document described in any of
    > paragraphs 50(1)(a) to (h) [which lists some acceptable travel
    > documents] may submit with their application
    > (a) any identity document issued outside Canada before the person's
    > entry into Canada
    > ..
    > (2) A document submitted under subsection (1) shall be accepted in
    > lieu of a document described in any of paragraphs 50(1)(a) to (h) if
    > (a) in the case of an identity document, the identity document
    > (i) is genuine,
    > (ii) identifies the applicant, and
    > (iii) constitutes credible evidence of the applicant's identity
    > This rule is specifically referred to from section 72, which talks about
    > the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class.
    > I believe that this legislation was enacted recognizing the fact that it
    > may be difficult for some people to obtain a travel document once in
    > Canada, and foreseeing a situation such as mine. However, someone at the
    > CIC doesn't know their rules too well, probably because there are not
    > many cases similar to mine. I have sent in copies of my green card three
    > times already, receiving only refusals and additional requests for a
    > travel document. Finally, my application was frozen.
    > When I presented a copy of these regulations to the MP's office, they
    > were literally dumbfounded. After all their self-righteous speeches
    > about how I need to know my place and wait until I have all the "proper
    > ID", they had nothing to say once the law was in their face. However,
    > they are still making me wait 10 business days while they communicate
    > with the Minister's office about this. It is pretty well outlined what
    > the punishment is for us, if we were to violate the Immigration Law in
    > some way. Is there any punishment for the CIC, if they violate it?
    > Perhaps we should deport some officers?
    > What do you guys think? Did I get the law wrong? Am I missing something?
    > Or am I just so right that you want to give me five?
    > I am interested in additional facts, or simply your opinions!!
    > Thanks,
    > Alfaris
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

CrazyCanuck

You've enlisted the help of your MP's office, which is the correct thing to do. It takes time for them to work through the CIC's bureaucracy, so don't "burn your bridges" with the assistant as s/he works through this process.

The MPs that represent ridings with large immigrant populations will have a lot of experience in these matters. Other MPs will have less experience.

As for there being punishment for the CIC when they make errors that sometimes even destroy people's lives, well... it's nice to fantasize, but it ain't gonna happen!

Alfaris

>Section 178 of Regulations applies to refugee claimants.
>You are not a refugee.

Well, it looks like it also applies to the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class. Take a look at section 72, which talks about the inland process:

Authorization to Remain in Canada as Permanent Residents

72. (1) A foreign national in Canada becomes a
permanent resident if, following an examination, it
is established that
(a) they have applied to remain in Canada as a
permanent resident as a member of a class re-
ferred to in subsection (2);
(b) they are in Canada to establish permanent
residence;
(c) they are a member of that class;
(d) they meet the selection criteria and other re-
quirements applicable to that class; and
(e) except in the case of a foreign national who
has submitted a document accepted under sub-
section 178(2),
(i) they and their family members, whether ac-
companying or not, are not inadmissible, and
(ii) they hold a passport or other travel docu-
ment and a medical certificate, based on the
last medical examination to which they were
required to submit under these Regulations
within the last 12 months, that indicates that
they are not inadmissible on health grounds.

(2) The classes are
(a) the live-in caregiver class;
(b) the spouse or common-law partner in Canada
class; and
(c) the permit holder class.

Ginnee

I hope you are right and get this straightened out soon.
Seems like they are splitting hairs to me.

GL,

Ginnee

"Alfaris" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > >Section 178 of Regulations applies to refugee claimants.
    > >You are not a refugee.
    > Well, it looks like it also applies to the spouse or common-law partner
    > in Canada class. Take a look at section 72, which talks about the
    > inland process:
    > Authorization to Remain in Canada as Permanent Residents
    > 72. (1) A foreign national in Canada becomes a
    > permanent resident if, following an examination, it
    > is established that
    > (a) they have applied to remain in Canada as a
    > permanent resident as a member of a class re-
    > ferred to in subsection (2);
    > (b) they are in Canada to establish permanent
    > residence;
    > (c) they are a member of that class;
    > (d) they meet the selection criteria and other re-
    > quirements applicable to that class; and
    > (e) except in the case of a foreign national who
    > has submitted a document accepted under sub-
    > section 178(2),
    > (i) they and their family members, whether ac-
    > companying or not, are not inadmissible, and
    > (ii) they hold a passport or other travel docu-
    > ment and a medical certificate, based on the
    > last medical examination to which they were
    > required to submit under these Regulations
    > within the last 12 months, that indicates that
    > they are not inadmissible on health grounds.
    > (2) The classes are
    > (a) the live-in caregiver class;
    > (b) the spouse or common-law partner in Canada
    > class; and
    > (c) the permit holder class.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Andrew Miller

You are talking about two completely different animals here. There is no
dependency or any correlation between section 178 and section 72.

Section 72 clearly state that you need a passport or travel document which
you don't have. We've been through this exercise with you couple of weeks or
so ago and then you were well aware that you need travel document and what
it takes to get one. At that time you also stated that your MP's office told
you very same thing - that you need travel document. Stop beating the dead
horse and get travel document from US - nothing else will help and no matter
how much you'll be complaining about CIC not obeying the law it won't help.
CIC is in your case clearly obeying the law - it is you who is looking for
ways around.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


"Alfaris" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > >Section 178 of Regulations applies to refugee claimants.
    > >You are not a refugee.
    > Well, it looks like it also applies to the spouse or common-law partner
    > in Canada class. Take a look at section 72, which talks about the
    > inland process:
    > Authorization to Remain in Canada as Permanent Residents
    > 72. (1) A foreign national in Canada becomes a
    > permanent resident if, following an examination, it
    > is established that
    > (a) they have applied to remain in Canada as a
    > permanent resident as a member of a class re-
    > ferred to in subsection (2);
    > (b) they are in Canada to establish permanent
    > residence;
    > (c) they are a member of that class;
    > (d) they meet the selection criteria and other re-
    > quirements applicable to that class; and
    > (e) except in the case of a foreign national who
    > has submitted a document accepted under sub-
    > section 178(2),
    > (i) they and their family members, whether ac-
    > companying or not, are not inadmissible, and
    > (ii) they hold a passport or other travel docu-
    > ment and a medical certificate, based on the
    > last medical examination to which they were
    > required to submit under these Regulations
    > within the last 12 months, that indicates that
    > they are not inadmissible on health grounds.
    > (2) The classes are
    > (a) the live-in caregiver class;
    > (b) the spouse or common-law partner in Canada
    > class; and
    > (c) the permit holder class.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Alfaris

No dependency or any correlation between between section 178 and section 72? Then how do you explain Section 72, subsection 1, paragraph (e), which states,

(e) except in the case of a foreign national who
has submitted a document accepted under sub-
section 178(2),

To me, this looks like a clear a reference from Section 72 to Section 178. The rest of paragraph (e), where it goes on about the travel document, does not even seem to apply -- since it is only "except in the case of a foreign national who has submitted a document accepted under subsection 178(2)"

What do you have to say to that, sir?

S B

Alfaris wrote:
    >
    > No dependency or any correlation between between section 178 and section
    > 72? Then how do you explain Section 72, subsection 1, paragraph (e),
    > which states,
    >
    > (e) except in the case of a foreign national who
    > has submitted a document accepted under sub-
    > section 178(2),
    >
    > To me, this looks like a clear a reference from Section 72 to Section
    > 178. The rest of paragraph (e), where it goes on about the travel
    > document, does not even seem to apply -- since it is only "except in the
    > case of a foreign national who has submitted a document accepted under
    > subsection 178(2)"
    >
    > What do you have to say to that, sir?

72 applies to everyone.

178 applies to protected persons.

So what your clause (e) is saying is "except in the case of a foreign
national who is a protected person who can submit a document under
178(2). It clearly does NOT apply to someone who is not a refugee.

As Mr. Miller says, if you put half the effort you've made into getting
a travel document that you've put into trying to prove you don't need
it, and trying to prove people wrong, and wasting your MPs time and
effort, you'd now be on your way to getting your PR instead of being
delayed because you're not providing the needed documents.

Andrew Miller

It is simply poorly worded and confusing paragraph which you are desperately
trying to interpret your way - if one would follow your interpretation then
72(1)(e)(i) would also apply to everyone in your situation who is found
inadmissible and such person would have such inadmissibility waived. And
this is not the case.

Look into Immigration Manual which is really the bible for processing
officers:

------------------------------------------------------------
IP08

5.5 Requirements of the class

Members of this class are spouses or common-law partners of a Canadian
citizen or permanent resident sponsor and are living with the sponsor in
Canada.

The marriage or common-law relationship must be genuine and not primarily
for the purpose of permanent residence in Canada.

Common-law partners must have cohabited for at least one year.

The applicants must have legal temporary resident status in Canada, as
visitors, students or temporary workers.

They must be the subjects of an approved sponsorship application, which is
still in effect.

They must not be subject to enforcement proceedings or a removal order.

They must meet admissibility requirements, but are exempt from
inadmissibility on health grounds due to excessive demand on health and
social services.

They must have a valid passport or travel document.
---------------------------------------------------------------

You have been told by all authorities so far (including your MP) that you
need travel document. Of course you have a choice to refuse providing either
passport or travel document - in such case CIC won't give you PR status.

It is that simple.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________




"Alfaris" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > No dependency or any correlation between between section 178 and section
    > 72? Then how do you explain Section 72, subsection 1, paragraph (e),
    > which states,
    > (e) except in the case of a foreign national who
    > has submitted a document accepted under sub-
    > section 178(2),
    > To me, this looks like a clear a reference from Section 72 to Section
    > 178. The rest of paragraph (e), where it goes on about the travel
    > document, does not even seem to apply -- since it is only "except in the
    > case of a foreign national who has submitted a document accepted under
    > subsection 178(2)"
    > What do you have to say to that, sir?
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Alfaris

So, to sum up what you guys have just said -- It is a paragraph that was poorly worded and came out saying something not quite what was intended. Nevertheless, I feel that it gives me a good chance to become a Canadian PR. It does clearly reference section 178, which allows me to submit an identity document.

S B, if you have missed my earlier post, I applied for the travel document from the U.S. authorities even before I applied for Canadian PR. It has been in processing ever since and estimated waiting time is close to three years. So, Mr. Miller, I have pretty much nothing to do immigration-wise, except beat a horse, dead or not. I cannot simply choose to provide the travel document or proof that I cannot provide one, since the U.S. authorities will not issue me a decision either way, but are simply sitting on the application.

Ergo, forgive me if I feel a bit skeptical when authorities "tell" me something. I went to the source of their claims, and found that their beliefs are based on a poorly-worded paragraph that says something completely opposite to what they are telling me.

I passed all the immigration requirements so far, and the travel document will not prove my identity or status any further than the green card, since it is issued on the basis of the green card and has less security features. I am caught in the bureaucratic red tape between two countries, and if some poorly-worded paragraph, which is in itself a product of bureaucracy, helps me break free and live happily like the rest of you -- that is only poetic justice.

Regards,

Alfaris

Andrew Miller

Seems that my post was also poorly worded. What I was trying to tell you is
that section 72 was poorly worded and may be confusing for someone who has
no legal background and experience and is not used to legal language (I call
it legal mumbo jumbo). But for the person familiar with legal mumbo jumbo
section 72 is perfectly clear - and it refers to section 178, but as section
178 applies to protected persons only then such reference in section 72
applies of course to protected persons only. And you are not protected
person.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


"Alfaris" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > So, to sum up what you guys have just said -- It is a paragraph that was
    > poorly worded and came out saying something not quite what was intended.
    > Nevertheless, I feel that it gives me a good chance to become a Canadian
    > PR. It does clearly reference section 178, which allows me to submit an
    > identity document.
    > S B, if you have missed my earlier post, I applied for the travel
    > document from the U.S. authorities even before I applied for Canadian
    > PR. It has been in processing ever since and estimated waiting time is
    > close to three years. So, Mr. Miller, I have pretty much nothing to do
    > immigration-wise, except beat a horse, dead or not. I cannot simply
    > choose to provide the travel document or proof that I cannot provide
    > one, since the U.S. authorities will not issue me a decision either way,
    > but are simply sitting on the application.
    > Ergo, forgive me if I feel a bit skeptical when authorities "tell" me
    > something. I went to the source of their claims, and found that their
    > beliefs are based on a poorly-worded paragraph that says something
    > completely opposite to what they are telling me.
    > I passed all the immigration requirements so far, and the travel
    > document will not prove my identity or status any further than the green
    > card, since it is issued on the basis of the green card and has less
    > security features. I am caught in the bureaucratic red tape between two
    > countries, and if some poorly-worded paragraph, which is in itself a
    > product of bureaucracy, helps me break free and live happily like the
    > rest of you -- that is only poetic justice.
    > Regards,
    > Alfaris
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Northernligths25

Poorly worded?

    >Subject: Re: My Update - CIC not obeying law?
    >From: "Andrew Miller" [email protected]
    >Date: 6/24/03 11:57 PM Atlantic Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >Seems that my post was also poorly worded. What I was trying to tell you is
    >that section 72 was poorly worded and may be confusing for someone who has
    >no legal background and experience and is not used to legal language (I call
    >it legal mumbo jumbo). But for the person familiar with legal mumbo jumbo
    >section 72 is perfectly clear - and it refers to section 178, but as section
    >178 applies to protected persons only then such reference in section 72
    >applies of course to protected persons only. And you are not protected
    >person.
    >--
    >../..
    >Andrew Miller
    >Immigration Consultant
    >Vancouver, British Columbia
    >email: [email protected]
    >(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    >________________________________
    >"Alfaris" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> So, to sum up what you guys have just said -- It is a paragraph that was
    >> poorly worded and came out saying something not quite what was intended.
    >> Nevertheless, I feel that it gives me a good chance to become a Canadian
    >> PR. It does clearly reference section 178, which allows me to submit an
    >> identity document.
    >> S B, if you have missed my earlier post, I applied for the travel
    >> document from the U.S. authorities even before I applied for Canadian
    >> PR. It has been in processing ever since and estimated waiting time is
    >> close to three years. So, Mr. Miller, I have pretty much nothing to do
    >> immigration-wise, except beat a horse, dead or not. I cannot simply
    >> choose to provide the travel document or proof that I cannot provide
    >> one, since the U.S. authorities will not issue me a decision either way,
    >> but are simply sitting on the application.
    >> Ergo, forgive me if I feel a bit skeptical when authorities "tell" me
    >> something. I went to the source of their claims, and found that their
    >> beliefs are based on a poorly-worded paragraph that says something
    >> completely opposite to what they are telling me.
    >> I passed all the immigration requirements so far, and the travel
    >> document will not prove my identity or status any further than the green
    >> card, since it is issued on the basis of the green card and has less
    >> security features. I am caught in the bureaucratic red tape between two
    >> countries, and if some poorly-worded paragraph, which is in itself a

Compiler

Where can the Immigration Manual be located so that people won't
confuse something anymore?
__________________________________________________ ____

"Andrew Miller" wrote in message news:...
    > It is simply poorly worded and confusing paragraph which you are desperately
    > trying to interpret your way - if one would follow your interpretation then
    > 72(1)(e)(i) would also apply to everyone in your situation who is found
    > inadmissible and such person would have such inadmissibility waived. And
    > this is not the case.
    >
    > Look into Immigration Manual which is really the bible for processing
    > officers:
    >
    > ------------------------------------------------------------
    > IP08
    >
    > 5.5 Requirements of the class
    >
    > Members of this class are spouses or common-law partners of a Canadian
    > citizen or permanent resident sponsor and are living with the sponsor in
    > Canada.
    >
    > The marriage or common-law relationship must be genuine and not primarily
    > for the purpose of permanent residence in Canada.
    >
    > Common-law partners must have cohabited for at least one year.
    >
    > The applicants must have legal temporary resident status in Canada, as
    > visitors, students or temporary workers.
    >
    > They must be the subjects of an approved sponsorship application, which is
    > still in effect.
    >
    > They must not be subject to enforcement proceedings or a removal order.
    >
    > They must meet admissibility requirements, but are exempt from
    > inadmissibility on health grounds due to excessive demand on health and
    > social services.
    >
    > They must have a valid passport or travel document.
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > You have been told by all authorities so far (including your MP) that you
    > need travel document. Of course you have a choice to refuse providing either
    > passport or travel document - in such case CIC won't give you PR status.
    >
    > It is that simple.
    >
    > --
    >
    > ../..
    >
    > Andrew Miller
    > Immigration Consultant
    > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > email: [email protected]
    > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    > ________________________________
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Alfaris" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > No dependency or any correlation between between section 178 and section
    > > 72? Then how do you explain Section 72, subsection 1, paragraph (e),
    > > which states,
    > >
    > > (e) except in the case of a foreign national who
    > > has submitted a document accepted under sub-
    > > section 178(2),
    > >
    > > To me, this looks like a clear a reference from Section 72 to Section
    > > 178. The rest of paragraph (e), where it goes on about the travel
    > > document, does not even seem to apply -- since it is only "except in the
    > > case of a foreign national who has submitted a document accepted under
    > > subsection 178(2)"
    > >
    > > What do you have to say to that, sir?
    > >
    > > --
    > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

S B

Alfaris wrote:
    >
    > So, to sum up what you guys have just said -- It is a paragraph that was
    > poorly worded and came out saying something not quite what was intended.
    > Nevertheless, I feel that it gives me a good chance to become a Canadian
    > PR. It does clearly reference section 178, which allows me to submit an
    > identity document.

And section 178 is very specific in that it is in a division headed
Protected Persons. You're not a protected person, so you don't qualify
to claim anything under 178.

Next the reference in 72 to 178 says that for anyone applying for PR,
you need those requirements unless 178 applies.

I wouldn't say that's poorly worded. It's the way legislation is
crafted. In a court of law, that would hold up.

    > S B, if you have missed my earlier post,

How could I miss you pig headed predicament, you posted the details
enough times. You put yourself into this scenario, and you can get
yourself out of it by getting the travel document required.

Your gripe is with the US gov't for being ridiculously slow in issuing
you with travel documents, not the Canadian gov't for following the law.

Andrew Miller

On CIC website for example, or you can order a hard copy on CD from the
government.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


"compiler" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Where can the Immigration Manual be located so that people won't
    > confuse something anymore?
    > __________________________________________________ ____
    > "Andrew Miller" wrote in message
news:...
    > > It is simply poorly worded and confusing paragraph which you are
desperately
    > > trying to interpret your way - if one would follow your interpretation
then
    > > 72(1)(e)(i) would also apply to everyone in your situation who is found
    > > inadmissible and such person would have such inadmissibility waived. And
    > > this is not the case.
    > >
    > > Look into Immigration Manual which is really the bible for processing
    > > officers:
    > >
    > > ------------------------------------------------------------
    > > IP08
    > >
    > > 5.5 Requirements of the class
    > >
    > > Members of this class are spouses or common-law partners of a Canadian
    > > citizen or permanent resident sponsor and are living with the sponsor in
    > > Canada.
    > >
    > > The marriage or common-law relationship must be genuine and not
primarily
    > > for the purpose of permanent residence in Canada.
    > >
    > > Common-law partners must have cohabited for at least one year.
    > >
    > > The applicants must have legal temporary resident status in Canada, as
    > > visitors, students or temporary workers.
    > >
    > > They must be the subjects of an approved sponsorship application, which
is
    > > still in effect.
    > >
    > > They must not be subject to enforcement proceedings or a removal order.
    > >
    > > They must meet admissibility requirements, but are exempt from
    > > inadmissibility on health grounds due to excessive demand on health and
    > > social services.
    > >
    > > They must have a valid passport or travel document.
    > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > You have been told by all authorities so far (including your MP) that
you
    > > need travel document. Of course you have a choice to refuse providing
either
    > > passport or travel document - in such case CIC won't give you PR status.
    > >
    > > It is that simple.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > ../..
    > >
    > > Andrew Miller
    > > Immigration Consultant
    > > Vancouver, British Columbia
    > > email: [email protected]
    > > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
    > > ________________________________
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Alfaris" wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > No dependency or any correlation between between section 178 and
section
    > > > 72? Then how do you explain Section 72, subsection 1, paragraph (e),
    > > > which states,
    > > >
    > > > (e) except in the case of a foreign national who
    > > > has submitted a document accepted under sub-
    > > > section 178(2),
    > > >
    > > > To me, this looks like a clear a reference from Section 72 to Section
    > > > 178. The rest of paragraph (e), where it goes on about the travel
    > > > document, does not even seem to apply -- since it is only "except in
the
    > > > case of a foreign national who has submitted a document accepted
under
    > > > subsection 178(2)"
    > > >
    > > > What do you have to say to that, sir?
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com