Inland or outland???

linusspacehead wrote: I am trying to decide if I want to apply inland or outland after some recent advice and research, and was just looking for some more input. Here is some background I am a united states citizen and my husband is a canadian citizen, after being long distance and visiting eachother back and forth, for a year or so we decided to get married in June, at the end of june I decided to move to canada with him (finding out later you dont have the right to just take all your crap and move there) so almost all of my belongings are in a storage place in the us and I no longer have a us address. So I am staying in Montreal as a "visitor", I would like to work as soon as possible and thats why I was considering inland because most people receive their open work permits within four months even though it could take up to 2 years to become a permanent resident and on the other hand outland seems better because the process would be much faster but I wouldnt be able to support myself or bring in any income, if anyone has any insight or would like to share their experience it would be awesome especially if you are applying to live in quebec!

This is a particularly personal decision and there is no one-rule-fits-all answer.

Generally, historically, the out-of-Canada application works better for nearly all U.S. citizens being sponsored by a Canadian spouse. I have not been keeping a close eye on reports the last couple years (this forum, for example, has had low activity for family sponsorships for at least two years now, and while I follow other forums I have not done so much in the family sponsorship topics), but I have seen NO indications of anything that changes the overall reasons why the out-of-Canada application is more advantageous.

There are two main advantages: how long the process takes and, generally, there tends to be a significantly lower risk of complications (albeit this lower risk of complications may be derived from the circumstances in which Americans choose to go the inland route).

And two other oft cited significant advantages: right to administrative appeal and there is no risk of the application being terminated if the applicant has a need to leave Canada for a time. I do not think the right to an adminstrative appeal is that significant for qualified applicants who have no reason to apprehend problems; approval is most likely and thus there should be no need for an appeal. The capacity to leave Canada without losing the application (to be eligible for the inland processing, the applicant must be living in Canada, cohabitating in Canada with the sponsor) is important to some.

Again, the main advantages are faster processing and less risk of complications.

Regarding the risk of complications, the thing is the office(s) processing inland applications typically handle complicated cases. For example, a high percentage of inland applicants do not have status to remain in Canada (for example, many have already overstayed by the time the sponsored partner application is submitted). A high percentage came to Canada under more or less false pretense (such as many who came as a "visitor" but intending to stay or at least intending to seek status to stay). A significant percentage came to Canada illegally. A significant percentage are refugee claimants who are likely to lose their bid for protected person status or who have already been denied protected person status. Thus, the personnel in those offices are typically dealing with individuals for whom there are concerns, if not outright issues. In contrast, particularly for Americans being sponsored by a Canadian spouse, the visa office (handling out-of-Canada applications, including the Ottawa CPC which would most likely be the one handling yours) typically handles predominantly routine applications.


Timeline: faster processing:

This is the real advantage.

Be wary of CIC posted timelines. Better to go to the Canadian government's opendata site and find more precise information about the timelines (assuming it is still as robust there as it was a year ago).

The CIC posted timelines are virtually useless . . . they are based on "how long it took to process 80 percent of all cases [in a particular calendar year]." This is typically way, way longer than it took to process a median number of cases (in the past, it has often been around twice as long as it took to process half of all applications). The CIC posted timeline really says little or nothing about what qualified, routine applicants should anticipate.

The opendata site, however, is not user friendly, but if you can navigate it and find the pertinent data, it is far, far more informative. As of a year ago, anyway, the site was still displaying timelines in which 20% and 50% of applications were processed, in addition to the 80% figures.

In the past, routine applicants who did a good job completing the application forms and submitting supporting documentation, who had no complications (complicating factors can include, for example, problematic custodial issues regarding dependent children from a previous relationship, such as where the children's other parent is uncooperative) typically experienced a timeline somewhere between the timeline for 20% and 50% . . . and even if it goes as long as the timeline for 50%, in the past (I do not know more recent stats) this tended to be around half as long as the timeline for 80%.

In other words, qualified applicants (Canadian sponsor and American sponsored partner) who do a good job completing the application, can probably anticipate the whole process to be completed in 6 to 10 months. (When I went through this, seven years ago, mine only took four months to when the visa was issued, four months from date application was sent to Mississauga . . . it appears to be significantly longer now but again not nearly so long (for routine applicants) as the CIC posted timeline suggests . . . note, though, the assessment of sponsor stage is clearly taking a month longer now than in the past).

It appears to be the case that CIC has accelerated the processing of inland applications through the stage in which an Open Work Permit is issued. That is one of the more significant changes which can affect your decision making about this. I do not know much about the percentage of applicants who actually do obtain the Open Work Permit timely this way. I would offer this, as my impression (not something I know): if your case is straight-forward enough that Vegreville would quickly process the intial steps resulting in a relatively quick issuance of the Open Work Permit, that would suggest your case is straight-forward enough to go through the out-of-Canada process much closer to the 20% timeline than the 80% timeline . . . in other words, if it is likely you would indeed be relatively promptly issued the work permit, you are likely to sail quickly through the outland process as well.

Nonetheless: it is a personal decision.


Caveats:

As you apprehend, there are some complications, some additional requirements, relative to applicants seeking status to live in Quebec. I am not familiar with those.

Additionally, the lack of an address in the States may complicate the out-of-Canada application process some. My memory of how I did this is a bit fuzzy. I was living with my sponsoring spouse by the time I applied (I had obtained an extension of visitor status) . . . but I think I listed her (our) address as my mailing address and listed an address in the states as my residential address. (I had deliberately relocated my affairs to be based in my sister's home, in the states, before coming to Canada, and continued to use that as my residential address until I landed and became a PR.)      



Edited by dpenabill - 25 Aug 2015 at 2:20pm