VR remarks.. Please help?

My husband called his MP today. It was in regards to the remarks made on the Visitor Visa I was given when I came into the country as his wife on January 26th, 2010.

It reads:

"Remarks: Must Confirm Departure by 25JUL2010
          Married to CDN citizen
          MH14385/5103"

Has ANYONE had similar remarks to these? Have you tried to apply for a visa extension by mail and gotten it? Or not?

The Immigration consultant at the MP's office told us in short "Remarks are not conditions or rules, if we were required to do anything more, it would be listed under 'Conditions'"... but she compared everything we told her to a standard-issue VR, telling us that as it looked, we should just be able to file for the extension.

Please, if anyone could help us figure this out, we would be so appreciative. My stomach is just in knots.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the response--

We're a few days away from submitting our spousal PR app--we're planning to overnight mail both the Extension & The PR app, mailing the extension with proof of fees paid, marriage certificate, etc..

Did you have any words in the "remarks" category toward the bottom of the VR you received (if you received one)?

We are concerned over the "Must Confirm Departure" note because on the last work visa I held (before my current VR) I overstayed. This was disclosed & dealt with before receiving this new status... But the IO that we met with warned "Even if you apply for an extension on this visa, you must still come back to this very POE to make sure you've made significant progress on your application"... which doesn't make sense to either me or my husband.. because at the very moment I step out of the country the extension would be invalidated, correct? Why would she say this? The same IO lied to use about what the immigration costs would be (said it was $1500 when it was less than 200), the amount of time it would take to get certain documents and lied about the validity of the application fees that I had presented at the time. I realize that she was trying to spook us to make sure we'd actually apply for my PR, but now we are just uncertain as to whether we actually have to go out of the country and go back in again, because she lied about so many other things.

I apologize for leaving things so unclear in my first post. Sometimes I become a little overwhelmed and my need for answers makes me talk before I think!

As you were advised, "remarks" are not "conditions."

I would tend to interpret the remarks you cite:

"Remarks: Must Confirm Departure by 25JUL2010           Married to CDN citizen           MH14385/5103"

as advisory, and if you did not apply for an extension or otherwise obtain alternative status (such as PR) in the meantime, I would definitely depart on time and check in at the POE to confirm departure.

But I very much doubt that this remark affects your capacity to apply for an extension of visitor status or to apply for any other status.

I am more confident that what the CBSA officer (handling immigration but still a CBSA officer) at the POE verbally said is merely in the vein of admonition, suggestion, advice, caution, or such. Not binding.

Thus I am pretty confident you may apply for an extension, and if you do so timely you will have implied status to remain in Canada until, at the least, a decision is made on that application. (There is no guarantee you will be given an extension . . . and, indeed, some of the concerns the POE officer had may be a factor.)

That said, required confirmation of departure is not unusual (I never had that imposed on me, though I had several VRs over the course of years prior to obtaining PR -- I'm pretty sure I had a record of entries that clearly indicated I never overstayed since the entries themselves were less than six months apart, often if not usually much less; I have, however, seen several others report that they were indeed required to confirm departure) and, probably, usually appears in the remarks section rather than under conditions.

I am not sure what you mean when you distinguish your VR from the "standard-issue VR" . . . the form should be the same, the differences, beyond personal information and details particular to the VR's issuance, are usually in either the conditions imposed or remarks made. As for the conditions, there are standard ones, no work, no school, must leave by date, but additional conditions may be imposed and that would still be a standard-issue VR in my estimation. Similarly, the "remarks" section can vary significantly from one VR to another, usually tied to the individual's particular circumstances or the circumstances pursuant to which the VR was issued (most, but not all of my VRs had no remarks). Again, variations in remarks are not unusual and in my estimation do not make a VR with remarks substantially different from the standard-issue VR.

There is no obligation to use the same POE. I am quite sure a POE officer cannot enforce an admonition to "return" to the same POE.

However, be aware that it may be an offence to engage in POE-shopping (it is for sure an offense to do this in seeking entry into the U.S.) and it sounds like the officer you dealt with had some concerns about your history or circumstances suggesting attention to the prospect of POE-shopping . . . that is where an individual goes to a different POE specifically to obtain a perceived advantage. Until you obtain PR status, you may be flagged for this and it is something they might look for when you again seek entry into Canada.

By the way, you are definitely flagged in some regard. That is what the VR is for, actually -- to flag visa-exempt visitors who CBSA perceives some issue of concern regarding. It is there for the foreseeable future and whatever the "flag" itself says, it will pop up again and again and is likely to affect any future border crossing experience until you are a landed PR. I dealt with this for many years, with many trips to secondary, until I became a PR.

Hi Woosh, my Visitors Record Says:

Case Type: 10

Remarks: Temporary Resident Status Maintained as Per R183(6). MYB/G*

It says the same on my previous VR from 2006 except with a different code at the end...

I have applied for both VR's by mail to Vegreville and both have been approved..as long as you meet their conditions you should have no problem..the remarks are only for the use of the visa office when extending..You do not need to prove anything to the IO and the POE if you have applied for an extension before 25th July 2010..as you would then have 'implied status'.

Every visitor/ temporary resident has the right to extend their status and remain in Canada until CIC states otherwise...

I agree with dpenabill..the remarks are there for future IO's and will be in your file...it will also be noted in your file weather you confirmed your exit from Canada..how ever if you extend your stay then you dont need to do it as you wont be leaving and will automatically be refered to your new visa.