The dreaded DS-5535 thread for Montreal. Post here and support each other (split)

[From_CAN_2_US 1,106]

10 hours ago, Sharma Ali said:

Hello Everyone, 

 

just a quick question, Is it allowed if someone just crosses the border to the US to activate a Visa and return through the next exit? Will the covid test also be active for same day return to Canada without making any contacts in the US. What about quarantine @From_CAN_2_US, @Danii, @Tony Nikolovski Do the border people have any idea? 
thanks

What @Danii advised, but some additional notes:

 

There is no requirement for test when entering US by land (but required when flying conducted within the day prior to the flight departure). When returning to Canada by land, all people 5 years or older are required to present a negative test result from a molecular test that was administered within 72 hours prior the time you arrive at the border. The Canada website days "You must take a molecular test outside of Canada within 72 hours of your planned entry into Canada." My reading of this, is that it cannot be a test taken in Canada before you leave.

 

If you are fully vaccinated you do not need to quarantine on your return to canada, but have to have a quarantine plan. This is because, while there is no longer mandatory on arrival testing, some may be randomly chosen for testing. If you are found positive on that test, you have to quarantine.

 

This information is constantly changing and the answer depends on many variables such as age, vaccination status, mode of travel, length of time away, whether you have had COVID in the last 90 days etc. So I recommend checking this page for comprehensive information:

https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/wizard-start

 

[Hello100 50]

2 minutes ago, ice-qube said:

I have said this before on here, and I will reiterate: I would be very skeptical of anything a lawyer is saying on this subject. Why? Because their financial interest is in filing the lawsuit,  which is extremely pricey, and your success or failure does not affect them whatsoever. I am especially skeptical of a lawyer who is aggressively optimistic about such matters. 

Good point. However, I read one more thing: that it is the Consulate's legal obligation to give you an answer within 60 days (only more if they truly need the time). They often don't abide by that time frame (as we can see), hence why suing is a legal way to combat their illegality. So, once the 60 day mark passes, I think one has the legal right to sue. (60 days is what I've read on average, perhaps it's not the case, but it seems like the average answer on forums, websites, YouTube, lawyers, etc.).

[ice-qube 648]

Just now, Tony Nikolovski said:

Good point. However, I read one more thing: that it is the Consulate's legal obligation to give you an answer within 60 days (only more if they truly need the time). They often don't abide by that time frame (as we can see), hence why suing is a legal way to combat their illegality. So, once the 60 day mark passes, I think one has the legal right to sue. (60 days is what I've read on average, perhaps it's not the case, but it seems like the average answer on forums, websites, YouTube, lawyers, etc.).

Can you point to anything that actually says that Consulate has a *legal obligation* to give you an answer within 60 days?

[Hello100 50]

1 minute ago, ice-qube said:

Can you point to anything that actually says that Consulate has a *legal obligation* to give you an answer within 60 days?

Filing a Writ of Mandamus lawsuit for this situation is oftentimes successful, and a WOM lawsuit targets legal obligations not performed. In this case, it is the act of not making a decision within 60 days (based on most sources of information that I and most people have come across). As aforementioned, perhaps it is not 60, but that is the general consensus and typical time period. In any event, I'm sure you would (or should) agree that 60 days is well beyond necessary to complete a background check of you if you're innocent.

[ice-qube 648]

Just now, Tony Nikolovski said:

Filing a Writ of Mandamus lawsuit for this situation is oftentimes successful, and a WOM lawsuit targets legal obligations not performed. In this case, it is the act of not making a decision within 60 days (based on most sources of information that I and most people have come across). As aforementioned, perhaps it is not 60, but that is the general consensus and typical time period. In any event, I'm sure you would (or should) agree that 60 days is well beyond necessary to complete a background check of you if you're innocent.

Unfortunately, it does not matter if I or anyone else "agree that 60 days is well beyond necessary". Naturally I share your opinion of the reasonability of the service times here, but that does not mean there is a legal standard that views 60 days as the maximum reasonable time limit. I have not seen any evidence yet that says 60 days is some legally obligatory standard. When I do see the evidence for it, I will change my mind, but as of yet, I have seen none.

[NykahDeah 71]

4 minutes ago, ice-qube said:

Unfortunately, it does not matter if I or anyone else "agree that 60 days is well beyond necessary". Naturally I share your opinion of the reasonability of the service times here, but that does not mean there is a legal standard that views 60 days as the maximum reasonable time limit. I have not seen any evidence yet that says 60 days is some legally obligatory standard. When I do see the evidence for it, I will change my mind, but as of yet, I have seen none.

I agree with @ice-qube, everything I've seen online in terms of the writ of mandamus is trying to prove that the agency failed to provide the service you're due.. and since there are no set processing times from a consulate AP perspective we are at their mercy. The only thing I could find is they ask to not contact them before 180 days in AP, so beyond necessary at the very least could be argued that would be > 180 days. However you also must show that you've exhausted all other administrative avenues before filing a writ, so that would extend well beyond the 180 days.

 

My two cents.

[BatmanFlow 481]

so any updates anywhere? moms last updated date is nov 24 still. before that it was oct 30ish and before that was interview date.

[ice-qube 648]

6 minutes ago, BatmanFlow said:

so any updates anywhere? moms last updated date is nov 24 still. before that it was oct 30ish and before that was interview date.

I would love to say I have an update--but I don't.

[Rosinasaur 58]

7 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

Was the previous message under "Immigrant Visa Application"?  Because for K-1s, it often changes between Nonimmigrant/Immigrant just before issue.

To be honest, I'm not sure. I've always used the drop down menu for nonimmigrant. 

 

Btw- It just switched back to refused and is no longer loading slowly. The case created date still says Jan 7 2022 but the updated date is today. 

 

[From_CAN_2_US 1,106]

1 hour ago, ice-qube said:

How can you confidently make this statement? The idea that a record of refusal of entry would not affect decision making on the other visa just because *that* visa is an immigrant visa is pretty questionable...

I was going to respond to @Jorgedig, but you beat me to it.

 

@Jorgedig the discussions and advise offered on this thread and the CR1/IR1 DQ thread is specific for Montreal consulate. It is based on lived experience and following the experience for others who interviewed at Montreal for a long time (I have been following the thread for over a year now.)

 

Applicants who have interviewed at Montreal consulate and have been turned around at the border previously (while waiting for their CR1/IR1) have, in most cases (if not all), NOT been approved on the spot AND issued a 221g. We have even had COs tell these applicants that the reason for the refusal and 221G was because of their previous history of being turned around at the border. This is only a temporary refusal, and in all the case I have seen, is eventually sorted out. They get approved as soon as a few hours after interviewing or as late as 1.5 months. 

 

OP was wondering why they were issued the 221G and that was what I was answering.

Edited January 11, 2022 by From_CAN_2_US

[NykahDeah 71]

7 minutes ago, ice-qube said:

Obviously, and nothing of what I am saying here in the interest of gaming the system, either--I am merely trying to investigate the actual *legitimate* rules surrounding provincial health care benefits status. A statement was made that you just automatically lose them upon entering POE. I am arguing that it is not clear that this is automatically the case.

I think it's semantics.. if you are immigrating to US you're declaring you're now a US resident, which technically means you're no longer a Canadian resident, however if you haven't established a domicile in the US and return to Canada (now you're technically a visitor of Canada) can Ontario deny you coverage? Well.. according to all the requirements for being eligible, yes, but you didn't give up your Ontario health card, so it's more of a catch me if you can rather than an instant denial of coverage since you still have a residence in Ontario, potentially a job, etc... Not sure there's an easy answer here... since there are all these grey zones in the system.

 

But what I read online is immigrating, then turning around and coming back, you're technically a visitor. Not sure how that works and I didn't want to test it, so I'm trying to close off as much as I can in prep for the Visa so I don't have to think too hard about it.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by NykahDeah

[ice-qube 648]

16 minutes ago, NykahDeah said:

I think it's semantics

Semantics is part of what *law* is all about--the meanings of words.

 

17 minutes ago, NykahDeah said:

if you are immigrating to US you're declaring you're now a US resident, which technically means you're no longer a Canadian resident

This statement is substantially, if not entirely false.

 

18 minutes ago, NykahDeah said:

so I'm trying to close off as much as I can in prep for the Visa so I don't have to think too hard about it

OK, and that is a good strategy all things considered, but it is pretty much beside the point of the actual question.

[SalishSea 17,745]

2 hours ago, Banoo999 said:

Would  refusal of entries  at the US/CAN border be impact the outcome of a later immigrant/CR1 visa?

Not if the refusal was for suspected immigrant intent, which most are.

[SalishSea 17,745]

1 hour ago, ice-qube said:

How can you confidently make this statement? The idea that a record of refusal of entry would not affect decision making on the other visa just because *that* visa is an immigrant visa is pretty questionable...

Because  I have been reading Visa Journey daily for 6 years.  Being denied admission (IE being allowed to voluntarily withdraw your request for admission) at the border for 214/immigrant intent does not make one inadmissible later on with an immigrant visa.

 

[ice-qube 648]

1 minute ago, Jorgedig said:

Because  I have been reading Visa Journey daily for 6 years.  Being denied admission (IE being allowed to voluntarily withdraw your request for admission) at the border for 214/immigrant intent does not make one inadmissible later on with an immigrant visa.

 

Maybe, but it surely will put up a flag that needs to be clarified later. And that "affects" it, strictly speaking, if only in time to approval. One probably wants to avoid this, if possible.

4 minutes ago, NykahDeah said:

Thanks everyone! Great information and debate.

 

This was fun, you guys helped pass at least 2 hours! What else can we research instead of my constant refresh of the CEAC status??

 

 

I have checked i think 6 times today. This is not useful, it is becoming an compulsive behaviour!