1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Form EEA – permanent residence applications

Applicants use Form EEA (PR) to apply for, replace or renew a document certifying permanent residence or a permanent residence card.

On April 12, 2017, the Home Office updated its guidance notes detailing what an applicant should send with his or her application. See here for full details. The guidance notes now include a table of examples of people in different circumstances. This acts as a helpful guide for applicants thinking about the evidence they might need to provide specific to their own circumstances.

The documents and evidence sent must be originals. The Home Office makes an exception for online applicants who have their passports verified, copied and sent to the Home Office by a local authority participating in the European Passport Return Service. All documents not in English or Welsh must be accompanied by an official English translation provided by a qualified translator.

Dentons will issue further http://cialisfrance24.com information as it becomes available.

, , ,

Form EEA – permanent residence applications

Travel ban executive order – the saga continues

The US Departments of State and Homeland Security both issued statements on February 6, 2017, confirming that the government has suspended the implementation of key provisions of President Trump’s travel ban on nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries, and that visas that had been provisionally revoked are now valid for travel and may be used, once again, to come to the US, subject to the normal laws and procedures that existed prior to the President Trump’s executive order dated January 27, 2017.

This action comes as a result of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, denying a US Department of Justice request for an immediate stay of a nationwide injunction granted by a US federal district court judge in Seattle in response to Washington State’s request for a temporary restraining order immediately halting implementation and enforcement of the immigration ban.

The EO initially barred the entry to the United States of lawful permanent residents with green cards, and imposes a 90-day suspension of admission for immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, and refugees and passport holders from the seven countries. Soon thereafter, the Department of State issued an urgent notice suspending visa issuance to citizens of those countries. The EO also suspended the resettlement of refugees from all countries to the US for 120 days, and bans Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Previous injunctions had been issued in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York. Those orders temporarily enjoined federal agencies from removing people with approved refugee applications, valid visas and the nationals from the seven Muslim countries. The Seattle court’s decision is the broadest and has the largest impact.

Citizens from these countries are impacted

Nationals from the following countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

The EO does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries. Further, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency has stated that the EO does not apply to citizens of these seven countries, if they are dual citizens and use the passport of a non-affected country to enter the US.

Travel guidance

Nationals from the seven listed countries, including dual citizens traveling with the passport of another country and US permanent residents, may wish to delay travel to the US until the details of the implementation of the EO are more clear, even if they already hold a visa to enter the United States. If in the United States already, they may wish to defer departure as they may not be allowed to return or they may find themselves going through a more lengthy than usual secondary inspection on arrival in the US. There are also reports of airline personnel being understandably confused regarding the status of the EO, with resulting inconvenience to travelers.

Background

On February 4, President Trump tweeted the following about the Hon. James L. Robart, the district court judge who issued the nationwide order. “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Criticism of the tweet and the EO was immediate and widespread. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, “The President’s hostility toward the rule of law is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. He seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.” Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said: “We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

Broad media coverage of the confusion caused by the uncertainty surrounding the EO’s fate continues. Dentons continues to receive emails and calls from employers who are considering cancelling all travel for employees carrying passports from the impacted countries, including dual citizens and US lawful permanent residents. Similar concerns have been voiced by citizens of many countries that are not listed in the EO but are worried that their country might be next. Due to the reciprocal nature of diplomatic relations, it is likely that US passport holders traveling to the seven countries will experience similar difficulties upon their arrival. Iran, for its part, has said, it would stop US citizens entering the country in retaliation to Washington’s visa ban.

Dentons will issue further information as it becomes available.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Travel ban executive order – the saga continues

Entry to the United States barred for certain passport holders?!

US President Donald Trump issued an executive order delaying the entry to the United States of lawful permanent residents with green cards, immigrant and nonimmigrant visa holders, refugees and passport holders from seven countries. The order, dated January 27, 2017, became effective immediately. Soon thereafter, the US Department of State issued an urgent notice suspending visa issuance to citizens of those countries.

On January 28, 2017, injunctions were issued in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York. The orders enjoin federal agencies from removing people with approved refugee applications, valid visas and others from the seven countries.

How the government is reacting

In a January 29, 2017, press release, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that it will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s executive orders. Later that same day, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency, which is part of DHS, issued a statement deeming the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest. The result is to allow lawful permanent residents to return to their homes in the US, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare.

Citizens from these countries are impacted

Nationals from the following seven countries are detrimentally impacted:

  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Libya
  • Somalia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Yemen

The order does not apply to citizens of other countries who merely visited the listed countries.

Travel Guidance

Nationals from the seven listed countries, including dual citizens traveling https://www.viagrapascherfr.com/comment-se-procurer-du-viagra-en-belgique/ with the passport of another country, may wish to delay travel to the United States until the details of the implementation of the executive order is more clear even if they already hold a visa to enter the United States. If in the United States already, they may wish to defer departure.

Background

The executive order is reported to have been issued without advance consultation with the agencies charged with its implementation, including DHS and the Department of State.

President Trump stated on January 28 that the travel ban is “working out very nicely.”

That said, there is broad media coverage of the widespread confusion that resulted, not only in the general public, but also at airports, airlines, border crossings, etc. There are reports of detentions of new arrivals at airports and public protest in many American cities. I have had a number of emails and calls from client employers canceling travel for employees carrying passports from the impacted countries, including dual citizens and United States lawful permanent residents. Due to the reciprocal nature of diplomatic relations, it is likely that US passport holders traveling to these seven countries will experience similar difficulties.

The situation remains very fluid. Press Secretary Reince Priebus stated on January 29, 2017, that the executive order will no longer apply to lawful permanent residents, and the USCIS issued its confirming statement mentioned above.

Dentons will issue further information as it becomes available.

, , , , , , , , ,

Entry to the United States barred for certain passport holders?!

Tax consequences for multinationals sending employees to Canada

US-and-Canada-flag-puzzle

Multinational corporations sending employees to foreign countries on business must be alert to the legal responsibilities that can arise from such transfers. Dentons partner Emmanuel Sala clarifies the Canadian and Quebec fiscal rules and mechanisms that govern US parent corporations with US employees employed in Canada. His article covers both Canadian federal and Quebec provincial payroll tax obligations. Regarding Canadian federal tax obligations, Emmanuel notes that if a US parent corporation is determined to have a “permanent establishment” (PE) in Canada, business profits attributable to the PE would be subject to Canadian federal income tax and various forms of tax relief would become unavailable. He provides an in-depth review of the most common situations that might give rise to a PE determination, including fixed-base, agency, construction-site and service. Emmanuel also discusses the possibility of implementing secondment arrangements to mitigate the risk of a PE determination.

Click to read article.

, , , , ,

Tax consequences for multinationals sending employees to Canada

NINETEEN IS THE NEW TWENTY-TWO: AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF “DEPENDENT CHILD” IN THE CANADIAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

Image

On August 1, 2014, the Canadian government amendments to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, changing the definition of a “dependent child”, came into force. Under the old definition, a dependent child was considered a child under the age of 22 and financially dependent on their parents. Under the new definition, a dependent child must now be under the age of 19. Additionally, the exception for full-time students, under the old definition, was removed. This means children that are 19 or older, still financially dependent on their parents, and who are full-time students will not be processed as a dependent child in the Canadian immigration process.

The amendments have no impact on children who are dependent on their parents because of mental or physical conditions, they will continue to be treated as dependent children under the Canadian immigration process regardless of their age.

The amendments were made to reflect the provincial definitions of “age of majority”.

Dependent children who are full-time students and who are 19 or older may still apply to come to Canada but will be assessed on their own merits. They can apply as foreign students or through various economic and immigration programs that Canada has.

Any application submitted prior to August 1, 2014, when the amendment came into force, will continue under the old definition. Additionally, there are transitional measures that will allow certain applicants to continue the multi-step application using the old definition. The transitional measures apply to applicants who commenced the multi-step permanent resident immigration programs prior to the amendments taking effect. The transitional measures will apply to the certain groups, including:

  • Provincial Nominee Program applicants;
  • Applicants who have applied under one of Quebec’s economic programs;
  • Live-in caregivers;
  • Refugees abroad and refugee claimants;
  • Quebec humanitarian cases;
  • Parents or grandparents whose sponsorship applications were received before November 5, 2011; and
  • Privately sponsored refugees whose sponsorship applications were received before October 18, 2012.

For a dependent child entering a multi-step permanent resident immigration program, they will have their age “locked in” at the first formal step of the immigration program. This means that the age of a dependent child will be considered under 19 for entire immigration process if they were under 19 at the time they started the formal process of an immigration program regardless of whether they are under 19 when the submit their immigration application.

The official government notice can be found here.

For more information, please contact Dentons Canada LLP Immigration group.

, , , , , ,

NINETEEN IS THE NEW TWENTY-TWO: AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF “DEPENDENT CHILD” IN THE CANADIAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS