Canada work permit rule wey allow foreign workers to change work - wetin e dey about?
Normally, foreign nationals wey wan work for Canada go need a work permit, wey be di legal document wey fit allow di pesin to get employment and receive pay from employer.
Now, Canada govment dey reduce delays for foreign workers wey dey try change dia jobs without dem waiting for work permit approval.
Meanwhile, any individual wey dey eligible to work witout a work permit go still need a Temporary Resident Visa to enta Canada.
But di new policy na to make am easy for workers to change dia jobs, grow dia careers and support di financial stability of temporary foreign workers for Canada.
Categories under which foreigners fit work without approval
Foreign nationals wey dey Canada but previously get a valid work permit and apply for a new one bifor di expiry of dia previous permit. Dis dey known as 'Maintained status'.
Dem fit kontinu to work under same condition until dia new application get approvals.
Maintained status offer temporary residents di opportunity to continue dia work, but get gatz stay for Canada. If dem comot for Canada, dem no go benefit from di opportunity.
Meanwhile, foreign nationals wey dey maintained status need to stay for Canada while dia application dey under processing so dem no go lose dia authorization to work.
Also, foreigners wey get valid study permit fit work without a permit. Dem fit work off-campus and during academic breaks.
International representatives and dia family members and personal staff fit work witout a permit for Canada.
Wit dis new public policy, foreigner wey get valid job offer and e don submit a work permit application, di worker dey allowed to begin employment witout delay.
Meanwhile, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) dey reduce score of married pipo wey dey enta or wan stay for Canada but declare dia spouse as 'non-accompanying'.
Di 'non- accompanying' option dey help married workers choose if dia spouse dey come wit dem or not, if dem wan apply for di permanent residency.
How Canada 'non-accompanying' spouse option fit affect married pipo
Canada dey give skilled workers pathway to become permanent resident but if dem lie say dia spouse no dey follow dem to gain more points, e fit get serious wahala.
Di IRCC go issue one letter especially wen di spouse dey live and work for Canada. If dem find lies for di letter, e fit lead to five-year ban.
Canada Express Entry dey score applicants through di Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) for different factors like age, language proficiency, qualifications.
Single applicants fit get more points dan dia married applicants if dia spouse qualifications and language scores no dey good enough.
But married applicants fit declare dia spouse as "non-accompanying". Dis mean say dem no go relocate to Canada as permanent residents.
Di "non-accompanying" declaration go make dem assess di applicants as single and e fit add up to 40 CSR points.
Wit Express Entry, candidates dey use di 'non-accompanying' spouse option to increase dia score.
Meanwhile, for October 2024, Canada announce say dem go reduce permanent residency targets from 395,000 for 2025, 380,000 for 2026, and 365,000 for 2027.
Dis dey make plenti married applicants to declare dia spouses as 'non-accompanying' to give dem more chances, and IRCC consida am as misrepresentation.
For Canada, misrepresentation na offence under Section 40 of di Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), wen an applicant provide false information or no provide material facts wey fit affect an immigration decision, weda intentional or not.
Although, to declare a non-accompanying spouse dey allowed under immigration law for valid reasons, such as a spouse career abroad or family obligations, but Canada IRCC fit get issue wit am especially wen di spouse don alreadi dey for Canada on temporary status.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘A win for humanity': Trump's asylum ban at US-Mexico border ruled unlawful
A federal court has ruled that Donald Trump's proclamation of an 'invasion' at the US-Mexico border is unlawful, saying that the president had exceeded his authority in suspending the right to apply for asylum at the southern border. As part of his crackdown on immigration, Trump abruptly closed the southern border to tens of thousands of people who had been waiting to cross into the US legally and apply for asylum, signing a proclamation on the day of his inauguration that directed officials to take action to 'repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States'. In a ruling on Wednesday, US district judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 people seeking asylum in the US and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that it was unlawful to declare an invasion and unilaterally ban the right to claim asylum. Moss ruled that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or the US constitution 'grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance'. He also asserted the constitution did not give the president the authority to 'adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated'. The ruling will not take effect immediately; rather Moss has given the Trump administration 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court. But if Moss's ruling holds up, the Trump administration would have to renew processing asylum claims at the border. 'This decision is a win for human dignity and the rule of law. It sends a clear message: the government cannot use cruelty as a weapon against people fleeing violence,' said Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project – one of several immigrant rights groups that are plaintiffs in the case. 'Today's ruling makes clear three salient points that transcend immigration at the border and speak to who we are as Americans. First, we are a nation of laws. Second, the Trump administration's sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our constitution and our legislative branch. And third, the judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy,' said Javier Hidalgo, legal director at the immigrant rights group Raices. 'The Trump administration's prerogative is once again found to be unlawful. It is increasingly clear where the illegality lies, and it is not with the immigrant families upon whom this administration is inflicting unfathomable harm.' People fleeing persecution and danger in their home countries would still be subject to a slew of other measures that have restricted access to legal immigration pathways. But the ruling would require the homeland security department to offer people at the southern border at least some way to seek refuge in the US. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion For now, crossings at the US-Mexico border have dropped sharply since the administration cut off legal pathways to enter and ramped up the active military presence in the region. But many who had journeyed to the border – fleeing extreme violence, authoritarianism and poverty in Central and South America, as well as Africa and Asia – remained stranded on the Mexican side, holding out hope in shelters for migrants. Others have dispersed into Mexico, seeking work or residency there. Advocates have warned that many of the migrants left in the lurch by Trump's abrupt asylum ban have been put in vulnerable and dangerous situations. The plaintiffs in the case challenging Trump's ban had fled persecution in Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey and Peru. Some have already been removed from the US. The district court ruling comes after a landmark supreme court decision last week in a case challenging Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship. On Friday, the country's highest court ruled to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding the president's policies. But because the case challenging Trump's asylum ban was filed as a class-action lawsuit, it is not affected by the higher court's restriction. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and an architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, on social media criticized the case for trying to 'circumvent' the supreme court ruling, even though the lawsuit had been filed as a class action months ago. He said the ruling created 'a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States'.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trump calls for Jerome 'Mr. Too Late' Powell to resign as Fed chair 'immediately'
President Donald Trump has escalated his feud with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell by demanding the head of the central bank 'resign immediately.' The president has for months blasted Powell - whom he appointed to the position in 2017 - over his refusal to lower interest rates, which Trump claims cost the country a 'fortune' in debt servicing costs. Trump last month seemed to threaten to remove Powell from his role before his term expires in May 2026, though the Supreme Court signaled he is unauthorized to do so. The president then sent Powell a handwritten note on Monday that he is 'too late' in bringing down rates after other country's central banks already announced rate cuts. But Powell has consistently said Fed decisions would not be influenced by political pressure - and has hinted that the central bank would have lowered interest rates if it weren't for the inflation risks brought by Trump's tariffs. The president's latest attack on Powell, in which he wrote that '"Too Late" should resign immediately,' now comes on the heels of Bill Pulte - the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency - asking Congress to investigate the Fed chair. Pulte accused Powell of making 'deceptive' statements at a congressional hearing about the mounting costs of planned renovations to the Federal Reserve headquarters. In his testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, Powell pushed back at reports that the $2.5 billion plans include luxurious items like a VIP dining room and a new marble table. On Wednesday, Trump called on Powell to 'resign immediately' 'All of the sort of inflammatory thing that the media carried are either not in the current plan or just inaccurate,' the Fed chairman said, according to Bloomberg. Other costs, like repairing elevators that go directly to board members' offices and marble fixtures, were basic upkeep, he argued. But Pulte now argues that Powell knowingly lied about the opulent renovations. 'I am asking Congress to investigate Chairman Jerome Powell, his political bias and his deceptive Senate testimony,' the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in a statement. 'Jerome Powell's $2.5B Building Renovation Scandal stinks to high heaven and he lied when asked about the specifics before Congress,' Pulte continued. 'This is nothing short of malfeasance and is worthy "for cause."' He then cited remarks from Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis, who claimed Powell 'made a number of factually incorrect statements... regarding the Fed's plush private dining room and elevator, skylights, water features and roof terrace.' 'This is typical of the mismanagement and "don't bother me" attitude that Chairman Powell has always shown,' she said. Bill Pulte, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, accused Powell of lying about the renovations and called for a Congressional investigation Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told Bloomberg that the committee has not yet discussed whether to investigate Powell but said 'everything's on the table.' 'We'll take a look at that,' he vowed.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Judge blocks Trump's asylum ban at southern border saying he exceeded authority
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's order suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a day-one executive order, Trump declared the situation at the southern border constitutes what he called an invasion of America. The president said he was 'suspending the physical entry' of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over. Federal District Judge Randolph Moss has now blocked that order, writing, 'the President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.' Moss added that neither the Constitution nor immigration law gives the president 'an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum' or other humanitarian protections. The order will take effect July 16, giving the Trump administration two weeks to appeal. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the merits of the case, called Moss's ruling a 'hugely important decision.' 'Not only will it save the lives of families fleeing grave danger, it reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers,' Gelernt said in a statement. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request but an appeal is likely. The president and his aides have repeatedly attacked court rulings that undermine his policies as judicial overreach. The ruling comes after illegal border crossings have plummeted. The White House said Wednesday that Border Patrol made 6,070 arrests in June, down 30 percent from May. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a sharp contrast to late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days. Arrests dropped sharply when Mexican officials increased enforcement within its own borders in December 2023 and again when then-President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in June 2024. They plunged more after Trump became president in January, deploying thousands of troops to the border under declaration of a national emergency. Trump and his allies say the asylum system has been abused. They argue that it draws people who know it will take years to adjudicate their claims in the country's backlogged immigration courts during which they can work and live in America. But supporters argue the right to seek asylum is guaranteed in federal law and international commitments — even for those who cross the border illegally. They say asylum is a vital protection for people fleeing persecution — a protection guaranteed by Congress that even the president doesn't have the authority to ignore. People seeking asylum must demonstrate a fear of persecution on a fairly narrow grounds of race, religion, nationality, or by belonging to a particular social or political group. In the executive order, Trump argued the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' Groups which work with immigrants — the Arizona-based Florence Project, the El Paso, Texas-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Texas-based RAICES — filed the lawsuit against the government, arguing the president was wrong to equate migrants coming to the southern border with an invasion. They also argued Trump's proclamation amounted to the president unilaterally overriding '... the immigration laws Congress enacted for the protection of people who face persecution or torture if removed from the United States.' But the government argued that because both foreign policy and immigration enforcement fall under the executive branch of government, it was entirely under the president's authority to declare an invasion. 'The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,' the government wrote in one argument.
