Work in Canada involves travel abroad

[armoured]

Your biggest issue will be the period where your PR card is no longer valid. If you apply close to the 730 days you may also face longer processing time.

Yes, I'd underline this too - renewing a PR card is not very fast (there are other threads on timeline).

During the period after expiry, even when you get compliant but before new card received, you won't be able to board a plane to return to Canada. You can cross at a land border (although expect scrutiny, so you'd need RO compliance details) with your expired card - and while that might not be a big inconvenience if you're in Windsor or Vancouver, more of a problem if you're in, say, Edmonton.

Just to keep in mind while planning ahead.

 

[Strongberry]

OVERVIEW:

There is NO rule that work abroad pursuant to what is labelled a "Business Trip" will not qualify for the credit.

And it is common for some international companies to have a division or corporate entity organized and doing business in Canada, which will meet the criteria for being a "Canadian business" that qualifies for the credit.

So, assuming all the particular elements of the employment relationship otherwise meet the criteria, the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit should apply. ("Should" in looking at how the rules actually work sense, in contrast to some moral or what is just sense.)

HOWEVER, the fact that an assignment to work abroad labelled a business trip CAN qualify for the credit does NOT necessarily mean business trips will qualify. The work abroad must otherwise meet ALL the requirements for the credit. And things can otherwise be what might be called real-life-complicated. Note, after all, it will not be an omniscient god deciding whether the PR gets the credit, but a total stranger bureaucrat, or law enforcement officer, a person who is prone to all the sorts of weaknesses and biases anyone might have.


LONGER EXPLANATION and OBSERVATIONS:

Characterizing the work abroad as a "business trip" is largely NOT relevant. The label does not matter. After all, if the "assignment" of a full-time employee is to go to the U.S. to engage in business activity on behalf of the Canadian business, that meets the assigned abroad criteria. Noting, nonetheless, ALL the qualifying criteria must still be met.

In particular, I disagree with the view that business trips will not qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit. It appears that view tends to overlook an "assignment" can be for a single day, a week, a month, or longer (but it must be temporary), and can include engaging in activity that many might describe as a "business trip."

I have discussed this issue in-depth, including here (should link), and NO ONE here has offered any source or citation, let alone link, supporting the view that work abroad will not qualify for the credit because it is labeled a "business trip."

THAT SAID . . . probably a good idea to approach this with MUCH CAUTION . . . what underlies the observations by @armoured warrants serious consideration. As I noted, the fact that business trips abroad can qualify for the credit does NOT necessarily mean they will qualify . . . and, it is important to recognize that what qualifies is a decision made by a total stranger bureaucrat who, just like everyone else, can be (more like will-be) influenced by appearances. What underlies @armoured's suggestion is that in the vast majority of scenarios, for almost all PRs, isolated, occasional, relatively short business trips abroad will NOT make much if any difference, at least not for a PR well-settled, living and working IN Canada.

IN CONTRAST, if such minimal travel will make the difference, at the least that may tend to invite questions, concerns, perhaps even overtly activate suspicion-radar (so to say).

It is something of an overstatement, but I tend to caution that if a PR actually needs the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit the chances are the PR will NOT qualify for it. To be clear, this is not the rule. Many PRs successfully rely on this credit to meet their Residency Obligation. BUT there is no doubt, this credit is viewed, interpreted, and applied as a NARROW EXCEPTION to the obligation to be present IN Canada.

Thus, for example, your focus on whether or not working in the employ of an international corporation, whose main headquarters is NOT in Canada, will qualify for the credit, is indeed a matter of concern. Many such companies will have a business situs IN Canada that meets the criteria of a "Canadian business" within the scope of subsection 28(2)(a)(iii) IRPA, which prescribes the credit for days "outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business." BUT it may be rather difficult to explain that to a border official at a PoE who is already suspicious because you have not been in Canada enough to meet the RO. Law enforcement officials (including CBSA officers) tend to bristle (or react even more negatively) when subjects try to tell them what the rules or laws are, let alone how they should be applied.

There are far too many variables to attempt, in a forum like this, drilling down into all the various elements which could influence how things go. Some big ones are obvious: the amount of time you have been IN Canada and the extent to which it is readily apparent you are well settled in Canada. Appearances can matter. Impressions can matter.

Which also leads to the "Walmart and Starbucks" examples. Walmart in particular has a Canadian division, which almost certainly is considered a "Canadian business" (headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario). Relatively easy case . . . SO LONG AS it is readily apparent the PR is employed by the Canadian business, and not an employee of Walmart in the U.S. (or elsewhere). Subject, perhaps, to a little risk a CBSA officer might not, so to say, get-it.

A lot of businesses may not be so easily characterized. Consider Walmart again. It is not the fact that Walmart has "stores in Canada" that makes it a "Canadian business." It is the fact that Walmart has a business entity legally organized as a Canadian business, for the purpose of engaging in business in Canada, in conjunction with the fact that that business entity is indeed engaged in doing business in Canada. And is readily seen as such.

And in this regard, just being legally organized in Canada is NOT enough.

Also warrants noting there are different practical concerns if your concern is about what CBSA officers might do when you are examined upon your return to Canada, or your concern is about how IRCC will handle your application for a new PR card. Both of these can be influenced (a lot) by other factors. (@canuck78 references some such aspects below.)

Bottom-line: there is some risk relying on the credit in the scenario you describe. Perhaps that is a risk of inconvenience more than outright losing PR status -- but this depends on the details. One could generalize some, say that the longer you are IN Canada, and more well established in Canada, prior to a trip abroad, the lower the risk. The shorter the trip abroad and the more obvious you went abroad for a business trip pursuant to employment with a readily recognized Canadian business, the lower the risk. And so on. But any such risk-assessment (1) does not definitively indicate how it will actually go, and (2) is very much subject to the influence of other factors (not the least of which is the PR's overall history).

Thank you dpenabill. I think I understand the case now, after reading your comment and the materials that you guys provided. Currently I still have 1 month available to travel freely without trouble, and I decided NOT to go abroad during the remaining days until I am physically present in Canada for at least 270 days before I renew my PR card.

As for "Canadian business", now I was able to find out my employer's Canadian division's record on Bloomberg which is called "*** Canada inc.", with a Canadian address. The business trips are a part of my job, so I guess if other requirements are satisfied, these days should be counted towards RO. But as I understand the potential risks and inconvenience, I will not risk this.

 

[Strongberry]

Your biggest issue will be the period where your PR card is no longer valid. If you apply close to the 730 days you may also face longer processing time.

Hi canuck78, do you mean I still face longer processing time even if I apply after I'm physically present I Canada for 730 days?

 

[Strongberry]

Yes, I'd underline this too - renewing a PR card is not very fast (there are other threads on timeline).

During the period after expiry, even when you get compliant but before new card received, you won't be able to board a plane to return to Canada. You can cross at a land border (although expect scrutiny, so you'd need RO compliance details) with your expired card - and while that might not be a big inconvenience if you're in Windsor or Vancouver, more of a problem if you're in, say, Edmonton.

Just to keep in mind while planning ahead.

Thank you armoured. That will very likely be my case. I can only be mentally prepared for it now.

 

[armoured]

I provide this link to a twitter/comment containing some more detailed information about what qualifies under this part as an assignment/business trip:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780703791727399104

TLDR: What it's called doesn't matter. What mostly matters is that it's full-time, temporary, required, and that the employee will return to the Canadian business afterwards.

The one bit of awkwardness I see is this: "they are assigned on a full-time basis as a term of their employment or contract to a position outside Canada with that business."

This bit about being assigned 'to a position' (my emphasis in both cases) is highly ambiguous. I doubt anyone at IRCC would challenge it for a clearcut case, but is (for example) travelling somewhere to give a presentation for a few days being 'assigned to a position'? I don't know.

Anyway, I still wouldn't want to have to qualify on the basis of a bunch of short business trips, as opposed to having a more clear contractual assignment. FWIW for others though.

 

[dpenabill]

I provide this link to a twitter/comment containing some more detailed information about what qualifies under this part as an assignment/business trip: . . . .

The reference to Steven Meurrens is much appreciated totally apart from the link being a source that concurs in what I have been rather emphatic about in this forum for many years now, that the label "business trip" is not what matters; as I said in this very thread three years ago, above:

Characterizing the work abroad as a "business trip" is largely NOT relevant. The label does not matter. After all, if the "assignment" of a full-time employee is to go to the U.S. to engage in business activity on behalf of the Canadian business, that meets the assigned abroad criteria. Noting, nonetheless, ALL the qualifying criteria must still be met.

In particular, I disagree with the view that business trips will not qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit. It appears that view tends to overlook an "assignment" can be for a single day, a week, a month, or longer (but it must be temporary), and can include engaging in activity that many might describe as a "business trip."

The reason this reference to Meurrens is especially appreciated (again apart from the business trip stuff) is that it led me to his information about "Artificial Intelligence and Canadian Immigration," which is here: https://meurrensonimmigration.com/artificial-intelligence-and-canadian-immigration/

Obviously I am not among those who found Meurrens' twitter/X information TLDR, but rather inviting me to go in search of what more this immigration lawyer has to say.

That information from Meurrens, about AI, also confirms some extensive comments I have been making since late last year, and more so this year after it became readily apparent that IRCC has expanded its use of automated decision-making to online PR card renewal applications.

The now obvious fact that IRCC has been employing automated decision making, which incorporates multiple components of AI, has not generated much response at all in this forum even though this really is a big deal. This is already making a major difference and its impact is likely to increase as advanced analytics including what some call "machine learning" play an escalating role, not necessarily so much in how final decisions are made (though it might), but rather in how applications are segregated into different processing streams.

Right now, for example, online PR card applications which benefit from automated approval decisions result in some being approved almost immediately and those PRs are getting a new PR card WEEKS BEFORE other PR card applications are even opened and looked at (including online applications that do not meet the criteria for automated approval).

Thus, even though Meurrens' discussion is oriented to visa applications and a bit dated, as I have been discussing in some threads here, it is clear that the automated decision making process has been implemented in processing online PR card applications. Additionally it is clear that various elements of advanced analytics are being increasingly employed in various incremental processing steps throughout IRCC's handling of clients (Meurrens refers to some specific software, "Chinook," being used in this way). Leading to lots of advantages and improvements (the almost immediate approval of online PR card applications obviously being a big improvement and a huge advantage for those who benefit). But also leading to some downsides, disadvantages, and risks. Meurrens discusses some of the potential downsides.

(Also note more generic pitfalls. Brian Klaas has recently written about the limitations of data analytics for example, and how so-called "Moneyballing" and the "wizardry of analytics," despite being a powerful tool for so many problems will not work dealing with many other problems.)

To me, among the potentially more severe downsides, at least quantitatively, is the risk of increasing disparity between low-complex routine cases and non-routine cases. It will be one thing if IRCC leverages this technology to facilitate efficiencies overall, improving processing timelines for non-routine applications as well as the low-complex routine cases (what Meurrens refers to as "straight-forward cases"). Procedural fairness should mean that EVERYONE gets relatively comparable processing. It is one thing to separate applications with salient issues requiring individualized investigation, complex evaluation, and thus more extensive assessment, which tends to result in very long processing timelines, which can be unfair for many but is more or less within a reasonable range given the logistics involved when there are real issues to resolve (noting however that many vehemently dispute how reasonable the timeline is in these cases). It is another thing to employ a system that creates separate processing streams inherently resulting in big disparities in the timeline for some PRs versus others among those who are entitled to be issued a PR card.

That is, allowing for the very lengthy processing timelines that tend to plague what might be categorized as "high complex" cases has long been baked into things; in contrast, a systematic approach which results in a big disparity between the timelines for low and medium complex cases should be of much concern for those who value procedural fairness. Not that cases which can be decided very quickly should be delayed, but that there should be a dedicated effort to comparably process all the other cases with no-serious-issue.

This is not to dismiss, not at all, the various other concerns Meurrens addresses, which go even deeper into the weeds. The discussion about the so-called "Chinook" software, and bulk processing steps, is complicated stuff, for example, but for those interested in navigating IRCC's approach to decision-making, reading through these materials offers a lot of insight into the models employed and nuances of internal procedure, and many of the factors considered, including how they are considered (albeit unfortunately much is also redacted from the information Meurrens obtained through ATI requests).

It is fascinating and illuminating stuff, at least for those interested in the process-oriented elements.

Beyond that . . .

I provide this link to a twitter/comment containing some more detailed information about what qualifies under this part as an assignment/business trip: . . . .

TLDR: What it's called doesn't matter. What mostly matters is that it's full-time, temporary, required, and that the employee will return to the Canadian business afterwards.

As I noted, in addition to my comments in this particular thread back in 2021 (quoted above), in which I push back on comments like "this is not an assignment or contract. It's a business trip," for many years I have made a concerted effort to document why it is not the label that matters. This goes back to lengthy posts I made more than five years ago in which I cite and give links for literally DOZENS of actual cases and scores of other sources, which is here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/working-abroad-ro-credit-including-business-trips-an-update.607559/ (note: due to the misplaced inclusion of a "<" character many of those links will not work by clicking on them, but if copied and pasted they will work.)

However, even as of just a few months ago some forum members who are generally providing good information and commentary have repeated the (unfounded) refrain that business trips will not qualify for the working-abroad credit. For example, here is a late-January response to queries by a PR whose employment for a Canadian university involved periodic business trips outside Canada:

Your business travel will not count as days in Canada for purposes of meeting the residency obligation.

Once again, as I have many times here, I responded: "The fact that the travel outside Canada is labeled "business travel," or "business trip," does not determine if the credit is available; this label will NOT illuminate much if anything (typically nothing at all) about whether that time abroad qualifies for this RO credit." And in addition to referencing the more extensive citation of authority, I once again repeated a request I have made many times in this forum, asking for reference to any sources that indicated otherwise. I have repeated this request often over the course of many years. So far, after YEARS of asking, NO one has offered any.

The one bit of awkwardness I see . . .

Will address this further (soon or not much later) in https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/working-abroad-ro-credit-including-business-trips-an-update.607559/ including address the focus more on "assignment," not so much "position."

 

[armoured]

The reference to Steven Meurrens is much appreciated ...

I note he also has a podcast, Borderlines, which covers a number of other topics related to immigration. It's very much from the point of view (and arguably targetted for audience) of lawyers. I don't find it great but I've listened to a few of interest.

Once again, as I have many times here, I responded: "The fact that the travel outside Canada is labeled "business travel," or "business trip," does not determine if the credit is available; this label will NOT illuminate much if anything (typically nothing at all) about whether that time abroad qualifies for this RO credit." And in addition to referencing the more extensive citation of authority, I once again repeated a request I have made many times in this forum, asking for reference to any sources that indicated otherwise. I have repeated this request often over the course of many years. So far, after YEARS of asking, NO one has offered any.

You have convinced me on this (and corroboration from many other sources has certainly helped).

BUT: I'd warn those that are in a position to make use of such business trips / postings counting as days of residency in Canada that it might NOT make sense to 'claim' for them even if you have them. Or to consider waiting for more 'physical' days of presence to meet the RO.

Why? Because if you have the physical days, and referring to your AI-enabled analysis points above, claiming them might subject you to a far longer processing time.

Or it might not - but my instinct is that since the other 'exceptions', esp H&C reasons, are also likely to cause more detailed analysis, claiming business trip/assignments abroad days is highly likely to kick you out of the 'quick approval' process.

 

[dpenabill]

More process-oriented context . . . at the risk of rabbit-hole ruminations . . . oh so weedy . . .

BUT: I'd warn those that are in a position to make use of such business trips / postings counting as days of residency in Canada that it might NOT make sense to 'claim' for them even if you have them. Or to consider waiting for more 'physical' days of presence to meet the RO.

Why? Because if you have the physical days, and referring to your AI-enabled analysis points above, claiming them might subject you to a far longer processing time.

Or it might not - but my instinct is that since the other 'exceptions', esp H&C reasons, are also likely to cause more detailed analysis, claiming business trip/assignments abroad days is highly likely to kick you out of the 'quick approval' process.

As I noted, I intend to further discuss the "business trip" aspect in https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/working-abroad-ro-credit-including-business-trips-an-update.607559/page-2 and will, in particular, wrestle with some of the practical elements involved, especially in regards to real-life scenarios. Before diving into that, however, I need to update my research. It is not that I have seen signs much has changed over the years in regard to this particular credit for RO (noting that actually there has been virtually no indication of change). But it would be too hypocritical even for me (yeah, among my various weaknesses, there's more than a little hypocrisy at play) to not do the homework I so often so vehemently push as important.

Should have been obvious, for a long time now, that my interests have indeed been oriented to information in what might be described as lawyer-range-stuff, and that even though I am not a Canadian lawyer and in no way an immigration professional, I have more than an incidental background to work with. I do NOT post here as an authority, not at all, but I make a concerted effort to base the information and commentary I post on reliable authority, often with references and links to such authority.

But I also have a strong interest in process, in the structure and mechanism of decision-making, in addition to the substantive basis for decisions. Unlike many areas of law practice, immigration law is dominated by bureaucratic procedure and process. A big part of what is fascinating and illuminating in the Meurrens' materials is what it shows about the latter. The Chinook user guide and the triage model for family class visa applications (both accessible through the Meurrens' site) are prime samples of process-oriented materials that offer insight into internal processing at IRCC.

Understanding the rules is critically important. But also understanding how the rules are in practice applied, not just in terms of interpreting what the rules are and what they require, but in practical, mechanical decision-making terms, can also be very important in regards to what happens and especially in regards to things like processing timelines.

Your comments about the prudence of relying on working-abroad credit, for example, go beyond whether days working abroad will qualify for RO credit (which will affect the risk of inadmissibility proceedings). To be clear, I likewise see that how things can affect the processing apart from the impact on final-outcome decisions is important to many PRs navigating PR card, PR TD, and citizenship applications, and even (for some PRs) the Port-of-Entry process. In fact, much of what I post is more focused on this than it is on final-outcome decision-making.

Bringing this to recognizing the increasing role of triage distinguishing levels of complexity.

In the past, again apart from outcome-decision-criteria, the difference between "routine" processing and "non-routine" processing has loomed large, recognizing that some non-routine processing is relatively non-disruptive, resulting in minimal delays in the finalization of an application, while issue-related non-routine processing can have a big impact and result in lengthy timeline delays, including referrals to Secondary Review or for CBSA NSSD investigation in regards to PR card applications . . . and may involve outcome deciding issues.

I am with you in anticipating that reliance on RO credit for days abroad working for a Canadian business means a PR card application will not be low-complex, which means it will not benefit from an automated-decision resulting in near immediate approval upon submission and the fastest timeline possible for being delivered a new PR card. So, for a PR in a rush to get a new PR card but they can wait until they meet the RO based on days physically present in Canada, and who is otherwise confident there should be no complicating factors affecting their application, waiting to apply online based actual presence to meet the RO would be a good idea.

I would bet a lot that just relying on RO credit for days outside Canada, including accompanying-citizen-spouse credit, is enough to preclude low-complex triage and thus preclude automated-approval of a PR card application. That is, a PR card application relying on RO credit for days outside Canada most likely (I'd say almost certainly) will require review by an IRCC official. Unlike an automated-approval which happens almost immediately when the application is submitted online, this means there will be no approval any sooner than around eight weeks after submission (under the current processing timeline).

Meanwhile, it is NOT as if the distinction between routine and issue-related non-routine is no longer a big deal. The latter almost certainly fall into high-complex when triaged. What looms large, however, is that the latter are prone to far longer processing timelines and often involve issues that can impact the outcome.

SUMMARY; assuming the triage procedure is consistent with processing other applications, and thus separates PR card applications into low-complex, medium-complex, and high-complex:

Difference between low and medium complex affects whether the application can be (and is) approved by an automated process or must be reviewed by an IRCC official​

-- Low-complex online application can be approved almost immediately when submitted (no officer review necessary)​

-- All others (not low-complex), including online applications not benefitting from an automated decision, will be opened and processed around eight weeks after submission (based on current processing timeline)​

-- -- Many of the latter will be approved very quickly (among those not high complex or otherwise involving non-routine processing)​

-- Timelines in particular:​

-- -- For online automated approval, approval nearly immediate upon submission, PR card delivered based on logistical time to print and mail card​

-- -- Many other applications are approved more or less when opened, so under current timeline new card will be received in around eight weeks plus the logistical time to print and mail card​

-- -- For high complex applications or those otherwise involving issue-related non-routine processing, timelines range from a few weeks longer than routinely processed applications to many months longer​

High complex applications will involve some degree of non-routine processing, likely some issue-related non-routine processing​

-- Some of these will involve more than verification review, potentially involving issues that can impact outcome-decisions, including those resulting in preparation of an inadmissibility report leading to inadmissibility proceedings​

Mapping how this or that particular issue, or particular factor (like relying on RO credit for days working outside Canada), will affect which of these processing streams an application is handled in, is of course intensely detail oriented. (Has the risk of getting too weedy even for jurist-oriented-nerds been mentioned? Probably.)

The main take-away is that in addition to what will impact the outcome (such as whether a new PR card is issued versus triggering inadmissibility proceedings), and what leads to routine versus non-routine processing (and the difference this makes), it is now readily apparent that application processing is also affected by triage criteria which will distinguish low-complex applications.

Again, I will further address the RO credit for days working outside Canada elsewhere, including in particular business trip scenarios.