her side of the story similar to your side of the story ,and me im simply asking about what a resident of canada in IRCC law is ...and clearly you cant find it ...thats why you are using he said she said ,and again its not a personal opinion nor im i the judge ...but suddenly everyone became the law and that is not the purpose of this forum for sure ,telling a member that he cannot ,should not based on opinion ..versus following the rule of the law
Leaving Canada for 3-4 months while waiting for BG and Eligibility (Outland)
- Thread starter Sadko
- Start date
Yes, I've stated repeatedly - and clearly - that they do not define what being a resident is in this specific context.
Which means that all we can rely upon are 'interpretations'.
One VERY strong hint in interpretation is that they make explicit that "short trips are okay".
Another is that, for the most part in IRCC context (such as residency obligation for PRs and residency for citizenship), IRCC uses physically present in Canada.
That's pretty simple. Physically present in Canada, but 'short trips are ok.'
As covered in that thread, there are some who argue for some other interpretation like 'tax residency.' But Canadian government has well-defined in law and practice (court and others) understanding of what resident in Canada for tax purposes is, with tests that clarify. And a very substantial legislative practice of referring to that concept - tax residency - in the law itself when it intends to use that concept. (In other words, legislation that uses that concept will refer specifically to that concept).
So sure: anyone who wishes can think whatever they want. Some interpretations, however, are wrong, and have potential consequences.
Any readers here can decide which interpretation is most likely to be correct.
No, this is not true. I have not told members what they can or cannot do. I have laid out clearly, documented, what I know, and said they can decide what they wish, as long as they accept the potential consequences.
Whereas, you seem to think that because the law doesn't specifically say something, that it is not true.
That's, ahem, not how the law, regulations, or government works. Saying something vague about the rule of law doesn't mean much of anything, really.
he said 3-4 month you said no ..one month you said one month is good ...thats not true, and not a good statement to make and not what the law of IRCC say ,respecting the people in this forum that are seeking help is not to tel them what we do ,as i or you think or what someone is stating ,its sharing stories and let them decide and making a statement related to the rule of the matter under immigration law ,you are reacting as if its a personal matter versus stating simply there is no law that mention what the rule of residency under immigration law in Canada ...and im still waiting for the answer .....i know you are not going to find it because you will be contradicting yourself...and that is the fact .
until that time you dont have a case ..
until that time you dont have a case ..
Certainly a case. If anything 2-3 weeks is what is recommended which is typical vacation time in Canada and what most people would define as “short“ trip. The applications for sponsorship are pretty clear that PRs must be living in Canada to sponsor while if you are a citizen you can live abroad. There wouldn’t be clear directives if you could spend as much time as you want abroad while sponsoring, only be a tax resident, etc. Why would we have seen refusals if you could spend an undefined amount of time abroad. You may want to risk your sponsorship application but for PRs who don’t they should limit their travels abroad to 2-3 weeks.
I said one month is (probably) safe. The specific case was someone who was refused after three months. My statement is not contradicted by the specific facts of that case.
I give up, I've laid out my points, and my reasoning, and documented with reference to IRCC publications, and then supported with actual cases of those who've had problems.
Those who can read and reason can decide for themselves. You do not appear to be part of that group, nor have the foggiest notion of how law actually works.
So I'm done with you, and I'm hitting the ignore button on you.
Canuck78 ,all what i was bringing to the table here is the definition of residing in Canada while sponsoring in this case in IRCC terms .is there any ??
are we saying here the immigration officer is deciding on these matters based on ,he stayed for 4 month and he was denied the sponsorship because of that and the comment was as per the specific case the officer saying you do not reside in Canada !!! ,im sure there is more then this trip during the year were they stayed for similar shorter or longer period and in sequence the officer took his decision ,not that mistakes are not done in judgement, but again not a rule nor a law .trying to be accurate when it comes to immigration law with people needing help .about definition of resident of Canada in terms .of IRCC since the law is not a point of view ..if anyone has any ..and still waiting
I don't know if you are trying to purposefully miss the point here or not...
The point most respondents are try to make to you is their is No definite legal definition of what is a short stay. Therefore it is up to the officers discretion as to what *short stay* means. Each officer will decide differently so it is always best to be on the safe side.
And as to rule of law once the officer can justify his or her reasoning is reasonable following the principles set out by the Supreme court in Vavilov for why one or even two months is not a short stay but too long out of the country no court will set it aside. As armoured said there is always a risk and each applicant must decide what's worth it to them.
Yes refusal comments listed not qualifying to sponsor because they weren’t living in Canada. I have even seen a case where spouse was approved and received PPR because IRCC hadn’t noticed the spouse PR had been away for many months. When the couple went to add their child the absence was discovered and the COPR was cancelled. If you want to take the risk and leave Canada for 3-4 months that’s your prerogative but don’t tell others that they can do so without risk.
everyone is repeating the same logic not related to a law ,when im simply saying you are suggesting to someone to only go for 30 days its safer ...safer from what !! not planning to waist your time with back and fourth ,but even with your long experience and armoured experience no one answered my call about what resident of Canada is by IRCC law .so in a way i got my answer and thank you very much for your opinion
Your insistent scream for what is the LAW of IRCC is just hilarious to me.. Thanks. Have a good day. You have been highly entertaining.
BCTechy
Hero Member
- Jan 18, 2022
- 131
- Category........
- FAM
- Visa Office......
- Online - London VO
- NOC Code......
- n/a
- App. Filed.......
- 12-01-2022
- Doc's Request.
- 04-10-2022
- Nomination.....
- n/a
- AOR Received.
- 28-02-2022
- IELTS Request
- n/a
- File Transfer...
- 01-03-2022
- Med's Request
- 13-03-2022
- Med's Done....
- 23-07-2022
- Interview........
- n/a
And not many people with a PR have the means to fight an IRCC rejection on legal merits. It is better NOT to give IRCC possible reasons to reject your application. It is better safe than sorry.
next thing is stay home ,dont move and dont even look over your windows ,This process was never a prison and its only the reason that guides it, people will never tel you the true story about the refusal ,other people will even ask you how can i cheat on my tax revenue to be financially right,some will also say i was only away for one week and i was refused ...everyone is looking for a opinion im looking for a guidance on the law of IRCC ,keep on looking no one will find it