I want to know if they were eating cakes and coffee and Kentucky chickens together
before marriageResidency obligation- overseas with spouse.
- Thread starter otmans
- Start date
before marriagewhere eating at home or in café, also did you use taxi or drove your car, what is the car color if we may ask?
I want to know if they were eating cakes and coffee and Kentucky chickens together
Jesus Christ
Are you in mental distress?
I don't think OP will have big problem to keep his PR status. Working and taking PHD education is an active option for his citizen wife.
But what's a waste, a citizen can apply for his/her spouse unlimited times and no requirement for PR, why asking these kind of PR for RO check? Maybe citizen's signature showing this is a satisfied marriage is more than enough. No, they don't ask this but days you living together...doesn't matter every day you are fighting or loving...
But what's a waste, a citizen can apply for his/her spouse unlimited times and no requirement for PR, why asking these kind of PR for RO check? Maybe citizen's signature showing this is a satisfied marriage is more than enough. No, they don't ask this but days you living together...doesn't matter every day you are fighting or loving...
This raises a good question. And probably is tied to why there are so FEW who-accompanied-whom cases. The short answer is that it still appears that IRCC is not much, if at all interested in who-accompanied-whom, EXCEPT, UNLESS, it is at least a blatantly obvious case. Note: PR never having settled and maintaining a long-term residence in Canada tends to fit the scenario where it is blatantly obvious the PR did not accompany the Canadian citizen's move abroad.
HOWEVER, there is NO indication that a citizen can sponsor their spouse "unlimited times." At the moment I cannot put my cursor on the thread, let alone particular post or the cases, but sometime last year I posted about some cases in which just the first application to sponsor a spouse who had previously lost PR status for RO breach was DENIED on the grounds the applicant failed to sufficiently prove intent to come to Canada to settle permanently. This is NOT at all common. But no genius or prophetic power needed to map these scenarios. In this regard, those tangled in these scenarios should be aware that IRCC can and sometimes does strictly enforce the eligibility requirement of an intent to come to Canada to live PERMANENTLY.
Generally, a former PR, one who has lost status due to a RO breach, who has a spouse who is eligible to sponsor the former PR, SHOULD WAIT until they are ready to actually make the move to Canada BEFORE the sponsorship application is made.
It warrants noting that IRCC has made it clear enough, as well, that a PR residing abroad with (accompanying) a Canadian citizen spouse should similarly WAIT until they are ready to return to Canada to live, to reside in Canada, BEFORE applying for a new PR card. For travel to Canada in the meantime, IRCC clearly prefers the PR rely on obtaining a PR Travel Document.
Longer Observations:
This, this more or less why-does-IRCC-bother question or criticism, might loom large if IRCC is engaged in closely screening PRs who rely on credit for accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse beyond the scope of what is specifically asked for in PR card and PR TD applications, that is, information and supporting documents showing marriage, spouse's Canadian citizenship, and cohabitation, the latter to show the couple "ordinarily reside" together.
There really is no indication that is happening. Information and supporting documents that show the relationship, the spouse's Canadian citizenship, and that the couple live together, is all that is asked for and appears to be sufficient (assuming the spouses' respective address history and other information, including stamps and such in their passports, is consistent) . . . with what I have sometimes described as "notable exceptions."
And this is in large part why I disagree with the characterization posted by @canuck78, that "it is very unlikely [the OP] would be considered as accompanying [OP's spouse] abroad."
Thing is, in particular, so far as we can discern, it is NOT common for IRCC, and even less so for CBSA, to screen or question who-accompanied whom. To qualify for the credit for accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse abroad, whether in an application for a PR card or a PR Travel Document, the PR is not asked any who-accompanied-whom questions and, again, is only asked to provide supporting documents showing marriage, spouse's Canadian citizenship, and cohabitation, the latter to show the couple "ordinarily reside" together.
What looms really large, really, really large, in regards to the who-accompanied-whom issue for PRs who rely on credit for accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, is what will actually trigger a who-accompanied-whom question.
Once this issue has been triggered, once IRCC (or sometimes CBSA) are looking at this issue, we know some of the key factors that will have a big influence on the outcome. Which I have addressed at length here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/
and in the OP's situation, a few stand out:
-- the PR never settled in Canada
-- the PR was living abroad and working abroad before marriage, and but for visits to Canada continued to live and work abroad after the marriage, and
-- it appears on the face of things the citizen spouse joined the PR abroad
The problem is we do not know anywhere near enough about what will actually trigger an inquiry into who-accompanied-whom. The number of cases still suggest this is NOT at all common (I don't think there is much if any doubt that there are scores of PRs in at least somewhat similar scenarios, but so far as we can see, this is not generating a lot of cases in which RO credit is denied). As I have said, many times:
". . . we really are largely in the dark about the scope of the risk -- we just know there is some risk, with rather little confidence in regards to how much."
But I think it is worth emphasizing what part of this we do not know versus what we do know. There are two different types of risk at stake.
One is the risk that IRCC will make inquiry into and consider who-accompanied-whom (the risk the issue is triggered); we are almost totally in the dark about the scope of this risk, but again the numbers alone suggest that scores of PRs are in similar situations but NOT subject to who-accompanied-whom challenges. Best we can discern are some very, very broad comparisons: risk is higher when applying for a PR TD, lowest for PoE examination of returning PR with a valid PR card, especially when PR and spouse are traveling together.
The other is the risk that the credit will be denied if and when there is an inquiry into and consideration of who-accompanied-whom. This risk is still difficult to quantify, but we know the key factors, and in particular the factor that appears to loom largest is whether or not the PR was ever actually settled in Canada, and second to that, was the PR and citizen spouse residing together in Canada prior to the move abroad.
That said, it is also readily apparent that more nebulous, not-so-easily defined circumstances which can be perceived to indicate the PR is gaming the system or otherwise does not actually have the intent to settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY, probably have a big influence. Appearances matter, and in particular appearances can have a huge impact on what a total stranger bureaucrat PERCEIVES, and especially so in regards to what they perceive about the PR's credibility. This almost certainly influences how things go BOTH in regards to the risk of triggering the who-accompanied-whom, and in how it goes if and when the who-accompanied-whom issue is in play. Seeing there is influence, nonetheless, does not illuminate all that much that will help quantify the risks . . . except in very broad terms.
All of the above is almost crap and talks from 1800s century....... I am still curious to know if they ate together Kentucky chickens and did they wash their hand after or just proceeded without...
No such thing as "1800s century" It's either the 1800s, or the 19th century.All of the above is almost crap and talks from 1800s century....... I am still curious to know if they ate together Kentucky chickens and did they wash their hand after or just proceeded without...
Of course it means the info is crap hence it doesn't exist in 1800s or 19th cent... or 1500b.cNo such thing as "1800s century" It's either the 1800s, or the 19th century.
Thanks all for your input, my application has been approved and PR card received. Thanks.
Glad to see your update. Did you have any time in Canada during the 5 year period? Did you have to pick up the card in person?
Last edited: