PR card renewal while living abroad with canadian sponsor/spouse
- Thread starter mixoqc
- Start date
You should wait until PR card expire or you can attempt to apply a month or two before your PR card expires. You must request to be considered for a multiple entry PRTD and justify why it would be the best option for your circumstance.
I have a question!
In Canada Common law is automatic once you have been living with your partner for some time. Does this also hold true if you live abroad with your partner? I am a Canadian citizen living abroad with my partner who has a Canadian PR. We moved to the Netherlands so I could go to school but his PR will expire at the end of the year and he needs about 2 more months to renew it. Since we have been living together in this country can it be seen as common law? Or do we need to have a legal agreement (such as cohabitation agreement or marriage?). If we get such an agreement, will the days towards the PR count from the moment we are legally tied?
In Canada Common law is automatic once you have been living with your partner for some time. Does this also hold true if you live abroad with your partner? I am a Canadian citizen living abroad with my partner who has a Canadian PR. We moved to the Netherlands so I could go to school but his PR will expire at the end of the year and he needs about 2 more months to renew it. Since we have been living together in this country can it be seen as common law? Or do we need to have a legal agreement (such as cohabitation agreement or marriage?). If we get such an agreement, will the days towards the PR count from the moment we are legally tied?
Yes, time abroad would 'count', ie. yes, you'd still be common law. But how long have you been living together and when did you start? Were you living together in Canada for 12 months before departing for the Netherlands? How long has he been a PR? It would probably be easiest if you gave a basic timeline. You did move together, including travelling together? Did you notify CRA of being common law (while you were still residing/filing in Canada)?
And no, you don't need a legal agreement. You likely would need info showing you resided at same addresses (leases, bills, etc).
My partner will have had his PR for 5 years by the end of 2024. We did not live together when we were in Canada only when we moved to the Netherlands together. So since the end of 2021 till now we have be living together (shared lease, bills, registration) but only abroad. He actually has been able to sponsor me here so I can work while I study and so in the eyes of the Dutch government we are in a legitimate long term relationship (not being married or in any legal financial entanglement doesn't influence this). My partner can go back to get his remaining days but 2 months is a long time if we dont have to do it we would rather not.
It raises an interesting question and I honestly do not know the answer. The way IRCC counts it is that after you've resided together for 12 months, you are common law. The time 'accompanying a citizen-spouse' (common law or married) can count towards PR status.
I don't know any reason why your time from roughly end 2022/early 2023 (after 12 months residing together) shouldn't count as time he is accompanying you as citizen. But haven't personally seen that anyone claim this in such a case.
Note, though, he'd have to apply for a card in Canada, and processing times can be uncertain, and he could be asked to show up in person to retrieve it. Or apply for a PRTD abroad. (Or return to Canada via land border with USA if needed).
He has plenty of time and with ability to enter through USA (assuming he is dutch passport holder), flexibility. There's nothing really problematic or wrong about getting a PRTD (visa in passport basically showing he is a PR), if a multi-entry) until you move back to Canada together.
Don’t think being considered common law is the big issue. Think you have plenty of evidence of living together for a year. The bigger issue may be the fact that you partner did not accompany you abroad. You only started living together when already abroad. If you had been living as common law in Canada and then went abroad together then there wouldn’t be a potential issue. You would be able to sponsor them again if you planned to return to Canada and that may lead to PR card extension being approved. To apply for the extension you would have to be in Canada and would likely have to return to pick up the card in person. Do you have immediate plans to live in Canada? If not multiple entry PRTD may be way I would consider applying for.
The Long Read --
I do not have any clear how-to-handle this scenario information or observations to offer. My general sense is that the odds are good that documenting the existence of the relationship and duration of living together will work to get the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-abroad Residency Obligation credit. BUT there is some risk otherwise, a rather difficult to assess risk. So I am mostly offering some information that may be worth your while to consider in deciding how you navigate this going forward.
The rules are relatively straight-forward: days a PR is outside Canada "accompanying" their common-law partner, who is a Canadian citizen, are counted as days toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation.
See the following:
Application of rules in practice is usually easy; HOWEVER, this can vary: In the vast majority of cases where a PR is accompanying their Canadian citizen partner abroad, applying the rules is also relatively straight-forward. And relatively easy. Days abroad that the couple is "ordinarily residing together" get credit as if the PR was in Canada those days. For how to document the PR meets the criteria and is entitled to this credit, again see the part of the Guide in Appendix A for the accompanying citizen situation. (There is very similar information in Appendix A in the Guide for making a PR Travel Document application.)
Key Factors; Essential Proof:
Generally proof of ordinarily residing together abroad is sufficient proof of "accompanying" the citizen-partner. However, in a small percentage of accompanying-PR cases a significantly more strict standard of "accompanying" is applied; there can be questions about who-accompanied-whom, for example, or simply whether the PR actually accompanied their citizen partner in the sense of traveled with their partner when relocating abroad. In the context of what qualifies for the accompanying-partner credit, there are at least three different interpretations of what "accompanying" means.
Leading to . . .
Problems--Pitfalls:
For PRs who were well settled IN Canada, and clearly in a marital or common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen, and living in Canada together as such before the couple relocated abroad, as long as the information and documents submitted are consistent with the couple ordinarily residing together, and sufficient to establish the validity of the relationship, there should be very little, almost NO RISK. This probably describes the vast majority of accompanying-PRs. Call these the "easy cases."
How it goes for the easy cases, for the vast majority, however, is NOT how it will necessarily go for everyone. Even if only a quite small percentage of accompanying-PRs are affected by potential problems/pitfalls, that adds up to a significantly large number of PRs. Their tales of woe are scattered about numerous published IAD decisions.
For planning and preparation purposes, the overriding difficulty is in forecasting WHO, among accompanying-PRs in circumstances that do not fully fit the "easy cases" scenario, might encounter IRCC or CBSA challenges to the accompanying-PR qualifying for the accompanying-citizen-partner credit. We do NOT KNOW what triggers elevated scrutiny and challenges, except in very broad terms (the more the situation deviates from that in easy cases, the bigger the risk) or rather obvious situations (it appears, for example, that if the PR was not living in Canada before the period living abroad, there is a much higher risk of encountering a challenge and having the credit denied).
Leading to YOUR scenario. And the fact it appears to deviate some from the easy cases scenarios. Not by a lot. Not nearly so much that it looks like there is a big risk that IRCC or CBSA might challenge the credit. But enough to apprehend there is some risk. And unfortunately it is near impossible to reliably quantify the risk. Could it be a flip-of-the-coin risk (noting it is probably not nearly a fifty-fifty risk)? Russian roulette risk (one in six odds)? Roulette wheel number risk (one in 37)? Lottery risk (low risk)? We do NOT know.
And to be clear, we do not know in general, even in broad terms, let alone considering how various personal details (including previous history) will influence the risks.
What we do know, however, is that IF there is a challenge, there is a significant risk that days ordinarily residing together will NOT get credit if IRCC or CBSA conclude the PR was NOT accompanying their citizen-partner in going and living abroad. Not all IRCC and CBSA officers, not all IAD panels, and not even all Federal Court justices, agree on what "accompanying" means. The actual cases range from all days ordinarily residing together count as days accompanying one's partner, to a very strict interpretation in which the credit only applies if the PR went with their citizen-partner in relocating abroad.
Since you were not even cohabitating in a partner-relationship when you left Canada to live abroad, IF there is a challenge there is a risk the latter, the more strict standard, is applied and the RO credit denied.
For more discussion about cases in which living together did NOT suffice to qualify for the credit, based on a strict interpretation and application of what constitutes "accompanying," see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...ing-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/
A lot depends on whether the situation triggers elevated scrutiny and a more severe approach. Again, it is near impossible to quantify the risk of this. That said, in some contexts (application for a PR Travel Document especially), where you need to provide information and supporting documents to prove the existence of the common-law relationship, that information could be what triggers a closer look challenging the credit.
Leading to a preliminary observation about establishing the existence of a common-law relationship.
I am not sure what you mean by "automatic." In most contexts, in Canada, the existence of a common-law relationship depends on a concurrence of specified facts (like three years of cohabitation in a conjugal relationship under Ontario family law) and the elements of intent underlying what cohabitation and conjugal relationship mean, which tends to make a common-law relationship more changeable, less certain, and open to question. In particular, in addition to varying definitions of what constitutes a common-law partnership among the different provinces, Canada Revenue has its own definition, and IRCC applies the definition of common-law prescribed in Section 1(1) IRPA.
For purposes of qualifying for the accompanying a common-law partner RO credit, obviously it is the IRPA definition that applies. What common-law means in other contexts (and again it varies) is largely NOT relevant.
In turn, in your situation it looks like the information which is necessary to document a PR qualifies for RO credit, the accompanying-a-citizen RO credit, will show that the PR did NOT relocate abroad with a Canadian citizen common-law partner. Tipping things into some risk that qualifying for the credit might be challenged.
Regarding which, as I noted at the outset, I do not have much to offer about how to handle this.
Generally, a PR who can reasonably rely on RO credit for accompanying their citizen partner, should have no problems, and an application for a multiple-entry PR Travel Document is a good approach. But visa office PRTD decision-making tends to be more strict.
All of this for your consideration.
I do not have any clear how-to-handle this scenario information or observations to offer. My general sense is that the odds are good that documenting the existence of the relationship and duration of living together will work to get the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-abroad Residency Obligation credit. BUT there is some risk otherwise, a rather difficult to assess risk. So I am mostly offering some information that may be worth your while to consider in deciding how you navigate this going forward.
The rules are relatively straight-forward: days a PR is outside Canada "accompanying" their common-law partner, who is a Canadian citizen, are counted as days toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation.
See the following:
Section 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA (the governing statutory provision, which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274598
Section 61(4) IRPR (the applicable regulation), which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-9.html#h-686425
Appendix A in the Guide for making PR card application, which is here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...newal-change-gender-identifier.html#appendixA and the part under the heading "Situation B. Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada."
Application of rules in practice is usually easy; HOWEVER, this can vary: In the vast majority of cases where a PR is accompanying their Canadian citizen partner abroad, applying the rules is also relatively straight-forward. And relatively easy. Days abroad that the couple is "ordinarily residing together" get credit as if the PR was in Canada those days. For how to document the PR meets the criteria and is entitled to this credit, again see the part of the Guide in Appendix A for the accompanying citizen situation. (There is very similar information in Appendix A in the Guide for making a PR Travel Document application.)
Key Factors; Essential Proof:
-- proof of qualified relationship (proof of common-law partnership, including sufficient period of cohabitation)
-- proof of "accompanying" the citizen-partner outside Canada
Generally proof of ordinarily residing together abroad is sufficient proof of "accompanying" the citizen-partner. However, in a small percentage of accompanying-PR cases a significantly more strict standard of "accompanying" is applied; there can be questions about who-accompanied-whom, for example, or simply whether the PR actually accompanied their citizen partner in the sense of traveled with their partner when relocating abroad. In the context of what qualifies for the accompanying-partner credit, there are at least three different interpretations of what "accompanying" means.
Leading to . . .
Problems--Pitfalls:
For PRs who were well settled IN Canada, and clearly in a marital or common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen, and living in Canada together as such before the couple relocated abroad, as long as the information and documents submitted are consistent with the couple ordinarily residing together, and sufficient to establish the validity of the relationship, there should be very little, almost NO RISK. This probably describes the vast majority of accompanying-PRs. Call these the "easy cases."
How it goes for the easy cases, for the vast majority, however, is NOT how it will necessarily go for everyone. Even if only a quite small percentage of accompanying-PRs are affected by potential problems/pitfalls, that adds up to a significantly large number of PRs. Their tales of woe are scattered about numerous published IAD decisions.
For planning and preparation purposes, the overriding difficulty is in forecasting WHO, among accompanying-PRs in circumstances that do not fully fit the "easy cases" scenario, might encounter IRCC or CBSA challenges to the accompanying-PR qualifying for the accompanying-citizen-partner credit. We do NOT KNOW what triggers elevated scrutiny and challenges, except in very broad terms (the more the situation deviates from that in easy cases, the bigger the risk) or rather obvious situations (it appears, for example, that if the PR was not living in Canada before the period living abroad, there is a much higher risk of encountering a challenge and having the credit denied).
Leading to YOUR scenario. And the fact it appears to deviate some from the easy cases scenarios. Not by a lot. Not nearly so much that it looks like there is a big risk that IRCC or CBSA might challenge the credit. But enough to apprehend there is some risk. And unfortunately it is near impossible to reliably quantify the risk. Could it be a flip-of-the-coin risk (noting it is probably not nearly a fifty-fifty risk)? Russian roulette risk (one in six odds)? Roulette wheel number risk (one in 37)? Lottery risk (low risk)? We do NOT know.
And to be clear, we do not know in general, even in broad terms, let alone considering how various personal details (including previous history) will influence the risks.
What we do know, however, is that IF there is a challenge, there is a significant risk that days ordinarily residing together will NOT get credit if IRCC or CBSA conclude the PR was NOT accompanying their citizen-partner in going and living abroad. Not all IRCC and CBSA officers, not all IAD panels, and not even all Federal Court justices, agree on what "accompanying" means. The actual cases range from all days ordinarily residing together count as days accompanying one's partner, to a very strict interpretation in which the credit only applies if the PR went with their citizen-partner in relocating abroad.
Since you were not even cohabitating in a partner-relationship when you left Canada to live abroad, IF there is a challenge there is a risk the latter, the more strict standard, is applied and the RO credit denied.
For more discussion about cases in which living together did NOT suffice to qualify for the credit, based on a strict interpretation and application of what constitutes "accompanying," see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...ing-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/
A lot depends on whether the situation triggers elevated scrutiny and a more severe approach. Again, it is near impossible to quantify the risk of this. That said, in some contexts (application for a PR Travel Document especially), where you need to provide information and supporting documents to prove the existence of the common-law relationship, that information could be what triggers a closer look challenging the credit.
Leading to a preliminary observation about establishing the existence of a common-law relationship.
I am not sure what you mean by "automatic." In most contexts, in Canada, the existence of a common-law relationship depends on a concurrence of specified facts (like three years of cohabitation in a conjugal relationship under Ontario family law) and the elements of intent underlying what cohabitation and conjugal relationship mean, which tends to make a common-law relationship more changeable, less certain, and open to question. In particular, in addition to varying definitions of what constitutes a common-law partnership among the different provinces, Canada Revenue has its own definition, and IRCC applies the definition of common-law prescribed in Section 1(1) IRPA.
For purposes of qualifying for the accompanying a common-law partner RO credit, obviously it is the IRPA definition that applies. What common-law means in other contexts (and again it varies) is largely NOT relevant.
In turn, in your situation it looks like the information which is necessary to document a PR qualifies for RO credit, the accompanying-a-citizen RO credit, will show that the PR did NOT relocate abroad with a Canadian citizen common-law partner. Tipping things into some risk that qualifying for the credit might be challenged.
Regarding which, as I noted at the outset, I do not have much to offer about how to handle this.
Generally, a PR who can reasonably rely on RO credit for accompanying their citizen partner, should have no problems, and an application for a multiple-entry PR Travel Document is a good approach. But visa office PRTD decision-making tends to be more strict.
All of this for your consideration.
Good day, I would like to get some feedback on the following matter. My PR Card expires in March 2024. To renew the PR Card do I MUST be physically in Canada to mail the application? We have been living abroad for the past 6 years, (wife and children are both Canadian Citizens from birth), I'm a US citizen. Do I need to fly in to Canada (we don't live in the USA) to mail the application or can I submit the renewal application from abroad? As an alternative, can I have my Canadian side of the family (living in Canada) to mail the application? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated or if I need to provide further details about my particular case happy to do so. Cheers
You must submit it in Canada. As US passport holder, you won't need PRTDs or be denied boarding to a plane, so less critical for you than for many.
PR Travel Document versus PR Card Application:
IRCC clearly prefers a PR living outside Canada, ordinarily residing with their citizen spouse, to make an application for a PR Travel Document rather than a PR card. As long as you were a PR living together in Canada with your Canadian citizen spouse BEFORE relocating abroad (see ***note below), there should be no problem doing this. Typically (albeit not always), IRCC will issue a multiple-use PR TD that is valid for up to five years, that is, for as long as the PR's passport is valid but for a maximum of five years.
As @armoured noted, as a U.S. citizen who can present their U.S. passport for purposes of obtaining a boarding pass for a flight to Canada, there should be no problem traveling to Canada, so obtaining either a PR card or PR TD is not so critical . . . unless and until you are relocating back to Canada and will need a valid PR card when applying for health care coverage and a provincial drivers' license. If and when you are planning on making such a transition, good idea to research and consider how to best make that transition in preparation for the move, based on policies, practices, and rules in effect then.
PR Card Application and Required Presence In Canada:
To make the PR card application the PR must declare whether they are IN Canada or OUTSIDE Canada. If the PR declares they are outside Canada, in the application form, the form will be an application for a PR Travel Document, not a PR card. ONLY if the applicant checks the box declaring "I am in Canada" will it be a form that constitutes "applying for a PR card."
And of course, as usual, the applicant must also declare that the information is complete and accurate.
So yes, YOU must be physically present IN Canada when you make a PR card application. Obviously, falsely declaring you are IN Canada if you are not would be misrepresentation, an easily discovered and proven misrepresentation, with serious enough consequences to make doing this incredibly foolish . . . especially since IRCC will typically issue a multiple-use PR TD to PRs "accompanying" a Canadian citizen spouse outside Canada.
It may be possible to fill out the application without declaring whether one is IN or OUTSIDE Canada, leaving the boxes for this declaration blank. I am not certain, but I believe this would result in the application being returned as incomplete. Even though technically this would also constitute a misrepresentation by omission, given the declaration that the information provided is complete when it is not, my GUESS is that it would more likely just result in the application being returned as incomplete, not triggering inadmissibility proceedings for making a misrepresentation. But I am not at all sure of this. Here too, again, it would be foolish to test this since an IRCC visa office should readily issue a multiple-use PR TD to a PR "accompanying" their Canadian citizen spouse outside Canada.
Leading to the PR's Residency Obligation.
***Note Re RO Credit Based on Accompanying Citizen Spouse:
As noted, an IRCC visa office should readily issue a multiple-use PR TD to a PR "accompanying" their Canadian citizen spouse outside Canada, relying on credit toward the PR RO based on the exception allowed those PRs outside Canada "accompanying" their Canadian citizen spouse. As noted above, as long as the PR was living together in Canada with their Canadian citizen spouse BEFORE relocating abroad, and they are ordinarily residing together abroad, there should be no problem doing this. If this describes your situation and history, should be no problem with meeting the RO despite failing to be present in Canada at least 2/5 years. Otherwise, if for example you were not a PR residing in Canada with your citizen spouse BEFORE relocating outside Canada (that is, if you were not living in Canada before moving abroad more or less together), you may want to look more closely into what constitutes "accompanying" one's citizen spouse.
As responded, you don't need PTRD or even your PR card to board a flight to Canada as US passport holder. So you don't need to apply for a PR card just because it has expired.
To apply for PR card renewal, you need to be physcially in Canada. If you apply while you are not there (or ask a relative to apply for you inside) and pretended that you applied inside Canada, you are misrepresenting yourself. I don't see the reason of taking the risk of a PR card that you not need to travel back.
Wait till you visit Canada again and apply for renewal inside.
It's worth mentioning that even a U.S. passport holder can have issues, although it seems rare, if the airline employee doesn't understand that they are exempt because of an apparent bilateral agreement with the airlines.
No idea, really; only relaying info from an airline employee at some previous point in time. The agent said that's why the language from IRCC is passive when stating that without a valid PR card, the traveller may not be able to return to Canada via a commercial carrier. This may suggest that US passport holders are indeed given a pass.
Might find something here:
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/overview
Or, here:
https://treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105086
Similar threads
