PRTD renewal/Cohabitation

[mu3id]

My spouse PR card will expire in July 2024. I am a Canadian citizen and we both are currently in Pakistan.

I have a job opportunity coming up in uae and I might have to go there by march 2024 to start the new job/find housing etc. the family will join later .


My question is whether this will be impact the PRTD as technically we aren't cohabiting temporarily.

Thanks

 

[canuck78]

My spouse PR card will expire in July 2024. I am a Canadian citizen and we both are currently in Pakistan.

I have a job opportunity coming up in uae and I might have to go there by march 2024 to start the new job/find housing etc. the family will join later .


My question is whether this will be impact the PRTD as technically we aren't cohabiting temporarily.

Thanks

How much time had you spent living in Canada after getting PR? Having lived together in Canada as PR before moving away is one of the things examined when deciding if you can count time abroad with a Canadian citizen. If it is a short absence between when you got to UAE and when your family joins you then that isn’t an issue.

 

[dpenabill]

Note: as I am more and more wont to do, most of what I post here is meta or macro analysis, about the bigger picture and underlying principles.

For the OP, @mu3id, odds are good there is no problem, nothing to worry about.

My spouse PR card will expire in July 2024. I am a Canadian citizen and we both are currently in Pakistan.

I have a job opportunity coming up in uae and I might have to go there by march 2024 to start the new job/find housing etc. the family will join later .


My question is whether this will be impact the PRTD as technically we aren't cohabiting temporarily.

Thanks

Note regarding "PRTD renewal" (from topic title): Permanent Resident Travel Documents cannot be renewed. I assume the subject here is eligibility for a PR card or PR Travel Document relying on accompanying-Canadian-spouse Residency Obligation credit.

Short Answer as to Effect of Short Periods of Living Separately (for PRs relying on accompanying-Canadian-spouse RO credit):

Odds are probably good, and actually quite likely very good, there is no need to worry about your spouse's RO credit just because you are living separately for some relatively short period (less than a year). In particular, if you and your spouse were settled and residing together IN Canada for a substantial period of time BEFORE relocating outside Canada, and you have been living together for most of the last five years, there should be NO problem . . . NO need to read any more of this post.

Beyond that, you pose a good question, one that goes to the difference between what meets requirements versus what might trigger issues in assessing the facts or computing what suffices to show the requirements are met.

Simplified example: 730 days (or more) credit toward RO compliance meets the requirement. But when might a PR's claim to 730 days (or more) credit be challenged?


Some Particular Observations:

So long as the total credit toward meeting the RO otherwise adds up to 730 days within the relevant five years (such as the date a PR Travel Document application is made), the PR is in compliance with the RO and meets that eligibility requirement.

Periods of time a PR is living abroad, and separately from their Canadian citizen spouse, will not count as days given credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation.

Days the PR is "accompanying" their Canadian citizen spouse abroad will count as if they were days spent IN Canada. And, again, as long as the total credit adds up to 730 days within last/relevant five years, that meets the RO.

So, "technically," if even if the citizen-spouse lives apart from and is not with the PR for lengthy periods of time, but a total fewer than 1094 days within the relevant five years, and the PR is "accompanying" the citizen-spouse at least 730 days during that five year period of time, the PR is complying with the RO.

The key to that, however, is that the PR is in fact considered to be "accompanying" the citizen spouse, leading to longer observations . . . leading to . . .

Technically This, Practically That; Further Observations Re Wrinkles et al:

I apprehend that @canuck78 is alluding to potential wrinkles in RO computations relying on the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit.

As noted above, as long as you and your spouse were settled and residing together IN Canada for a substantial period of time BEFORE relocating outside Canada, the risk of wrinkles (problems) should be low, and very low as long as generally, overall, you have been, usually, cohabitating . . . that is, you have been "ordinarily residing" together. A single relatively short period (less than a year) of living separately should NOT affect this. In which case, again, NO need to read further.

But again, you ask a good question. Easy cases are easy. As easy as most cases go, it can and will get more complicated in a lot of not-so-easy cases. What circumstances might trigger not-so-easy, could be a problem, examinations?

For example, as I noted above, as long as the credit for days the PR is accompanying the citizen-spouse add up to at least 730 (within five years), that meets the RO. So the citizen spouse and PR could be living apart for more than they have been living together, over the course of the previous five years, and the PR still meets the RO as long as they have been accompanying the citizen-spouse at least 730 days. Just what days get counted as "accompanying" the citizen-spouse is usually easy, days ordinarily residing together, days cohabitating. But that does not always tell the tale. Fair guess that if the PR and citizen spouse report living together just 735 days out of the previous five years, that's not going to get an immediate pass but, rather, risk triggering elevated scrutiny, a closer and more in-depth examination and evaluation of the facts.

Which brings this to your reference to the term "technically," suggesting apprehension about how this RO credit is practically computed. And while my sense is that in your situation, in particular, you and your spouse were settled and living together in Canada for a significant period of time before you relocated to Pakistan, so there should be NO problem, you ask a damn good question, a practical question, in regards to what might trigger IRCC (in a PR TD or PR card application) to question RO compliance if and when the PR and spouse are not living together for significant periods of time. Yeah, good question. Technically, 730 days accompanying the citizen spouse is good enough. But when the couple are not together for significant periods of time, what does that practically mean, how might lengthy periods of separation affect the computation of RO?

Cohabitation is an important element in calculating this RO credit, but that is because the practical approach (not the "technical" approach) to computing this credit (usually, in most but NOT all cases) is based on counting days the PR is "ordinarily residing" with their citizen spouse. That is, days the PR is ordinarily residing with their citizen spouse are generally considered to count as days accompanying the citizen spouse.

In contrast, as you probably discerned from my use of emphasis and quotes, the technical term which looms far larger in these cases is what constitutes "accompanying" the citizen spouse. "Technically" the days a PR is "accompanying" their Canadian citizen spouse outside Canada will be given credit as if those days were spent IN Canada. So, again "technically," 730 such days within the previous five years meets the PR's Residency Obligation.

The real question, the important question, is what is needed to show the PR is accompanying the citizen-spouse those days.

It warrants noting that IRCC's instructions, guides, and PDIs are continually being updated . . . that means changed. The guide for PR TD applications, for example, was updated earlier this month; the guide for PR card applications was updated in September (I have not analyzed these sufficiently to identify the changes, let alone any substantive implications; nonetheless, it is clear that the gist of the RO credit for accompanying citizen spouse has not been significantly affected by the recent changes).

In regards to changes over the course of recent YEARS, however, it warrants further noting, with emphasis, that in regards to this particular RO credit, in the instructions, guides, and PDIs, IRCC has mostly dropped references to this being based on the PR and citizen living together, or ordinarily residing together, more and more just using the "accompanying" term. And yeah, this is something of a cop out, since this term, "accompanying," has NO clearly defined meaning for purposes of this RO credit, and indeed it has been defined differently by different officers, IAD panels, even Federal Court justices.

Most of which should NOT be much if at all relevant to your situation, again assuming you and your spouse were settled and living in Canada before moving abroad, and that notwithstanding a period of living apart (such as to accommodate relocation from one country to another), such that generally, overall, for most of the last five years you have in fact been living together. BUT you are correct to note, to bring up the potential for questions if there are other circumstances which could invite questions about just what periods of time are entitled to credit based on the PR accompanying the citizen spouse.

 

[spokin]

Hi, my PR card expired in 2022, I am a PR married to a Canadian spouse, We have both lived and held regular jobs in India (NOT employed with any Canadian agency or business) while cohabiting in India since my PR status was granted in 2017 apart from a few visits to Canada and elsewhere over the years.

I was in the process of applying for a PRTD but wasn't sure what would count as evidence of cohabitation. We live in a house owned by me and all utility bills are in my name as owner, only the mobile phone bills are in individual names, My spouse has an add on credit card issued to me, her home address in her employers record is of course same as mine, Her Tax returns are filed with the same address, we do have a marriage certificate issued in Canada, She holds a permanent visa to stay in India as a resident called an "Overseas citizen of India" which looks like a passport and also carries the our home address. we do not have joint bank accounts as her status as a foreigner creates certain documentation issues.

My question is whether any other evidence be also required other than these mentioned above?

 

[canuck78]

Hi, my PR card expired in 2022, I am a PR married to a Canadian spouse, We have both lived and held regular jobs in India (NOT employed with any Canadian agency or business) while cohabiting in India since my PR status was granted in 2017 apart from a few visits to Canada and elsewhere over the years.

I was in the process of applying for a PRTD but wasn't sure what would count as evidence of cohabitation. We live in a house owned by me and all utility bills are in my name as owner, only the mobile phone bills are in individual names, My spouse has an add on credit card issued to me, her home address in her employers record is of course same as mine, Her Tax returns are filed with the same address, we do have a marriage certificate issued in Canada, She holds a permanent visa to stay in India as a resident called an "Overseas citizen of India" which looks like a passport and also carries the our home address. we do not have joint bank accounts as her status as a foreigner creates certain documentation issues.

My question is whether any other evidence be also required other than these mentioned above?

The bigger issue is whether you ever settled in Canada? It sounds as your spouse may have joined you in India after getting married. Did you continue being employed by the same employer and continue living in the same home in India before and after landing in Canada as a PR? To count time accompanying a spouse who is a Canadian citizen you typically have to show that you had spent time in Canada before moving abroad. You have listed multiple options for proof of cohabitation to try and secure a PRTD.

 

[spokin]

The bigger issue is whether you ever settled in Canada? It sounds as your spouse may have joined you in India after getting married. Did you continue being employed by the same employer and continue living in the same home in India before and after landing in Canada as a PR? To count time accompanying a spouse who is a Canadian citizen you typically have to show that you had spent time in Canada before moving abroad. You have listed multiple options for proof of cohabitation to try and secure a PRTD.

Yes that is right since I owned the house that we lived in and also owned half the business which employed me, My wife had secured a full time job in India after she moved to India after our marriage and I continued with my job in India, My spouse had moved to India after we were married in 2012, We had no plans to relocate to Canada back then, and it was a good 4 years after our marriage before we planned to relocate to Canada and that's when I had applied for a PR along with my minor son at that time, he has since turned major, and is now working in Canada after completing his graduation in engineering.
It was at least a year thereafter when the PR was granted in 2017 and I made my first entry only to return to India and sort of secure & sell assets before moving, it didn't work out as efficiently as we had planned and then Covid hit the world.
My wife is scheduled to retire from her job in 2 years and I too shall be able to hang up my boots by then, this is the underlying situation as of now.

I am relying on Section 28 of the "Immigration & refugee Protection Act"

Residency obligation

28 (1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.

Application

(2) The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection (1):

• (a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are
  • (i) physically present in Canada,
  • (ii) outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,
  • (iii) outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province,
  • (iv) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province, or
  • (v) referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;
• (b) it is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination
  • (i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately after they became a permanent resident;
  • (ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately before the examination; and
• (c) a determination by an officer that humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to a permanent resident, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination, justify the retention of permanent resident status overcomes any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination.

I believe it has been further clarified that for the sake of determination of RO, it is not required to distinguish between who is accompanying who in case of spouses as long as they are together when outside of Canada.

 

[armoured]

was a good 4 years after our marriage before we planned to relocate to Canada and that's when I had applied for a PR along with my minor son at that time, he has since turned major, and is now working in Canada after completing his graduation in engineering.
...
It was at least a year thereafter when the PR was granted in 2017 and I made my first entry only to return to India and sort of secure & sell assets before moving, it didn't work out as efficiently as we had planned and then Covid hit the world.
...
I believe it has been further clarified that for the sake of determination of RO, it is not required to distinguish between who is accompanying who in case of spouses as long as they are together when outside of Canada.

Your reading of the above posts in this thread either selectively left out or jumped over the qualification formulated this way: "again assuming you and your spouse were settled and living in Canada before moving abroad."

The issue is not necessarily 'who accompanied whom.' (Although it can be from time to time). The relevant part of the question in your case is whether there was any 'accompanying' ie. travel from a residence in canada at all.

It's not clear how strictly this may be applied but it would appear that they can (and occasionally do) look at the concept underlying this part of the legislation for areas to be more strict about. That is, 'accompanying' in the law as undefined may not be clear whether this means some sort of a transitive property (eg where X accompanies Y is not equivalent in meaning to Y accompanies X).

But 'accompany' could still very well imply that both the Canadian citizen and the spouse should be residing in Canada before 'accompanying' one another to travel/reside abroad and decide that you and your spouse have not met the test on that basis.

They do, after all, require Canadian citizens sponsoring their spouses (and their dependents where applicable) to show evidence of intent to return to/reside in Canada. And this appears to have become more strict over time in response to a (perceived) number of cases where citizens sponsored their spouses apparently to just 'get' PR status, with no intent to reside in Canada.

And cynically, if one looks at your case, it could certainly also look as if the intent was to secure PR status (and possibly access to Canadian education at domestic rates) for your child and not for either you or your spouse to return to and reside in Canada.

Your reasons for not actually residing in Canada - and your original intent, for that matter - may be entirely genuine and caused by external events. Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that there really was not and could not have been any 'accompanying' from Canada to abroad ... because you never resided in Canada, and your wife hadn't for some time and neither of you appear to have attempted to do so.

Now, I'm not IRCC, I've no direct interest in the case, and I've no idea how they'll approach. But they certainly could look more closely at the case and whether this 'credit' should be applied in your case.

Note also it doesn't necessarily preclude you being sponsored in future (shoudl it come to that), but they might want to see your spouse actually resettle in Canada to do so.

 

[canuck78]

Yes that is right since I owned the house that we lived in and also owned half the business which employed me, My wife had secured a full time job in India after she moved to India after our marriage and I continued with my job in India, My spouse had moved to India after we were married in 2012, We had no plans to relocate to Canada back then, and it was a good 4 years after our marriage before we planned to relocate to Canada and that's when I had applied for a PR along with my minor son at that time, he has since turned major, and is now working in Canada after completing his graduation in engineering.
It was at least a year thereafter when the PR was granted in 2017 and I made my first entry only to return to India and sort of secure & sell assets before moving, it didn't work out as efficiently as we had planned and then Covid hit the world.
My wife is scheduled to retire from her job in 2 years and I too shall be able to hang up my boots by then, this is the underlying situation as of now.

I am relying on Section 28 of the "Immigration & refugee Protection Act"

Residency obligation

28 (1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.

Application

(2) The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection (1):

• (a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are
  • (i) physically present in Canada,
  • (ii) outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,
  • (iii) outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province,
  • (iv) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province, or
  • (v) referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;
• (b) it is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination
  • (i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately after they became a permanent resident;
  • (ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately before the examination; and
• (c) a determination by an officer that humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to a permanent resident, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination, justify the retention of permanent resident status overcomes any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination.

I believe it has been further clarified that for the sake of determination of RO, it is not required to distinguish between who is accompanying who in case of spouses as long as they are together when outside of Canada.

I also agree that it doesn’t sound like intended purpose of your original PR application was to get PR for your don to allow him to study as a domestic student and there seems to have been no plan for you (as primary applicant) or your spouse to relocate to Canada in 2017. Did you not have to provide proof that you would be resettling in Canada after you received PR during your app
ication. You may have just missed IRCC becoming strict about proof of relocation since many didn’t relocate after being granted PR. The fact that both you and your wife remained in India and at least you and your son flew to Canada to getPR does not typically count as accompanying your Canadian spouse. You didn’t accompany her you had already been living India you landed and returned to your existing life in India. The policy is meant to allow a Canadian to pursue a work opportunity abroad and not be held back be their spouse having to remain in Canada for 2 years. I will leave it up to others to source the cases similar to your since I am not a Canlii wizard. Typically you have to show settlement in Canada before leaving although because your spouse could sponsor you again you may get PR renewal approved. I would suggest including extremely concrete proof of your intention to relocate to Canada this time. If you had not planned on settling in Canada the first time your application should have been denied and we are seeing more of these cases where older parents are getting PRs for their children to attend university paying domestic fees and for parents to eventually retire in Canada when their children marry and have children not because the spouse/primary applicant wants to move to Canada which is the purpose of family sponsorship. Worse comes to worse your wife can move to Canada and you can join her through the land border and she can sponsor you that way Because if living in Canada you will have better proof that you intend on living in Canada. Assume you have looked to make sure it makes sense financially to retire in Canada given that you likely don’t own a home in Canada, cost of living is much higher, you won’t qualify for many pensions or other social supports for 10 years.

 

[dpenabill]

I am a PR married to a Canadian spouse, We have both lived and held regular jobs in India . . . wasn't sure what would count as evidence of cohabitation.

A couple items showing the address where you reside to be your address, plus a couple items showing the same residence as your spouse's address, should suffice as "supporting" documents (in addition to other supporting documents as described in Appendix A in the guide, such as to document relationship and partner's citizenship). An officially issued government document showing the same address, as yours, as the residence of your spouse, that should indeed be a solid piece of evidence.

This is just a part of what constitutes proof of ordinarily residing together, just some of the "supporting" documents to show you meet the residency obligation relying on credit for days outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse. The spouse's passport AND all other travel documents, together with the information in your application, including in particular your work, address, and travel history, are other parts of the proof of RO compliance.

For most that is enough, plenty enough. BUT . . .

Accompanying Canadian Citizen Spouse Residency Obligation Credit:

For the vast majority of PRs living outside Canada with a Canadian citizen spouse in circumstances clearly showing the couple have been ordinarily living together, there is generally NO problem getting the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-spouse RO credit. HOWEVER, as @armoured and @canuck78 have cautioned and discussed, if the circumstances do not show the PR relocated abroad (moved from Canada) together with the citizen spouse, this RO credit can be challenged and in a significant number of cases RO credit has been denied.

In your situation, it would be prudent to be prepared for this issue to arise.

@armoured provides a good summary. And @canuck78 identifies what potentially makes this an issue in your situation.

We have very little reliable information about the numbers, the odds, so it is near impossible to dependably assess the risk that IRCC/CBSA will challenge the credit in your case. But your circumstances fit the profile of those cases in which this credit has been challenged and DENIED.

There is a lengthy and in-depth discussion of this issue in this forum here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/ in which there are many citations and links (some urls may need to be copied and pasted if the link does not work) to primary sources, including official accounts of actual cases as reported in published Federal Court and IAD decisions.

As @armoured appropriately noted, while often framed (as I did in the title of that topic) in terms of a who-accompanied-whom issue, the more recent cases (last five or seven years or so) illustrate the underlying distinction in many of the cases turns on whether the PR goes with their Canadian citizen spouse, not just that they have been being with one another outside Canada.

I am relying on Section 28 of the "Immigration & refugee Protection Act"

You appear to be reading the term "accompanying" to mean living together or cohabitating. That is, that being-with is enough to constitute accompanying. And generally, for most, that is more or less how the term is interpreted and applied.

BUT NOT ALWAYS.

A background clue: if Parliament intended for this exception to the RO to be met by days the PR was "outside Canada living together with a Canadian citizen who is their spouse," numerous officials have argued, and some tribunals have so ruled, that Parliament could have stated that, and perhaps more importantly likely would have stated that. Or said "cohabitating" or some other combination of terms which is about time spent together outside Canada, about it being with one's partner.

A number of IAD panels and Federal Court justices have interpreted this exception that way, that is, that being-with is enough.

In contrast, however, other tribunals have disagreed, considering that the statute prescribes a credit for "accompanying" the citizen spouse, which generally at least implies going with their partner. A number of IAD panels and Federal Court justices have essentially focused on this difference, the difference between "go with" (accompany) versus "be with" (live with).

That is, CONTRARY to the position commonly advocated by the Minister of IRCC, some of these cases turn on the PR being in the same place at the same time as their Canadian citizen spouse (see Baladi v Canada, 2022 CanLII 75948, https://canlii.ca/t/jrkwc for example) or "existing together in space and time" (as stated in Wu v Canada, 2020 CanLII 68406, https://canlii.ca/t/j9q9x and Mustafa v Canada, 2018 CanLII 47219 https://canlii.ca/t/hs76z and several other official decisions).

HOWEVER, there are some cases in which the tribunal is more or less persuaded by what counsel for the Minister of IRCC argues, that the credit does turn on who-accompanied-whom, despite the applicable operational manual, ENF 23, which states:

In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose . . . as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met.​

Also see Section 61(4) IRPR (here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/section-61-20140801.html ), the applicable regulation, which states that a PR is "accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen" . . . "on each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with the Canadian citizen."

A third approach was described in Jiang v Canada, 2019 CanLII 128447, https://canlii.ca/t/j4wmz in which the IAD panel stated:

The third approach is it does not matter who accompanies whom, but the two spouses leave Canada together (or within a reasonable time period) because “accompanying” indicates going somewhere together and thereafter residing together. I agree with this approach and rely on the definition of “accompany” as a verb that requires the subject (here, the permanent resident) to take certain actions, such as to pursue, follow, escort, attach, towards an object (here, the Canadian citizen spouse). Accompanying is interpreted to mean “come with”.​

The above is just a peek into this issue, and the various ways this credit is applied or denied. Again, see the other topic for an extensive and in-depth discussion, including reference to many more official decisions.

THE PROBLEM: The challenge this issue poses is how to identify if and when the claim to be "accompanying" a spouse might be questioned.

It is easy to identify when there is very little risk the claim to be accompanying a spouse will be questioned; generally a PR does NOT need to worry about this issue as long as the PR and their spouse were living together IN Canada before relocating abroad.

That is clearly not your situation.

In almost all the cases where this issue has posed a problem, the PR was not settled and living in Canada before relocating abroad. This does appear to be your situation.

Another factor that looms in a number of these cases is credibility, even if misrepresentation itself is not alleged.

Assuming you and spouse had an actual plan to move to Canada reasonably soon after you were granted PR status, thwarted by personal circumstances (noting that Covid offers no defense here since that did not "hit the world" until over two years after you were granted PR status), it is not likely that IRCC or CBSA would prosecute inadmissibility for misrepresentation. But appearances can matter. Especially in regards to credibility.

All in all, there is a significant risk that the absence of having lived in Canada at all could trigger elevated scrutiny and challenging the accompanying-citizen spouse credit, potentially aggravated by concerns about your credibility.

I do not know, and cannot even guess, what the probabilities are. You situation fits the profile of cases in which this credit has been challenged, and in many of those cases it was denied. So you may want to be prepared.