There has to be a way. I am sure people have done this in the past.
If your PR card expires or about to expire and you are arriving by land and they let you in, can you stay in the country for two years and have PR card renewed?
PR card renewal - Accompanying a Canadian citizen
- Thread starter colgate1
- Start date
If your PR card expires or about to expire and you are arriving by land and they let you in, can you stay in the country for two years and have PR card renewed?
Yes, you can do this. The one issue is if you don't meet RO, it's possible you may be reported when you enter Canada.
I'm not sure what to say in that case. This rule has never existed (being able to meet RO by accompanying a minor child who is a Canadian citizen). So my guess is that you must have seen this on a non IRCC web site that misreported the rule.I do remember reading some stuff related. I am not hallucinating
I am sure they will report her once she is back in.
As long as she can enter Canada, I guess we can deal with the consequences. Highly unlikely, she will be deported or her PR would be revoked just because she did not meet with RO.
You can sponsor her again after she lost her PR once it's revoked. She will be allow in regardless. Not sure about deportation.
But if she lost her PR, it's probably better for her to leave and wait for the new PR application and land once it's approved again.
If she's from an eTA country, then she could travel back as visitor. If not, it may be harder to get TRV.
Then your wife cannot claim the time spending in her home country for RO (as accommodating citizen).
In this case, you will be visiting her country and still a resident of Canada. Pay attention to number of physical days spent in your home province to make sure that you still meet requirement of getting provincial health coverage.
That's exactly why PR status is revoked...for not meeting the only requirement. Residency Obligation (or in some cases accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad).
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/card/permanent-resident-determination.html
Residency requirements
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) establishes residency requirements and obligations with respect to each 5-year period after an individual obtains permanent resident status.
Pursuant to subsection A28(2), a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation provisions with respect to a 5-year period if, for at least 730 days in that 5-year period, the permanent resident is
- physically present in Canada
- accompanying outside of Canadaa Canadian citizen who is their
- spouse
- common-law partner
- parent, in the case of a child
If you will be a resident of Canada while she permanently lives in her home country how exactly would she be accompanying you? You she will spend around a year in Canada but when did she get PR?
Not sure what the "this" is in "I am sure people have done this in the past."
There are lots of ways many PRs manage to comply with the PR Residency Obligation despite living outside Canada for lengthy periods of time, even while continuing to live outside Canada indefinitely more than they live in Canada. Even if a PR is meeting the RO based only on days actually present in Canada, the PR can be outside Canada for up to three years in any five year time period.
And there are many PRs living outside Canada with their Canadian citizen spouse who have no problem keeping their status based on the credit for accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse.
That said, the specific purpose for which Canada grants PR status is so that that person can settle and live IN Canada permanently (and the intent to do so is a required element in qualifying for the grant of PR itself). The PR RO allows PRs a great deal of flexibility, enough flexibility that many PRs can navigate their way to staying in RO compliance, keeping their PR status intact, without settling permanently in Canada BUT to be clear, the flexibility and leniency of the RO is not designed or intended to accommodate retaining status in Canada without settling permanently in Canada.
This is why the various credits allowed for days a PR is outside Canada are considered to be "exceptions" to the RO, and as such tend to be more strictly applied.
I disagree however with the implication, in multiple posts above, that just the fact that the PR is not "accompanying" their Canadian citizen spouse will preclude getting RO credit for days the couple spend together outside Canada. Some of the official IAD decisions explicitly reject the relevance of any who-accompanied-whom question and allowed the credit based on days the couple spent together.
In cases where that is the approach, it does NOT matter who accompanied whom, or in some of those cases whether either could be said to be accompanying the other. What matters is the number of days spent together. Thus, for example, in regards to the question posed by @canuck78 "If you will be a resident of Canada while she permanently lives in her home country how exactly would she be accompanying you?" That would not matter.
Likewise, it is NOT necessarily the case, as @YVR123 posted, that your spouse "cannot claim the time spending in her home country for RO (as accommodating citizen)" . . .
And to be clear about the latter, there is no misrepresentation made if in completing the travel history for question 5.5 in either a PR card or PR TD application a PR outside Canada reports reason "B" (accompanying spouse) for blocks of time the PR was outside Canada "staying" with their Canadian citizen spouse, in effect making the claim for RO credit for those periods of time based on accompanying their spouse. So the PR can definitely "claim" the credit.
The question is whether it is safe to rely on the credit. Especially in an application for a PR Travel Document, in which the PR is presumed to NOT have PR status, and with only very isolated exceptions is the context where most who-accompanied-whom challenges arise . . . not in border crossings or PR card applications.
That is:
-- if the couple was living together in Canada and then moved abroad and were living together outside Canada, there is very little risk the accompanying credit will be challenged, REGARDLESS the reason for the move and stay abroad.
-- otherwise there is SOME RISK of a who-accompanied-whom challenge
So, the question is how much risk. And that is a very difficult question to answer. As I have often repeated, in regards to this issue, the challenge this issue has always posed is how to identify if and when a who-accompanied-whom question might arise.
Frankly, these cases appear to be the exception, to be uncommon, UNLESS the circumstances are blatantly and obviously egregious (such as the PR never having lived in Canada at all).
Navigation Mechanics:
I am NO expert. I am NOT qualified to give advice. NOT by a long shot.
And even if I could offer advice, I am reluctant to map ways to navigate the system that could be used to manipulate it, let alone abuse it.
But the leniency and flexibility of the RO invites all sorts of creative ways to avoid losing PR status for failing to comply with the RO while spending lengthy periods of time living outside Canada. Especially for PRs married to a Canadian citizen.
So, without wandering too deep into ways to protect one's PR status while living outside Canada for lengthy periods of time, if a PR is traveling with their Canadian citizen spouse, and the couple have spent significantly more than two years together in the last five (just 763 days, for example, is bound to draw concern), upon arriving TOGETHER at the Port-of-Entry into Canada the odds should be good the PR is waived through, no inadmissibility proceedings. Even if there are inadmissibility proceedings resulting in a Removal Order, the PR is still allowed to enter Canada and they can appeal, and they should have at least decent odds of succeeding in the appeal, and if that does not succeed the citizen spouse can then make another sponsorship application.
It is important, crucial even, to be truthful at the border and in all other information submitted to IRCC or CBSA. Compromised credibility, even though well short of overt misrepresentation, can very easily sabotage the PR's case. And crossing the line into making misrepresentations (even if by omission) can lead to loss of status with no opportunity to be sponsored again for a significant number of years.
Just clarifying that if spouse only very recently received PR and will living abroad while spouse is a resident of Canada (therefore I assume spending a significant amount to time in Canada) the issue of who is accompanying whom is at higher risk of being examined. Their situation in general is unclear.
In the abstract, this would make sense. However, there does not appear to be more than isolated instances, if any actual cases, indicating this.
The problem for PRs relying on getting the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-spouse RO credit in circumstances in which IRCC/CBSA MIGHT contest the credit is there is NO WAY to quantify the risk even in broad ballpark estimates, except to say there is SOME risk based on a relatively SMALL NUMBER of cases.
Again, the challenge this issue has always posed is how to identify if and when a who-accompanied-whom question might arise . . . EXCEPT for PRs who are ordinarily residing with their Canadian citizen spouse, who they were living with in Canada before moving outside Canada, more or less moving together, in which case there is virtually NO risk of a problem qualifying for this credit.
So, sure, one can say there is a "higher risk" but that could be akin to the higher risk of a speeding ticket when driving 9k over the speed limit compared to 5k? (Generally not much risk for either, but yeah the more over the higher the risk.)
Unless the PR was NOT settled in Canada at all, it is very, very difficult to say how much higher the risk is . . . there is NOT enough information to say there is any more than SOME RISK (let along a significant or high risk) even in the more extreme circumstances (one which seems to be somewhat common is where the citizen sponsors their sponsor while they living abroad but the couple never come to Canada to live).
But in any event, even in the more extreme circumstances it appears that the risk is mostly for PRs applying for a PR Travel Document. Based on what is seen reflected in official sources there are very few cases, only RARE instances, in which this RO credit has been denied arising from Port-of-Entry screening or PR card applications. And it appears there are NO anecdotal reports of this happening in this forum (perhaps I have overlooked one or two over the course of the last decade plus).
In some situations the risk is real. I do not mean to dismiss the fact there is some risk. There is enough of a risk to strongly suggest some PRs should approach such situations with caution, which is to say they should be aware that unless the couple was settled in Canada before moving outside Canada, RO credit for days together outside Canada can potentially be challenged, and particularly so if the PR never resided in Canada. BUT that does not mean the risk is high, let alone support advising someone they will not get the credit; the numbers suggest the contrary (in saying this I am assuming there is a fairly large number of citizen-spouse sponsored PRs who have never actually settled in Canada, given the extent to which it appears many shrug off the significance of following through with plans to move to Canada, plans which need to be presented to IRCC to qualify to sponsor while outside Canada).
In fact, I would suggest that for a PR who was not settled in Canada with their Citizen spouse PRIOR to going outside Canada to live, if possible probably a good idea to avoid applying for a PR Travel Document, so either coming to Canada before their PR card expires or at least traveling to Canada together and via the U.S.