PR Card Renewal Interview Letter

[dpenabill]

@dpenabill:
So, out of curiosity, if the renewal and subsequent review of RO of PR status is based on 5 years prior to the date the application is received by IRCC, how does the time after that date play into the renewal and RO process? My understanding (and I may be incorrect in my understanding) is that the current review is based on the time the OP spent in Canada prior to April 4, 2016. So are the subsequent days after April 4, 2016 taken into consideration by IRCC during the review process, or are they constrained by the policies and procedures laid out for them? In the OP's case, it's been well over a year since his application was submitted to IRCC, so in making a determination, is all the time prior to October 16, 2017 that is considered, or is it the time up to April 2014 (and I do understand that the time since April 2014 is relevant in appeals, just trying to get my head around how it is affecting the OP's situation). I would think that the review would be constrained to the time up to the application date, otherwise you could find yourself outside of the RO requirement in some situations or in a favourable situation depending if the review period is fluid. A PR could find themselves out of compliance if the had attained the 730 early in the 5 years prior to applying if the period continues to be fluid, would they not?

The situation for Manoo is complicated in itself, and for discussion purposes here even more complicated because it is not clear exactly what decisions have been made or what the precise status of the case is. (Which I why I keep emphasizing the need to go over these things with the lawyer.)

And there is some confusion and complication in that how IRCC processes these cases, in practice, is not clear. I have, for example, seen reported cases (official decisions) in which a PR appealed a decision denying issuance of a PR card, lost that appeal, and thus lost PR status. Unfortunately, however, the actual procedure followed was not clearly explained. My best understanding of those cases is that the PR was abroad while the appeal was pending, and that probably made a huge difference.

Summary: PR RO compliance can be examined on any day. The day it is examined determines the five year period for calculating compliance. For assessing eligibility to be issued a PR card, PR RO compliance is based on the date the application was made. For determining whether to issue a 44(1) Report, PR RO compliance is based on the date the examination takes place. If a decision is subject to later review, the five years that count are still based on the date the decision was based upon.

In particular, if a PR has an application in process, PR RO compliance for purposes of that application will be based on the date of the application. BUT in the meantime, the PR can still be examined as of any other day, the day the PR makes a PR TD application, the date the PR arrives at a PoE, the date the PR is interviewed and examined for PR RO compliance. The latter, it appears to me, is how Manoo came to be issued a 44(1) Report.

For purposes of later review, the five year time period which was assessed in the decision being reviewed continues to be the relevant five years . . . even if the review takes place years later. So, when a MD determines whether a 44(1) Report was valid in law, the date of the examination resulting in the issuance of the Report continues to set the five year period. And that remains the date through the appeal process.


An effort, perhaps a bumbling effort, to more thoroughly explain this:

What I think you might be mixing up a bit is the fact that compliance with the PR Residency Obligation can be examined any day versus the assessment of PR RO compliance as of particular days for particular purposes.

For purposes of deciding whether to issue a PR Travel Document, for example, compliance is assessed as of the day the PR TD application is made. If there is a negative decision which is reviewed, that continues to be the date that compliance is based on.

This is probably true for a PR card application as well. For sure, eligibility to be issued a new card is based on compliance with the PR RO as of the day the application was made. And, if there is a negative decision which is reviewed, that continues to be the date that compliance is based on.

But there is a huge difference in the impact of a negative PR TD decision, which terminates PR status, versus a decision to deny issuing a new PR card. The latter is something I have rarely seen reported. And as noted, the few decisions I have seen regarding this involved individuals who were abroad.

What appears to be far more common is that if IRCC recognizes that a PR has applied for a PR card and is not in compliance with the PR RO, unlike the situation for Manoo (where the application sat in SR for a long while before there was a formal PR RO determination), IRCC will ordinarily promptly proceed to make a PR RO determination sooner rather than waiting. (This is why I have so often emphasized, in discussions about SR, that SR is most likely about something other than compliance with the PR RO.) The PR will be issued a Questionnaire and called for an interview, or just called in for an interview.

If the PR is determined to not be in compliance with the PR RO as of that day, the day the interview takes place, the PR will likely be issued a 44(1) Report. The issuance of the 44(1) Report itself based on an assessment for the previous five years as of the day of the interview.

Thus, for purposes of determining eligibility to be issued a PRC, yes, the relevant dates for assessing compliance are based on the date the application was made. BUT, so long as the PR has not been issued a Report, for purposes of assessing the PRs status the PR is entitled to count days in Canada up to the day it is assessed.

So, if SR takes two years, and the PR has remained in Canada in the meantime, technically the PR can be denied a new PRC if at the time the application was made the PR was not in compliance, BUT IRCC cannot then terminate the PR's status . . . so usually IRCC grants a new card rather than making the PR file a new application.

That is, unless the PR has already been issued a 44(1) Report, or was denied a PR TD, in order to assess the PR's compliance for purposes of issuing a 44(1) Report, that has to be done based on the day of that examination. This is because the days since the application for the PRC, days which have in fact been spent in Canada, count.

That takes us back to the fact that compliance with the PR Residency Obligation can be examined any day, which can be apart from the assessment of PR RO compliance as of particular days for particular purposes. Technically the PR may not be eligible for a new PRC but, if the PR has stayed in Canada enough since making the PRC application, the PR is not subject to being issued a 44(1) Report.


Example based on April 2016 PRC application and October 2017 interview:

For purposes of the PRC application, the five years that count are indeed April 2011 to April 2016.

But, as long as this individual has not been issued a 44(1) Report or Removal Order or been denied a PR TD, if IRCC interviews the PR in October 2017 any decision to then issue a 44(1) Report must be based on the date of THAT examination, which would be the five years between October 2012 and October 2017.

This is comparable to a PR who has a PRC application in process, wallowing in SR say, and in the meantime the PR goes abroad. If that PR applies for a PR TD, compliance with the PR RO is assessed based on the date that application is made, not the date the PRC application was made. Similarly, if this PR travels via the U.S. and arrives at a Canadian PoE, and is then examined for PR RO compliance, the five years that count are based on that day, there at the PoE, again not the date the PRC application was made.

Generally, we do not see negative decisions denying a PRC application. (Which is not to say they do not happen, just that this is not how it ordinarily goes.) Usually IRCC will proceed with the process to assess and issue a 44(1) Report sooner rather than later, particularly when it is apparent that the PR is in breach of the PR RO (which is why the consensus so adamantly cautions PRs with PR RO compliance problems to wait until they are in compliance before applying for a PRC or to sponsor family). If the PRC application goes into SR, and there are no issues other than PR RO compliance, as long as the PR remains in Canada the PR gets credit for days in Canada, and eventually these PRs are given a new PR card (again, unless there is a negative decision based on other inadmissibility grounds). But the practical reality is that many, many of these PRs go abroad or remain abroad while the PRC application is in SR. In which case IRCC typically waits until the PR applies for a PR TD, or arrives at a PoE seeking entry into Canada. In these instances, PR RO compliance will be assessed based on the date of the PR TD application or date of arrival at the PoE.

Overall: a PR may be in compliance with the PR RO on the date the PR applies for a PRC. But if the PR then goes abroad, and is no longer in compliance with the PR RO, IRCC will proceed to terminate status. In contrast, a PR might not have been in compliance with the PR RO on the day the PR applied for a PRC, but as long as the PR stays in Canada and is in compliance by the day the PR is interviewed, the PR gets to keep PR status.

And I am afraid I have made a crumpled mess of an already wrinkled shirt.

 

[Manoo]

Hi
Thanks for sparing much time and providing valuable advice.

It is worth mentioning it here that since March 2016, I am present in Canada. And not willing to fly till the day I accumulate my 730 days. And when I have accumulated over 730 days, by that time, I might have received my one year valid PR card.

If you can share your thoughts on this point, that will be another favor.

Regards.

 

[Buletruck]

Thanks for taking the time and sacrificing a shirt to explain. Appreciate your insight.

 

[dpenabill]

In trying to find a way to explain this, it occurs to me t

It is worth mentioning it here that since March 2016, I am present in Canada. And not willing to fly till the day I accumulate my 730 days. And when I have accumulated over 730 days, by that time, I might have received my one year valid PR card.

As long as the 44(1) Report is outstanding, you cannot accumulate any more days. Only if the MD decides to not issue a Departure Order can you accumulate more days than you currently have. (Or, if a Departure Order is issued, and you appeal, and win the appeal.)

A brief trip using a one-year PR card, in the meantime (before the MD makes a decision) might not be too big a risk. But there is still a risk, since, again, there is no way to accumulate any more days toward the 730 minimum unless and until the MD makes a decision in your favour.

Sorry, I realize that is NOT good news. But you have hung in there so far, and if you can hold on until the MD makes a decision then you will have a much better idea of your situation.

 

[Manoo]

I want to draw attention towards regulation No. 62 again.
Especially dpenabill. If you can comment on regulation No. 62(2). That will be a great favor.
And I felt something contradiction in last two comments. Can you please go through your last and other before last comment.
Regards

 

[dpenabill]

Overall:

Forget Regulation 62(2), it does not apply to your case at this time.

If there is a decision in the future which will make Reg 62(2) relevant to your case, you will have already won, IRCC will already have determined you get to keep your PR status.

In the meantime, based on your description of events and the lawyer's observations, my impression is that this is likely to turn out OK. There is NO guarantee of that. That is just my impression. FWIW

So I do not want to alarm you. I do not mean to unnecessarily cause you to excessively worry about this.

But, there are some aspects of your situation which are not clear, and there are potential complications. No one here, including me, can really help you navigate this any more than what has already been offered. You are in NEED-a-LAWYER territory. As you already have a lawyer, you mostly need to get your advice from your lawyer.

Otherwise, as I have emphasized again and again, what the 44(1) Report actually contains is what is most important at this stage. That's the decision which will terminate your PR status if it is upheld. That's the decision you hope the Minister's Delegate decides, in effect, to set aside. Failing that, failing a favourable decision from the MD, the decision in the 44(1) Report is the decision you will need to appeal. And, if things go that far, in order to keep your PR status you will need to win that appeal.

Regulation 62(2) will have NO BEARING on how that process goes. None. Does not apply.

In fact, what applies is Regulation 62(1)(a), which means that from the date your 44(1) Report was "prepared" (which I infer was October 16, 2017, but that needs to be confirmed by what is in the report itself), any days you are in Canada do NOT count in calculating your compliance with the PR RO.

Beyond that, the focus of your attention should probably be on what you can do, what you need to do, how can you help yourself have a better chance to keep PR status.

Regulation 62(2) offers you no clue about what to do now.

Mostly, for now, all you can do is stay the course, stay in Canada, continue to work and establish your life in Canada, and prepare for the interview with the Minister's Delegate. While I have offered some ideas about that, here too, and again, your lawyer's advice is what you mostly need to listen to and follow. If you are not satisfied with the lawyer's help, see a different lawyer.

At this stage there is no guarantee you will keep PR status.

Even though the days you are in Canada now do NOT count in the PR RO compliance calculation, it is still very important to stay in Canada. The more days you are in Canada and the more established you are in Canada, the better chance you have the MD (or the IAD if you need to appeal) will allow you to keep PR status despite a finding you failed to prove you were in Canada 730 days within the five years prior to the date the 44(1) Report is based on.

I want to draw attention towards regulation No. 62 again.
. . . . If you can comment on regulation No. 62(2). That will be a great favor.
And I felt something contradiction in last two comments. Can you please go through your last and other before last comment.
Regards

IRPA Regulation 62 (including both subsections 62(1), which describes days that DO NOT COUNT in calculating PR RO compliance, and 62(2) which states an EXCEPTION to the description of days that do not count) is straight-forward as long as it is understood in context with IRPA Section 28, including in particuar IRPA subsection 28(2)(b), which identifies the date that matters, that is the date "at examination."

That is, the date of the examination establishes the relevant five year period for calculating days in Canada and assessing compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

I am not clear what it is you do not understand about Regulation 62(2) in the abstract.

But you have been issued a 44(1) Report, so what matters is understanding how Regulation 62 applies in your particular case. It is not complicated. In particular:

What we know for sure, as Buletruck correctly pointed out early on, is that . . . "at a minimum, as of October 16, 2017, your days in Canada no longer count towards residency . . ." As of October 16, 2017, we know for sure that days you continue to stay in Canada do NOT count toward calculating your compliance with the PR RO.

Back to Regulation 62(2), the exception: For now that does NOT apply to you. There has NOT been any subsequent determination you have complied with the residency obligation.

To be clear:

Regulation 62(2) currently has no application to your case.

Regulation 62(2) will continue to not have any application or relevance to your case, UNLESS:
-- the Minister's Delegate decides you get to keep PR status, or
-- in the event the MD decides against you (issues a Departure or Removal Order), you appeal and you win the appeal

What Regulation 62(2) really means, all that it means, is that IF YOU WIN, if you succeed in getting a favourable decision from either the MD, or on appeal, the clock in effect starts over. IF YOU WIN it is as if you never were issued a 44(1) Report.

BUT first you need to win . . . that is, either get a favourable decision from the MD, or if you lose that, then a favourable decision from the IAD on appeal.

Basically forget about Regulation 62(2). If you succeed with the MD, you keep PR status, you could then go abroad. Even if you do not succeed with the MD, you can appeal, and if you win the appeal your PR status will be good.

If you lose both, you lose PR status. You could request leave for judicial review, but that is a seriously uphill battle, almost impossible to win without the assistance of a lawyer, and that assistance will likely cost a lot, and even with a lawyer it is likely to be a tough case to win.




There is, however, the matter of that . . . "at a minimum" . . . referencing October 16, 2017. There are, it warrants remembering, other possibilities.

This part is more complicated. The particular facts in your case are important. This includes some procedural facts, such as the dates that IRCC took this or that action, and what that action was based on.

This is stuff you really need to confer with a lawyer about. I can only provide enough information to highlight how important the details are. If you are the least bit unsure about what the 44(1) Report contains, you really need to review that with a lawyer.

I have made an effort to caution you that it is important to know precisely what is in the 44(1) Report. Your account of the October 16 interview/examination in combination with your lawyer's observations and advice (as reported by you), leads me to believe that the "date of examination" identified in the 44(1) Report is the date of that interview, October 16, 2017. That is an important detail, however, a critical detail actually.

As Buletruck also observed, and has discussed some since, the calculation in the 44(1) Report could be based on the date you made the application for a new PR card. April 2016.

In looking back at the OP here, your post on October 2, I see that you were issued what I infer to have been a Residency Questionnaire on May 30, 2017, and I am assuming you submitted a response to that. The calculation in your 44(1) Report could be based on that date, May 30, 2017, or the date you signed what you submitted in response.

If any of those are the date which the 44(1) Report calculation is based on, that makes things more difficult, more complicated, and well beyond the scope of what has been reliably reported in this forum. Again, I have inferred, based on your account of the interview and your account of the lawyer's assessment, that the October 16, 2017 date is the operative date. But again, that can be and should be confirmed by what is stated in the 44(1) Report.

I am reluctant to try sorting out some of the possibilities here. They would probably be more confusing than helpful.

Moreover, most of this is done stuff. Decisions made. And your options going forward are fairly limited. A decision has been made to ask the Minister to terminate your PR status (that is the 44(1) Report). The Minister has not yet determined (at least so far as you report), however, whether to actually issue a Removal Order. Thus, if you want to maximize your chances of keeping PR status, you stay the course, stay in Canada, work, and prepare to make your best case to the MD (who makes the decision for the Minister), your best case about how much you have been in Canada, about how much you have established your life in Canada, how much it is your intent to stay and live in Canada permanently, to bring your family to stay and live in Canada permanently. That's probably the best you can do at this stage.

But I need to reiterate that the latter observation is in large part dependent on what you have described about the interview, the 44(1) Report, and what the lawyer has said about your case to this stage.

In any event: Regulation 62(2) does not help you at this stage.

 

[Manoo]

I am really thankful for putting valuable comment. And I highly appreciate those.
Again thanks.

 

[Manoo]

Hi
Today I have received an email from Hamilton office, MDR for another interview for 24 November, 2017.
I have few questions.
1. What options I have to save my status?
2. Can I request for humanitarian grounds as I have also filed an application for sponsorship of my wife and kids which is in process at London UK office.
3. If officer is not satisfied, should I surrender my status and go back and again apply for pr visa, if so how I can apply because I was sponsored by my brother. Now how I can reapply.
4. Someone told me that anyone is called to Hamilton office, he is not in critical condition as compared to someone who is called to Mississauga office, do you agree?

I don't want to lose my status, suggestions please.

 

[Medmhn]

I ve same situation.my pr. Expire.and.im.in.canada rigth.now.I need to.wait.more.to.get aprove to.rene it.sens 01_11_2012 until 01_11_2017 im physical presence in canada 674 days.do.u.think.im.to.close to.renw it bec I.need 730 days for.the last 5years .plz advice .
I.lost my old pass where.it ve the.stamp of travling.I.travel many time back.home bec I.ve family to.susponsring.them. and I.forget same date of travling .and.im.worry if.I.aply w

 

[dpenabill]

Hi
Today I have received an email from Hamilton office, MDR for another interview for 24 November, 2017.
I have few questions.
1. What options I have to save my status?
2. Can I request for humanitarian grounds as I have also filed an application for sponsorship of my wife and kids which is in process at London UK office.
3. If officer is not satisfied, should I surrender my status and go back and again apply for pr visa, if so how I can apply because I was sponsored by my brother. Now how I can reapply.
4. Someone told me that anyone is called to Hamilton office, he is not in critical condition as compared to someone who is called to Mississauga office, do you agree?

I don't want to lose my status, suggestions please.

A lawyer's assistance is the better way to approach this.

Yes, you can make your H&C case. Bring as much proof as you have of the days you have been in Canada as well. Bring proof of your work in Canada. Be ready to make the case that you have been trying to settle in Canada and explain what has made that difficult. Be ready to make the case you plan to stay in Canada and make a permanent home in Canada. Again, better to have a lawyer's help in doing this, but if you cannot get a lawyer's help in time, do your best to make the case you can.

I am guessing (just a GUESS) this is an interview with the Minister's Delegate and the MD will decide whether to issue you a Departure Order or not. You do not need to surrender your PR status. Make your case as best you can. If you persuade the MD you should be allowed to keep PR status, you will be good to stay and to go forward sponsoring your family member. If you in effect lose, you will be issued a Departure Order (or Removal Order; different labels for the same thing). That does NOT mean you have to leave Canada. You can stay and you will have thirty days to file an appeal. If you file the appeal, you can stay pending the appeal. And if you want to keep PR status, that is the better way to approach this, to stay. Appeal and stay.

Not much point going into too much detail about what you do in the appeal until that happens, if that happens. Would be better to have a lawyer's help in the appeal as well.

For now, get prepared to make the best case you can, to show how much you have actually been in Canada (be truthful, and focus on proving the truth . . . trying to stretch it at this stage would risk making things a lot worse), and to give as full an explanation about why you have wanted to settle in Canada but what has made that difficult. Go to the hearing/interview and put your best self forward about why you deserve to keep PR status.

 

[Manoo]

A lawyer's assistance is the better way to approach this.

Yes, you can make your H&C case. Bring as much proof as you have of the days you have been in Canada as well. Bring proof of your work in Canada. Be ready to make the case that you have been trying to settle in Canada and explain what has made that difficult. Be ready to make the case you plan to stay in Canada and make a permanent home in Canada. Again, better to have a lawyer's help in doing this, but if you cannot get a lawyer's help in time, do your best to make the case you can.

I am guessing (just a GUESS) this is an interview with the Minister's Delegate and the MD will decide whether to issue you a Departure Order or not. You do not need to surrender your PR status. Make your case as best you can. If you persuade the MD you should be allowed to keep PR status, you will be good to stay and to go forward sponsoring your family member. If you in effect lose, you will be issued a Departure Order (or Removal Order; different labels for the same thing). That does NOT mean you have to leave Canada. You can stay and you will have thirty days to file an appeal. If you file the appeal, you can stay pending the appeal. And if you want to keep PR status, that is the better way to approach this, to stay. Appeal and stay.

Not much point going into too much detail about what you do in the appeal until that happens, if that happens. Would be better to have a lawyer's help in the appeal as well.

For now, get prepared to make the best case you can, to show how much you have actually been in Canada (be truthful, and focus on proving the truth . . . trying to stretch it at this stage would risk making things a lot worse), and to give as full an explanation about why you have wanted to settle in Canada but what has made that difficult. Go to the hearing/interview and put your best self forward about why you deserve to keep PR status.

Thanks a lot for providing valuable suggestions. I highly appreciate your efforts.

 

[Manoo]

Hi Senior members and everyone.
Today, I attended an interview with MD. And at the end, I got departure order along with appeal form. I submitted documents for H&C. But officer said I have reviewed but these are insufficient.
I needed urgent advice.
1. I have sponsored my family, what will be the fate of sponsorship application.
2. Can I buy some assets now. Will these assets help me in appeal.
3. How I can request for alternative dispute resolution during appeal.
4. What other factors which can help me in winning appeal.
5. If possible, please share the process of appeal.
Regards
Manoo

 

[dpenabill]

Lawyer-up.

 

[Manoo]

Thanks for replying. Can you please name some experience and season lawyer. That would be a great way to help me.

 

[Leon]

Hi Senior members and everyone.
Today, I attended an interview with MD. And at the end, I got departure order along with appeal form. I submitted documents for H&C. But officer said I have reviewed but these are insufficient.
I needed urgent advice.
1. I have sponsored my family, what will be the fate of sponsorship application.
2. Can I buy some assets now. Will these assets help me in appeal.
3. How I can request for alternative dispute resolution during appeal.
4. What other factors which can help me in winning appeal.
5. If possible, please share the process of appeal.
Regards
Manoo

1. They will likely put your sponsorship application on hold until they decide the fate of your PR status. There would be no point in bringing them here if you were about to lose your PR status.
2. Buying assets really does not buy you any favours with immigration but can show that you are serious about making your home in Canada and can possibly affect an appeal that way. It would have been better if you had bought assets in 2016 before you ended up having an appeal. Doing it now might look like grasping at straws. I can't really say if it would help but probably more than not.
3. and 4. I think it is most important to prove your stay in 2013-2014. I don't think they doubt when you arrived in 2016 shortly before you applied to renew your PR card but it looks like they don't believe your stay in 2013-2014, otherwise you would have enough days. Have they actually stated that? You need to look into if you have any records from this period, rental agreement, bank records, phone records, utility bills, pay slips, tax records etc. If you have nothing, maybe you can get it from the companies. Copies of tax records, letter from your employer at the time, letters from doctors or dentists verifying that you had appointments there, a print out from health care stating your health care use, something from your landlord, utility company, bank etc. etc. Also, have they shown you or have you ordered your list of exits and entries from CBSA to see if anything there looks funny?
You say you tried to claim H&C grounds but they said it wasn't enough. H&C grounds would be something like taking physical care of your dying mother and being able to prove it. I don't know what grounds you had but grounds like couldn't get a job etc. would not really help. Grounds based on having sponsored your family don't really count. They can say if you want to be with your family, you can go back.

In any case, get a lawyer. I don't know any lawyers so I can't really recommend one but note that this forum is owned by a lawyer. Good luck.