Chances of PR Card renewal rejection

[vensak]

I thank you very much for taking the time to do this detailed explanation, for the fact that I see myself as such a deceived husband that his wife told him that she was waiting for him and then after he returned she said to him that he is a liar and it's not what I promised her and that she wants divorce.

Usually, I know that the law should be easy , and to understand it you should read the lines and not what lies between them, simple to understand without the help law analysists , but unfortunately I feel here that the law is subject to interpretation and there are many things hidden in many aspects.

if and if and then can and can and can, and then back to the starting point.

It is frustrating after 5 years, to know that the law that should protect you , is the same law that you must be aware of. It is really sad that you thought you were doing everything right and legally as required by the law in order to be a successful person in your job, and then you see yourself in the eyes of that same law as an illegitimate person trying to absolve yourself of a charge you did not commit and all eyes are on you to prove your legal intentions.

I thank you all again for your help but I am trying here at least once, to understand in what particular situation I am in.

Will I lose what I thought I was doing right in the eyes of the law...actually, I will be more clear and explicit than the law:

1 :Will I be rejected to renew my PR card?

2: Should I start considering appointing a lawyer to acquit me of the ambiguity of the law?

Ok again let me simplify for you.

You have only 2 situations:

1. You do comply to RO at the date of request for new PR card
2. You do not comply to RO.

Now if you fall under second situation, you have again just 2 options
A. You do have valid H&C reasons
B. You do not have valid H&C reasons.

And technically all those conditions about accompanying spouse and business trips or even to be sent outside by the Canadian government are H&C reasons.
However it just so happens that unlike other situations
(like to be removed as a child, or to be stranded with seriously ill family member that needed your attention and nobody else could help)
These reasons are the one that are a bit more explicit.

A bit does not mean completely clear and transparent (because unlike counting physical presence in Canada where you can either be in Canada or not be in Canada and nothing in between), there is a whole grey area there that can be applied if it is needed.

Simply said officer can be strict or lenient and he can see the grey part as still white or already black. (I guess the only time it is a clear white is if you really are sent abroad by Canadian government).
And the examples that I have stated above are showing how the situation is evolving now (tendency of approvals and rejections).

Now you understand that since you fall in the grey zone you might get a different outcome depending on the officer in charge.
So depending on the current trends your situation needs to be as light grey as possible.

 

[dpenabill]

@vensak, I concur in much of your recent posts above and most of the proffered examples are good illustrations. Thus appreciated. There are, however, a couple errors:

And technically all those conditions about accompanying spouse and business trips or even to be sent outside by the Canadian government are H&C reasons.

This is NOT correct.

And I too am also guilty of mis-characterizing the the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit,
and the accompanying-citizen-spouse abroad credit since I often refer to these as "exceptions" to a rule requiring PRs to be physically present in Canada 730 days in the relevant five year period. Actually these are NOT exceptions at all. They are equal provisions in IRPA. In particular, section 28(2) IRPA states:

"(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;

see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-20

As can be seen, subsections (ii) and (iii) (and (iv) as well) stand in equal stead with subsection (i).

(See 28(2)(c) IRPA for provision allowing PRs to retain status for H&C reasons.)

And now to the accompanying part.
. . . .
Example 2:
Rob is Canadian and Jenny is from USA. Jenny get a lucrative job offer from Silicon valley. As Rob is a free lance photographer, he has no problem to relocate with Jenny and still do his job for Canadian clients. Later on he will get work visa as well and is able to offer his services on the local market.
In this case those days will most probably not count, because Canadian citizen followed the other person.

There have been some who-accompanied-whom cases. This is NOT an example of such a case UNLESS Jenny was NOT living in Canada with Rob before Jenny (the PR) gets the job in Silicon Valley. As long as the couple is together IN CANADA BEFORE one moves abroad, there is no case, not as yet, which suggests the credit is not available even if the PR is the one who got the job and the Canadian citizen is the one who followed the PR abroad. (If there is a big gap in time between when the PR moves abroad and the citizen later moves abroad, that might push the needle closer to the kinds of cases in which who-accompanied-whom could matter.)

Overall, while there are situations in which who-accompanied-whom can be an issue, for a PR settled in Canada before the move abroad, what matters is that the couple are cohabiting. Living together suffices in most and nearly all cases. The rather extreme circumstances in which who-accompanied-whom matters, those are addressed at length in other topics, and probably not much relevant here, since it does not appear this discussion involves a PR living together abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse.


@Ninio

Usually, I know that the law should be easy , and to understand it you should read the lines and not what lies between them, simple to understand without the help law analysists , but unfortunately I feel here that the law is subject to interpretation and there are many things hidden in many aspects.

While it is not entirely clear, it appears your discontent is based on feeling the narrow way in which IRCC applies the provisions allowing credit for PRs employed abroad by a Canadian business has misled you; that you have relied on the availability of this credit and it seems like IRCC is applying this in a way that differs from what it says.

I agree that the actual application of this credit is NOT clearly enough explained in IRCC or CIC information, and you are not the first to complain about being misled.

In this respect, perhaps it helps to look at this from the H&C perspective first. (Which is NOT how it works in dealing with IRCC; with IRCC the question of days credited emphatically comes first, and if the number of credited days falls short, only then will H&C factors be considered.)

In the H&C analysis, IRCC must, and generally it will, CONSIDER ALL REASONS related to how and why the PR remained abroad so long as to fall short of complying with the PR Residency Obligation. (Discussions about so-called "valid" or not valid reasons drive me crazy, because any and all truthful reasons can and will be considered; they MUST be considered; how they then factor into the H&C equation varies from situation to situation.) If the PR was relying on getting credit for time abroad working for a Canadian business, even if the PR erroneously relied on employment which does not qualify for the credit, that can be a huge, huge positive factor in weighing H&C considerations.

Obviously, the more reasonable the PR's reliance was, the more positive weight this has. In contrast, if it appears the PR was gaming the system, such as taking the position precisely to facilitate working abroad and keeping PR status, that is likely to have a negative impact.

Obviously this only applies once, only until the PR is in effect put on notice that the employment arrangement is NOT one that will allow credit toward PR RO compliance.


Technical Requirements to Qualify for Credit for Time-Employed-Abroad-by-Canadian-Employer:

The way in which this credit is actually applied is indeed significantly more strict than is readily apparent in the statutory language itself, and even in the way this credit is described in IRCC information (such as the appendix to the guide for PRC applications about the RO). BUT the strict application is consistent with the language in the statute and IRCC information . . . it is just that it is NOT the only interpretation.

Moreover, and this is the key: IRCC (and CIC before), and the IAD, and several Federal Court Justices have all concurred that this provision is to be interpreted in conjunction with all the other provisions governing PR status and thus, importantly, it should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the purpose of PR: to enable individuals to settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada.

Scores and scores of people have interpreted the provision for this credit as standing alone. And have thus missed key elements in how the Canadian government interprets the provision: that it is to be applied in a manner which is consistent with and which supports the primary purpose of allowing individuals to keep PR status so long as their employment is consistent with pursuing a life centralized in Canada. Again, the particular nuances of this are discussed in depth in other topics.

But yes, the way Canada applies this tends to be more limited and strict than many will apprehend by just reading the statutory provision or IRCC information. For those who are on track to establish a life in Canada and who were genuinely confused, odds are very good IRCC or the IAD will give them a pass. Within limits.

 

[vensak]

@vensak, I concur in much of your recent posts above and most of the proffered examples are good illustrations. Thus appreciated. There are, however, a couple errors:



This is NOT correct.

And I too am also guilty of mis-characterizing the the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit,
and the accompanying-citizen-spouse abroad credit since I often refer to these as "exceptions" to a rule requiring PRs to be physically present in Canada 730 days in the relevant five year period. Actually these are NOT exceptions at all. They are equal provisions in IRPA. In particular, section 28(2) IRPA states:

"(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;

see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-20

As can be seen, subsections (ii) and (iii) (and (iv) as well) stand in equal stead with subsection (i).

(See 28(2)(c) IRPA for provision allowing PRs to retain status for H&C reasons.)




There have been some who-accompanied-whom cases. This is NOT an example of such a case UNLESS Jenny was NOT living in Canada with Rob before Jenny (the PR) gets the job in Silicon Valley. As long as the couple is together IN CANADA BEFORE one moves abroad, there is no case, not as yet, which suggests the credit is not available even if the PR is the one who got the job and the Canadian citizen is the one who followed the PR abroad. (If there is a big gap in time between when the PR moves abroad and the citizen later moves abroad, that might push the needle closer to the kinds of cases in which who-accompanied-whom could matter.)

Overall, while there are situations in which who-accompanied-whom can be an issue, for a PR settled in Canada before the move abroad, what matters is that the couple are cohabiting. Living together suffices in most and nearly all cases. The rather extreme circumstances in which who-accompanied-whom matters, those are addressed at length in other topics, and probably not much relevant here, since it does not appear this discussion involves a PR living together abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse.

.

I know that I do not use those strict legal terms, I am just trying to explain how things look (at least how I understand them) with the current trends.

Now lets come to your compliance reasons:
1. To be in physically in Canada.
This one is rather simple and you can either be or not be there with the proofs like the passport stamps or other confirmations from the system.
So how would it work if immigration officer would doubt your evidence?
They would go into their database of entrances or exits (as you have to present your PR or passport at certain point when entering and leaving). And they will check the dates and times of your entrances and exits (that is either when the machine scanned the reading code on your passport / PR card or when the officer did type in the data manually and then pressed Enter / Save).
So that leaves very little space for any kind of error in different interpretation (there would have to be virus in the system or something off with the date and time setup or somebody would have messed up with the database).

2. Accompanying somebody (be it Canadian citizen or a PR under the employment conditions). I will focus on accompanying
In the law you have presented there is no special interpretation for the word accompanying. So that is where the grey area stands from.
All you have are the dictionary definitions such as:

Definition of accompany
transitive verb

1 : to go with as an associate or companion She accompanied me to the store.

2 : to perform an accompaniment to or for He will be accompanying her on the piano.

3a : to cause to be in association accompanied their advice with a warning

b : to be in association with the pictures that accompany the text

As you can see if you look at it more strictly speaking, then you can tell that the Canadian citizen / PR with the employment clause; should be the one to trigger or initiate the movement abroad. And without that initiation no movement would happen in the first place (Rob would stay in Canada if Jane did not get her Job offer).
I do not think you would ever read in newspaper something like: "Our current prime minister has accompanied his wife to USA as he was performing the official visit of the USA president".

Or you can be totally lenient and just assume, that as long as they live together accompanying clause can be used.

And you can settle somewhere in between, where you will acknowledge the effort to stay in Canada together.

You have all those possibilities on the table and it is up to the officer / judge / committee which version will they use. (and most of the time they will either get internal memo how strict should they be - what is still considered accompanying or what is not).

And, no you are mistaken about living together in Canada first (that clause is mentioned nowhere in the law extract you have shown, that is just something they can take into consideration).

So does it looks just like H&C reasons? Yes it does look pretty much that way. It bears all the similarities, where you are asked not only to prove you presence, but also motives and the exact address presence of other details.


I do understand that my explanation does not sound that much official legal. It is more practical how to view and approach the situation. (For example, I know that I am in the grey zone, so I will try to make it as white as possible; rather than being surprised if in my case more strict explanation was used).

 

[dpenabill]

And, no you are mistaken about living together in Canada first (that clause is mentioned nowhere in the law extract you have shown, that is just something they can take into consideration).

On the contrary, IRPA Regulation 61(4) explicitly states that a permanent resident is "accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen . . . who is their spouse . . . on each day that the permanent resident is ORDINARILY RESIDING with the Canadian citizen . . . " (emphasis added)

see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-14.html#h-34

This is not merely government information. The regulation is official law binding on IRCC. And of course it is regularly cited and applied in officially published IAD decisions.

Thus, as a PRACTICAL MATTER, as long as the PR is cohabiting with ("ordinarily residing with") a Canadian citizen spouse, the credit applies. That is, as a PRACTICAL MATTER the PR gets credit toward the PR RO for time the couple are LIVING TOGETHER. This is not legalese. As a practical matter, a PR living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse gets credit toward the RO for the time they are living together.

NOTE, for example, that PRs requesting the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit in a PRC application are only asked to provide the following information:

-- name of family member and proof of the family member's Canadian citizenship
-- relationship to the family member and proof of the relationship (marriage certificate for example)
-- list of absences (for which credit should be given) specifying from-to dates, address, and # days​

What is NOT requested is illuminating: NO INFORMATION, let alone PROOF, about who accompanied whom or about why the couple was abroad those dates.

(See IMM 5444 (08-2016) which is the application form to obtain a new PR card.)


The Exceptions:

As has been discussed at length in other topics, there are some exceptions. Few exceptions. Exceptions arising in rather extreme circumstances (albeit less extreme than it seemed until some recent IAD decisions were published). Exceptional situations in which CBSA, IRCC, and the IAD have not given credit for time living together following a determination that the Citizen was accompanying the PR abroad.

You quote some of the same reasoning that has been applied in those cases, in the EXCEPTIONS, BUT you do so out of context.

In response to those few IAD decisions in which who-accompanied-whom was a determining factor, I personally did a fair amount of additional homework and research. And again my observations derived from that homework and research have been extensively explained in other topics.

In fact I started a specific topic about this just a little over two months ago, in which I get deep into the weeds in order to (1) better highlight who might be at risk for a who-accompanied-whom assessment, BUT also (2) highlighting why that is still the EXCEPTION.

see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

I do not intend to revisit that discussion in depth. Anyone with concerns related to the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit might want to visit that topic and read the discussion there, and perhaps also read some of the sources cited and linked there.

For now, it warrants a reminder that Operational Manual ENF 23 "Loss of permanent resident status" also further explains how Regulation 61(4) and the statute itself (Section 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA, the accompanying-citizen-spouse provision, quoted in my previous post) are applied.

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. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), 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.​

The manual is NOT law. It is an operational guide. And indeed we have seen a FEW cases in which the IAD did "determine who is accompanying whom . . . "

As a general matter, the cases in which this has happened are PRACTICALLY limited to situations in which it appears (quite blatantly) that there is some gaming of the system involved (I describe examples in the other topic) or the PR has never actually settled permanently in Canada (or at the least, the extent of the PRs presence in Canada falls short of establishing any actual, in-fact residence in Canada). One might easily recognize the exceptions as situations in which it is blatantly obvious that the PRs ties to Canada are minimal and NOT consistent with the purpose of the grant of PR status (and this too is something I have discussed at length in several other topics, including a post within the last day or so).

BOTTOM-LINE: Under current law, so long as the PR has been living in Canada BEFORE a move abroad, the PR will get credit for time living with a Canadian citizen spouse abroad no matter WHY the couple moved abroad (and even if the citizen follows the PR abroad, that is moves abroad after the PR has moved abroad, but within a common-sense amount of time). Such rules are always subject to change (and there is yet another topic where this possibility is addressed in some depth). But for now this really is the most practical version of how it works.

 

[vensak]

On the contrary, IRPA Regulation 61(4) explicitly states that a permanent resident is "accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen . . . who is their spouse . . . on each day that the permanent resident is ORDINARILY RESIDING with the Canadian citizen . . . " (emphasis added)

see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-14.html#h-34

This is not merely government information. The regulation is official law binding on IRCC. And of course it is regularly cited and applied in officially published IAD decisions.

Thus, as a PRACTICAL MATTER, as long as the PR is cohabiting with ("ordinarily residing with") a Canadian citizen spouse, the credit applies. That is, as a PRACTICAL MATTER the PR gets credit toward the PR RO for time the couple are LIVING TOGETHER. This is not legalese. As a practical matter, a PR living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse gets credit toward the RO for the time they are living together.

NOTE, for example, that PRs requesting the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit in a PRC application are only asked to provide the following information:

-- name of family member and proof of the family member's Canadian citizenship
-- relationship to the family member and proof of the relationship (marriage certificate for example)
-- list of absences (for which credit should be given) specifying from-to dates, address, and # days​

What is NOT requested is illuminating: NO INFORMATION, let alone PROOF, about who accompanied whom or about why the couple was abroad those dates.

(See IMM 5444 (08-2016) which is the application form to obtain a new PR card.)


The Exceptions:

As has been discussed at length in other topics, there are some exceptions. Few exceptions. Exceptions arising in rather extreme circumstances (albeit less extreme than it seemed until some recent IAD decisions were published). Exceptional situations in which CBSA, IRCC, and the IAD have not given credit for time living together following a determination that the Citizen was accompanying the PR abroad.

You quote some of the same reasoning that has been applied in those cases, in the EXCEPTIONS, BUT you do so out of context.

In response to those few IAD decisions in which who-accompanied-whom was a determining factor, I personally did a fair amount of additional homework and research. And again my observations derived from that homework and research have been extensively explained in other topics.

In fact I started a specific topic about this just a little over two months ago, in which I get deep into the weeds in order to (1) better highlight who might be at risk for a who-accompanied-whom assessment, BUT also (2) highlighting why that is still the EXCEPTION.

see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

I do not intend to revisit that discussion in depth. Anyone with concerns related to the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit might want to visit that topic and read the discussion there, and perhaps also read some of the sources cited and linked there.

For now, it warrants a reminder that Operational Manual ENF 23 "Loss of permanent resident status" also further explains how Regulation 61(4) and the statute itself (Section 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA, the accompanying-citizen-spouse provision, quoted in my previous post) are applied.

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. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), 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.​

The manual is NOT law. It is an operational guide. And indeed we have seen a FEW cases in which the IAD did "determine who is accompanying whom . . . "

As a general matter, the cases in which this has happened are PRACTICALLY limited to situations in which it appears (quite blatantly) that there is some gaming of the system involved (I describe examples in the other topic) or the PR has never actually settled permanently in Canada (or at the least, the extent of the PRs presence in Canada falls short of establishing any actual, in-fact residence in Canada). One might easily recognize the exceptions as situations in which it is blatantly obvious that the PRs ties to Canada are minimal and NOT consistent with the purpose of the grant of PR status (and this too is something I have discussed at length in several other topics, including a post within the last day or so).

BOTTOM-LINE: Under current law, so long as the PR has been living in Canada BEFORE a move abroad, the PR will get credit for time living with a Canadian citizen spouse abroad no matter WHY the couple moved abroad (and even if the citizen follows the PR abroad, that is moves abroad after the PR has moved abroad, but within a common-sense amount of time). Such rules are always subject to change (and there is yet another topic where this possibility is addressed in some depth). But for now this really is the most practical version of how it works.

So in that whole post you have written you have failed to prove where explicitly is it Canada written.
Attention do not mix it up with the similar words like Canadian citizen.

Lets see.

First you have stated this one:
"accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen . . . who is their spouse . . . on each day that the permanent resident is ORDINARILY RESIDING with the Canadian citizen . . . "

In fact in the whole sentence is not stated where one needs to reside ordinarily. Because that sentence point out that you must live together during that accompanying part.
One would of course assume for the spouses that were sponsored to Canada, that they would most likely lived some time in Canada.
But surprise surprise that spouse might have become PR prior becoming a spouse or it might have used different stream how to get their PR.

The second part - this manual that you have stated:
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. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), 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.

That wording is a trap. There is that first part (in blue) that sound fair and lenient. That one gives you idea that all you need is just to live with a Canadian spouse and all will be peachy.
Then there is the second part (in red) where the wording resident accompanying Citizen is used again. You can swap the word accompany to follow (maybe that would make cleared that the Canadian should be the leader). That one is actually a way how to deal with those whom you deem to be in the dark scale of grey according to your feelings to it.

So lets check it what it means for an officer:
So he will read the first statement and thinks. "Good if I am lazy or I feel to have good day or like this guy I do not need to check upon details and nobody can accuse me not to work properly or to do a mistake."
Then he reads the second sentence. "OK. So lets say I do not like this guy. I can check for reasons if I want to as it is not explicitly forbidden. And as long long as he was the one accompanying and not leading the party abroad, I cannot do him anything. I do understand that I cannot blame him for the reasons he or his spouse left if he was not the leader, but I can blame him if he is the leader"
And then he can go and open a big English dictionary and check for the meaning of word accompanying and crucify the guy.
And why? because that second statement actually does allow to check the intents and purpose.
Because the negation of it would be:
In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is not accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences can be / are relevant as the residency obligation is not automatically met.

All because he was not accompanying and not because they were outside working or just scratching their butts.

Now you see why all these exceptional rulings can be and why is it all according to their valid rules.
And all that would also explain why the whole accompany thing is a big grey area and why it is it important to be on the whiter scale of grey.

 

[dpenabill]

So in that whole post you have written you have failed to prove where explicitly is it Canada written.
Attention do not mix it up with the similar words like Canadian citizen.

. . . .

All because he was not accompanying and not because they were outside working or just scratching their butts.

Now you see why all these exceptional rulings can be and why is it all according to their valid rules.
And all that would also explain why the whole accompany thing is a big grey area and why it is it important to be on the whiter scale of grey.

Again, all this has been addressed in depth in other topics. And, again, the FEW situations in which IRCC, CBSA, or the IAD have considered who-accompanied-whom have been addressed in depth in this topic: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

Any further discussion about this should probably be discussed there since this is largely a less-relevant tangent here. And indeed I have posted more of a response there.

Relative to "So in that whole post you have written you have failed to prove where explicitly is it Canada written." Actually I cited, linked, and accurately quoted (leaving out some unnecessary language related to other circumstances in which accompanying is relevant) the applicable Canadian law, Section 61(4), which explicitly provides that each day a PR is ordinarily residing with a Canadian citizen spouse counts as a day accompanying the citizen spouse. Notwithstanding the few exceptions this is actually quite simple, straightforward, and routine. And in recent years IRCC has begun routinely issuing multiple-use PR TDs to PRs living abroad with a citizen spouse. Again, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-14.html#h-34

 

[vensak]

Again, all this has been addressed in depth in other topics. And, again, the FEW situations in which IRCC, CBSA, or the IAD have considered who-accompanied-whom have been addressed in depth in this topic: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

Any further discussion about this should probably be discussed there since this is largely a less-relevant tangent here. And indeed I have posted more of a response there.

Relative to "So in that whole post you have written you have failed to prove where explicitly is it Canada written." Actually I cited, linked, and accurately quoted (leaving out some unnecessary language related to other circumstances in which accompanying is relevant) the applicable Canadian law, Section 61(4), which explicitly provides that each day a PR is ordinarily residing with a Canadian citizen spouse counts as a day accompanying the citizen spouse. Notwithstanding the few exceptions this is actually quite simple, straightforward, and routine. And in recent years IRCC has begun routinely issuing multiple-use PR TDs to PRs living abroad with a citizen spouse. Again, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-14.html#h-34[/QUOTE

word "Canadian citizen" is not a synonym to the word "Canada".
ordinarily residing with a Canadian citizen does not mean to do that in Canada, to have to ever done in Canada or to intend to do in Canada.

I am pointing out the simply that no such condition of residing together IN CANADA is written in the law neither in manual.

What does happen in some cases, that they see those intentions and time spent especially in Canada as something that makes the case to be more likely approved.

Let me give 2 examples with a similar timeline:

1. Case one (described here - http://www.canadavisalaw.com/blog/maintaining-residency-by-accompanying-a-canadian-spouse-outside-canada/)

Diouf got here PR and then returned to her country shortly after that. it is not specified why, so it can be either a severe disappointment or more common postponement of final immigration (where people return for another 1 or 2 years back home wrapping up their life wanting to go to Canada once that is done).
She met her future husband back at her workplace and then married him (it is not specified how long all that took place, but assumption can be during those 2 years maybe when she wanted to wrap up her life).
As a normal couple they wanted to live together and it was economically more sound that they would stay where they already both have job and move back when there is a better opportunity. (this is my assumption).
Somewhere later down they wanted to move back to Canada (or visit Canada yet again, like the parents in law for example).
As she was already PR she took the natural way how to renew her PR card. She assumed that she was living with her husband and that if something like checking who is accompanying is not necessary, they will surely not do it. (again my assumption).
She was severely mistaken.

What happened after then:
The IAD looked at the meaning of the word “accompany” in the context of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“Act”) and also in the ordinary meaning of the term, which included the dictionary definition “to go with”.

And yes sadly her action to leave Canada would have happened even if she did not meet her husband at work there. What is funny, nobody cared here if she just wanted to return to her country for good or if she was going back to wrap up her life (certain things like dealing with lands or houses can take months and months to solve).

I guess best part is this sentence:
The IAD found that Parliament could not have intended for people who are granted permanent residence to leave Canada and settle abroad and allow these people who marry a Canadian citizen to maintain a status that would otherwise have been lost.

She did return to the country of her origin where she was most likely already settled (not somewhere where she wanted to settle). She may wanted to close up most of her ties there. She married Canadian citizen (yes the one who can vote). That Canadian citizen just wanted to have a happy life with her wife (who knows maybe she got pregnant shortly after and it might have been best option to stay there and be supported by her husband). That that very Canadian citizen might have be the real cause why not to return to Canada.
But all that what if went out of window. That whole sentence above is the complicated definition of accompanying (which apparently is examined at the moment you left Canada and not as it was dynamically evolving).

Why? Maybe her application was too minimalistic. Maybe the officer did not like her and did what he was allowed to do. And he did on a very strict bases.
As again nobody care that during that case the role of the leader either disappeared (both were working in the same country and so both could be considered leaders or followers). It could even be that she really started to accompany her husband (him and his salary being the reason why to stay abroad).

Case 2

Now how to make such case as white as possible with a similar scenario.
1. First part can happen the same way. Going back to wrap up the old life.
2. If PR meets a person that he / she loves and want to marry, PR needs to start thinking long term (what if one day I want to return to Canada).
3. Wrap up the life anyway even if marriage is close by.
4. Leave back to Canada ideally before the marriage.
5. Collect some evidence of the effort to settle down in Canada (like searching for job or at least to get survival jobs).
6. Marry in Canada if possible and stay there for honeymoons
7. Let the Canadian return abroad first.
8. Pack up your life from Canada and do not forget to inform CRA that you will no longer be tax resident because you are going to accompany your husband abroad.
9. When the time comes write nice long explanation letter explaining all details (how she returned just to close you live back in your country; how she met her future spouse; how she still wanted to live in Canada so she returned; how the relationship improved and how she got marriage proposal; How she still tried to settle down; how she married that person and then had a long serious discussion; how she finally decided to accompany him abroad).

That would have been almost the same story except nobody would be able to point out that she did not accompany the other person to the country where he lives.
That would be moment for her lawyer to point out that she fulfilled accompanying part as was requested (with the ordinary meaning of accompanying as well)

And interestingly nowhere in that story need to be mentioned that those 2 were ordinarily living together in Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

@vensak: please delete or edit your post above which purports to quote me but includes a lot which is NOT what I posted.

Moreover, as already noted, this subject is a largely irrelevant tangent in this topic. See topic: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/ for further illumination of what we know about this issue.

 

[dpenabill]

Again, all this has been addressed in depth in other topics. And, again, the FEW situations in which IRCC, CBSA, or the IAD have considered who-accompanied-whom have been addressed in depth in this topic: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

Any further discussion about this should probably be discussed there since this is largely a less-relevant tangent here. And indeed I have posted more of a response there.

Relative to "So in that whole post you have written you have failed to prove where explicitly is it Canada written." Actually I cited, linked, and accurately quoted (leaving out some unnecessary language related to other circumstances in which accompanying is relevant) the applicable Canadian law, Section 61(4), which explicitly provides that each day a PR is ordinarily residing with a Canadian citizen spouse counts as a day accompanying the citizen spouse. Notwithstanding the few exceptions this is actually quite simple, straightforward, and routine. And in recent years IRCC has begun routinely issuing multiple-use PR TDs to PRs living abroad with a citizen spouse. Again, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-14.html#h-34[/QUOTE

word "Canadian citizen" is not a synonym to the word "Canada".
ordinarily residing with a Canadian citizen does not mean to do that in Canada, to have to ever done in Canada or to intend to do in Canada.

I am pointing out the simply that no such condition of residing together IN CANADA is written in the law neither in manual.

What does happen in some cases, that they see those intentions and time spent especially in Canada as something that makes the case to be more likely approved.

Let me give 2 examples with a similar timeline:

1. Case one (described here - http://www.canadavisalaw.com/blog/maintaining-residency-by-accompanying-a-canadian-spouse-outside-canada/)

Diouf got here PR and then returned to her country shortly after that. it is not specified why, so it can be either a severe disappointment or more common postponement of final immigration (where people return for another 1 or 2 years back home wrapping up their life wanting to go to Canada once that is done).
She met her future husband back at her workplace and then married him (it is not specified how long all that took place, but assumption can be during those 2 years maybe when she wanted to wrap up her life).
As a normal couple they wanted to live together and it was economically more sound that they would stay where they already both have job and move back when there is a better opportunity. (this is my assumption).
Somewhere later down they wanted to move back to Canada (or visit Canada yet again, like the parents in law for example).
As she was already PR she took the natural way how to renew her PR card. She assumed that she was living with her husband and that if something like checking who is accompanying is not necessary, they will surely not do it. (again my assumption).
She was severely mistaken.

What happened after then:
The IAD looked at the meaning of the word “accompany” in the context of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“Act”) and also in the ordinary meaning of the term, which included the dictionary definition “to go with”.

And yes sadly her action to leave Canada would have happened even if she did not meet her husband at work there. What is funny, nobody cared here if she just wanted to return to her country for good or if she was going back to wrap up her life (certain things like dealing with lands or houses can take months and months to solve).

I guess best part is this sentence:
The IAD found that Parliament could not have intended for people who are granted permanent residence to leave Canada and settle abroad and allow these people who marry a Canadian citizen to maintain a status that would otherwise have been lost.

She did return to the country of her origin where she was most likely already settled (not somewhere where she wanted to settle). She may wanted to close up most of her ties there. She married Canadian citizen (yes the one who can vote). That Canadian citizen just wanted to have a happy life with her wife (who knows maybe she got pregnant shortly after and it might have been best option to stay there and be supported by her husband). That that very Canadian citizen might have be the real cause why not to return to Canada.
But all that what if went out of window. That whole sentence above is the complicated definition of accompanying (which apparently is examined at the moment you left Canada and not as it was dynamically evolving).

Why? Maybe her application was too minimalistic. Maybe the officer did not like her and did what he was allowed to do. And he did on a very strict bases.
As again nobody care that during that case the role of the leader either disappeared (both were working in the same country and so both could be considered leaders or followers). It could even be that she really started to accompany her husband (him and his salary being the reason why to stay abroad).

Case 2

Now how to make such case as white as possible with a similar scenario.
1. First part can happen the same way. Going back to wrap up the old life.
2. If PR meets a person that he / she loves and want to marry, PR needs to start thinking long term (what if one day I want to return to Canada).
3. Wrap up the life anyway even if marriage is close by.
4. Leave back to Canada ideally before the marriage.
5. Collect some evidence of the effort to settle down in Canada (like searching for job or at least to get survival jobs).
6. Marry in Canada if possible and stay there for honeymoons
7. Let the Canadian return abroad first.
8. Pack up your life from Canada and do not forget to inform CRA that you will no longer be tax resident because you are going to accompany your husband abroad.
9. When the time comes write nice long explanation letter explaining all details (how she returned just to close you live back in your country; how she met her future spouse; how she still wanted to live in Canada so she returned; how the relationship improved and how she got marriage proposal; How she still tried to settle down; how she married that person and then had a long serious discussion; how she finally decided to accompany him abroad).

That would have been almost the same story except nobody would be able to point out that she did not accompany the other person to the country where he lives.
That would be moment for her lawyer to point out that she fulfilled accompanying part as was requested (with the ordinary meaning of accompanying as well)

And interestingly nowhere in that story need to be mentioned that those 2 were ordinarily living together in Canada.

One more request to please delete or revise your post so it does NOT misquote me (in fact, the overwhelming majority of what you purport to quote from me is NOT anything I have posted). Thank you.

For others: the misquotation of me in the above post by @vensak includes some discussion of the Diouf IAD decision, attributing to me observations I have NOT made and conclusions which are actually contrary to what I have observed (about Diouf) in other topics.

While a number of months ago I discussed the Diouf IAD decision in multiple topics, my most in-depth discussion of that decision included extensive and important context considering other IAD decisions as well, and was posted in the topic: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/ (And to be clear, the observations @vensak falsely attributes to me above, purporting to quote from me, are NOT observations I made in any other posts.)

 

[Ninio]

hello friends, I hope you are all fine and receiving some great news with whatever you are waiting.

I sent my application for PR renewal and it was received on 30 April 2018 and back then I read on the cic site that the process should take 79 days, on August 16 I received an e-mail saying that they need the entry/exit record with the color photocopy of my passports and so I did,
This is what I received on 24 October 2018, this means after almost 174 days after the first time they received my application:

1. We received your application for a permanent resident card on April 30, 2018.
2. We sent you correspondence acknowledging receipt of your application(s) on October 24, 2018.
3. We started processing your application on October 24, 2018.
4. We sent you correspondence on August 16, 2018. If you have not yet provided the information or the requested documents, please do so as soon as possible. Please wait until you receive the correspondence before sending us additional information, as the correspondence will outline all information that is required.

Now it shows on the cic website that the process time for PR renewal is 104 days, does this mean that I have to start those 104 days as of 24 October 2018?

In case they need new photos, does this mean that they will count all over again 104 days from the date they receive the photos?

Why don't they really say that they are playing with our nerves and all the processing days shown on cic is just not real? I hope no one replies and say that there are thousands of applications to be studied...THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM,

 

[zardoz]

hello friends, I hope you are all fine and receiving some great news with whatever you are waiting.

I sent my application for PR renewal and it was received on 30 April 2018 and back then I read on the cic site that the process should take 79 days, on August 16 I received an e-mail saying that they need the entry/exit record with the color photocopy of my passports and so I did,
This is what I received on 24 October 2018, this means after almost 174 days after the first time they received my application:

1. We received your application for a permanent resident card on April 30, 2018.
2. We sent you correspondence acknowledging receipt of your application(s) on October 24, 2018.
3. We started processing your application on October 24, 2018.
4. We sent you correspondence on August 16, 2018. If you have not yet provided the information or the requested documents, please do so as soon as possible. Please wait until you receive the correspondence before sending us additional information, as the correspondence will outline all information that is required.

Now it shows on the cic website that the process time for PR renewal is 104 days, does this mean that I have to start those 104 days as of 24 October 2018?

In case they need new photos, does this mean that they will count all over again 104 days from the date they receive the photos?

Why don't they really say that they are playing with our nerves and all the processing days shown on cic is just not real? I hope no one replies and say that there are thousands of applications to be studied...THIS IS NOT OUR PROBLEM,

Because you received an additional document request, it's almost certain that you are now outside of the "standard processing" timetable and that the 104 days no longer applies. You will just need to be patient.

 

[Ninio]

Because you received an additional document request, it's almost certain that you are now outside of the "standard processing" timetable and that the 104 days no longer applies. You will just need to be patient.

Dear Zardoz

Because I received an additional document request it is almost certain that I am now outside of the "standard processing" time table and that the 104 days no longer applies.

I am wondering, why don't they ask with our documents from the beginning the entry/exit record and the photocopy of our passports so they don't keep any applicant out of the "standard processing" time table?

They have as they say thousands of applications but as I say again it is their job to stick to what the time table show and it is NOT OUR PROBLEM if they have shortage in personnel or not, we are dealing with government, and the word of the government towards its people should be sacred and strict, not a bunny we take out of the hat or the jacket pocket anytime we want to gain more time.

The law is a law, not a game we restart anytime we lose, police they stop you drunk, they do not tell you is it vodka or rum that you had before you drove, the main issue is that you are drunk, they take your license and that is it.

The same should apply on residents, put it clearly in bold letters that you need 730 days to be physically present in Canada or else you will lose your residency and that's it, the law is the law. We do not add if or if you or if you had or if you will then we play with the law but you have to be clever how you do it or hoping that your case fall between the hands of an agent who went out of his house happy or unhappy so he can decide which of this "ifs" might be helpful for your case or not .

I was reading the debate between 2 friends on the same forum, each one explaining the law from his point of view, with all due respect and despite the depth of their debate but for me and maybe for many applicants it is like we were reading Chinese or in a court room being convicted with a crime we did not commit but hoping the game between my lawyer and the judge will end with minimal damage because I don't know if the judge really know what I committed or my lawyer is really convinced there is a case from the beginning.

So please to whoever is in the immigration department, DO NOT LET INTERPRETATION, ANALYSIS, SCRUTINY and DOUBT control the way you handle our requests to renew our PR cards or Citizenship....to be continued

 

[zardoz]

Dear Zardoz

Because I received an additional document request it is almost certain that I am now outside of the "standard processing" time table and that the 104 days no longer applies.

I am wondering, why don't they ask with our documents from the beginning the entry/exit record and the photocopy of our passports so they don't keep any applicant out of the "standard processing" time table?

They have as they say thousands of applications but as I say again it is their job to stick to what the time table show and it is NOT OUR PROBLEM if they have shortage in personnel or not, we are dealing with government, and the word of the government towards its people should be sacred and strict, not a bunny we take out of the hat or the jacket pocket anytime we want to gain more time.

The law is a law, not a game we restart anytime we lose, police they stop you drunk, they do not tell you is it vodka or rum that you had before you drove, the main issue is that you are drunk, they take your license and that is it.

The same should apply on residents, put it clearly in bold letters that you need 730 days to be physically present in Canada or else you will lose your residency and that's it, the law is the law. We do not add if or if you or if you had or if you will then we play with the law but you have to be clever how you do it or hoping that your case fall between the hands of an agent who went out of his house happy or unhappy so he can decide which of this "ifs" might be helpful for your case or not .

I was reading the debate between 2 friends on the same forum, each one explaining the law from his point of view, with all due respect and despite the depth of their debate but for me and maybe for many applicants it is like we were reading Chinese or in a court room being convicted with a crime we did not commit but hoping the game between my lawyer and the judge will end with minimal damage because I don't know if the judge really know what I committed or my lawyer is really convinced there is a case from the beginning.

So please to whoever is in the immigration department, DO NOT LET INTERPRETATION, ANALYSIS, SCRUTINY and DOUBT control the way you handle our requests to renew our PR cards or Citizenship....to be continued

I think that you misunderstand exactly what that 104 days is all about. It's not a promise to do the processing by that time. It's a historical statistic of how long it HAS been taking to finish 80% of submitted applications. For 20% of the applications, it's taken more than that published time, sometimes much more. This is the way CIC/IRCC have always published their processing time figures.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=068&top=3

Your rant may be justified or not, but you are targeting the wrong audience.