Residency obligation after soft landing

[giorgosdel]

My partner just got approved for PR applying overseas. Our plan is to land Canada for a soft landing and then return to the UK for a while(not sure for how long). Typically, to maintain her PR she should spent a minimum of two years in Canada for every five years time. Although, I just read that:

• Once you have "landed" in Canada as a permanent resident, any time that you spend living with a Canadian citizen spouse or common law partner outside of Canada is counted as time lived inside Canada for the purposes of meeting your PR residency obligation

resource: https://britishexpats.com/wiki/Residency_Obligations-Canada

According that and since I am a Canadian citizen, if we do a soft landing and then return back to the UK, we meet this "two years period" requirement whether we live in Canada or UK. In other words, in the extreme case scenario that we don't go back to Canada for five years after the soft landing, her PR status is still valid. Is that correct?

Please share your experience or any further information

 

[canuck78]

My partner just got approved for PR applying overseas. Our plan is to land Canada for a soft landing and then return to the UK for a while(not sure for how long). Typically, to maintain her PR she should spent a minimum of two years in Canada for every five years time. Although, I just read that:

• Once you have "landed" in Canada as a permanent resident, any time that you spend living with a Canadian citizen spouse or common law partner outside of Canada is counted as time lived inside Canada for the purposes of meeting your PR residency obligation

resource: https://britishexpats.com/wiki/Residency_Obligations-Canada

According that and since I am a Canadian citizen, if we do a soft landing and then return back to the UK, we meet this "two years period" requirement whether we live in Canada or UK. In other words, in the extreme case scenario that we don't go back to Canada for five years after the soft landing, her PR status is still valid. Is that correct?

Please share your experience or any further information

Did you apply through spousal? If so you usually have to show intent to return to Canada.

Yes your partner can count time with a Canadian citizen towards PR but not citizenship. There is the issue of who is accompanying whom but that it no always considered. Technically the move should be instigated by the Canadian citizen for a job opportunity, etc. Since you are both currently in the UK it would unlikely be an issue.

 

[Bs65]

Assume you will be making arrangements for your partners PR card to be sent to a Canadian address and then have a friend or relative courier to the UK. Without that would need a PRTD to even visit or eventually come back and is in that application is where accompanying citizen gets highlighted.

 

[canuck78]

Also your partner will need to apply for PR card renewal while in Canada and usually needs to pick up the new card in person. Is there a reason why you applied for PR if you have no immediate plans of returning to Canada? Likely simpler to be a visitor and get an ETA until you have more concrete plans to move. Too late now I guess.

 

[giorgosdel]

Thank you all for your supportive replies. We applied through spousal program from abroad, indeed (I am Canadian citizen). At the time we applied, the circumstances where a bit different. We now have obligations keeping us stuck to the UK. So the plan changed and our intention is to relocate later on.

We are going to do a soft landing in order to activate the PR but we have to be back to the UK. We are just afraid of losing the PR status so I am asking under which circumstances we keep the PR. If we end up relocating to Canada after a couple of years, is that OK? Are there any further actions needed to maintain the status?

Thank you all for the help, I am so glad.

 

[dpenabill]

Upfront observation re scenarios involving a spouse sponsored by a citizen while abroad and the couple does not timely relocate to Canada:

Scenarios like this pose particular difficulty evaluating risks. It seems likely that many, perhaps most, perhaps most by a big margin, will NOT encounter much if any problem. Particularly if the couple eventually moves to Canada.

That said, there are some risks inherent in the scenario where a Canadian citizen sponsors a spouse from abroad but then the couple does not relocate to Canada within a number of years (including the possible perception of fraud).

For a couple who is proceeding in good faith, with the intent to relocate to Canada even though the actual relocation is delayed considerably, even for years, my sense is that notwithstanding the possible issues which might arise (which I will address more specifically below), the couple is not likely to encounter serious problems (so long as they remain a couple, and particularly as long as they are traveling TOGETHER when traveling to Canada).

But *good faith* tends to be nebulous and susceptible to subjective impression and perception. Moreover, since there is no required "intent," let alone a required "good faith," in a PR's obligations, good faith is NOT an explicit or overt question. But if and when there are issues being addressed, make no mistake, perceptions about whether the PR is acting in good faith can loom very large in an official's thinking and decision-making.

And it warrants a reminder that the purpose for which PR status is granted, including to spouses of Canadian citizens, is to facilitate SETTLING AND LIVING IN CANADA. The law, regulations, and rules are interpreted and applied with due consideration given to this purpose. Here too, there is NOT a specific requirement to settle and live in Canada permanently. But this purpose is oft cited by the IAD and Federal Court as a significant factor to be considered in how the law, regulations, and rules are interpreted and applied. It matters.

My partner just got approved for PR applying overseas. Our plan is to land Canada for a soft landing and then return to the UK for a while(not sure for how long). Typically, to maintain her PR she should spent a minimum of two years in Canada for every five years time. Although, I just read that:

• Once you have "landed" in Canada as a permanent resident, any time that you spend living with a Canadian citizen spouse or common law partner outside of Canada is counted as time lived inside Canada for the purposes of meeting your PR residency obligation

resource: https://britishexpats.com/wiki/Residency_Obligations-Canada

According that and since I am a Canadian citizen, if we do a soft landing and then return back to the UK, we meet this "two years period" requirement whether we live in Canada or UK. In other words, in the extreme case scenario that we don't go back to Canada for five years after the soft landing, her PR status is still valid. Is that correct?

Please share your experience or any further information

We applied through spousal program from abroad, indeed (I am Canadian citizen). At the time we applied, the circumstances where a bit different. We now have obligations keeping us stuck to the UK. So the plan changed and our intention is to relocate later on.

We are going to do a soft landing in order to activate the PR but we have to be back to the UK. We are just afraid of losing the PR status so I am asking under which circumstances we keep the PR. If we end up relocating to Canada after a couple of years, is that OK? Are there any further actions needed to maintain the status?

CAUTION . . . or caution . . . or, perhaps, merely a small caution:

There are at least a couple POSSIBLE issues looming here. Both have already been referenced by others above:

(1) the required intent to relocate to Canada to be eligible for sponsored spouse PR, and

(2) potential who-accompanied-whom questions if and when the sponsored spouse seeks PR compliance credit based on accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse abroad.​

At this stage, where the PR visa has already been issued, it is very difficult to discern what the risks are quantitatively. The risk of inquiry and detection, and the risk of actual enforcement, are rather difficult to assess factors in this situation.


RE who-accompanied-whom:

This issue is about the possibility that a PR who has been living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse might be denied RO compliance credit for that time if CBSA or IRCC apprehend the PR is not the one who accompanied the citizen spouse. It is discussed in depth in other topics in this forum. If it is likely the PR will not relocate to Canada within the first three years after landing, it would be a good idea to review discussions about it. One topic, among several, is linked in the following quote:

CAUTION: Who-accompanied-whom can make a difference when a PR claims credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on time abroad accompanying the PR's Canadian citizen spouse.

There are now reasons to emphasize this caution more than it has been in the past.

CAVEAT: While NOT certain, my strong sense is that the general approach to NOT consider who-accompanied-whom STILL applies in MOST cases, with "NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS."

The scope of "NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS," and the range of factors which might significantly increase the risks, warrant some serious attention. Thanks is due @Tubsmagee and @zardoz for doing the research which has alerted the forum of this evolving issue.

In the meantime, it gets complicated. Explication demands wading deep into the weeds. . . .

So far this question does not appear to arise, at least not usually, except when it is rather obvious the PR did not accompany the citizen in moving abroad AND there are additional circumstances triggering elevated scrutiny.

Your situation, however, might meet the first element here, it being fairly clear the PR did NOT accompany the citizen going abroad, since the PR has not established any in-fact residence in Canada (it is not physically possible for a PR to accompany a Canadian citizen abroad if the PR is not physically resident in Canada). BUT whether this is readily apparent (obvious) in your situation, I cannot guess. It is very difficult to forecast what CBSA border officials are looking for or how IRCC officials might perceive this when there is an application for a new PR card or for a PR Travel Document.

I will note, nonetheless, this scenario, the spouse-sponsored PR application from abroad followed by the couple not actually relocating to Canada, at least not within three or so years, is one of the scenarios I have anticipated might tip the scales toward inquiry and stricter application of the who-accompanied-whom question. Which is NOT to say we have seen many reports of this, as yet, so the actual risk is still NOT at all readily quantified.

Obviously the risk of a problem related to any who-accompanied-whom questions can be totally eliminated by relocating to Canada within three years, such that the PR spouse is able to meet the Residency Obligation by thereafter being in Canada for at least two of the first five years. And if the two of you again move abroad together after that, there should then be no who-accompanied-whom issues under the current law, policy, and practice (which, in the vast majority of situations, allows the credit based on time the couple is living together regardless why they are abroad).

 

[dpenabill]

Further observations re scenarios involving a spouse sponsored by a citizen while abroad and the couple does not timely relocate to Canada; RE the failure to relocate to Canada itself:

Real life is dynamic. Circumstances change. The best laid plans of . . . you know the aphorism.

Thus the fact that WHAT someone does differs significantly from WHAT he or she declared they intended to do, that is NOT proof of fraud. It does not mean they declared one intent but actually had another. As I oft say, Stuff Happens. And of course the Canadian government, including officials in CBSA and IRCC, are very well familiar with this, since they deal with millions of people living real life.

But here too the question is when and why might someone in CBSA or IRCC have some concern about possible fraud. And here too the risk is very, very difficult to forecast.

Relative to this issue, impression and perception loom very large. Neither CBSA nor IRCC have mind-reading capabilities. There is no crystal ball to consult which will reveal a person's actual intentions.

Of course the individual's actual intentions are relevant, at the least because one way or another the individual's actual intentions will tend to have a significant impact on what the facts are, or the converse, certain actual facts will more or less reveal actual intention.

Thus, for example, a letter to a prospective employer expressing an intent contrary to the intent represented to IRCC, that could be evidence of fraud. What risk is there that IRCC will ever know of any such correspondence? That's just one factor among scores which influence the risk-calculation. These days such correspondence is as likely to be an email or in some other electronic form, which can sometimes be found in the individual's telephone, which CBSA can examine when a person is entering Canada (yes, even citizens). Or, is there something the individual has posted in LinkedIn (which appears to be one of the favourite open sources IRCC sometimes researches when, for example, processing PR card or citizenship applications) suggesting or overtly indicating intentions contrary to those represented to IRCC? Even email to friends or posts in other social media.

None of which, it warrants noting, seems likely to be pursued for most PRs, even those in this scenario. But if something triggers further inquiry or elevated scrutiny, and the individual did have an actual intent contrary to what was represented, the risks are comparably elevated.

And actual intent does not always determine how things go. Impressions matter. Perceptions matter.

AND THEN THERE IS THE TIMING FACTOR: As noted, Stuff Happens. Real life is dynamic. Circumstances change.

BUT WHEN things changed, when the individual's actual plans changed, can be a factor. If the reason why plans changed occurred before any PR visa was issued, there is for-sure an obligation to notify IRCC of this material change in circumstances. Which, of course, could result in the sponsored application being denied since the sponsor is no longer eligible because the sponsor does NOT have the requisite intent.

This is NOT at all likely to be a matter of inquiry UNLESS something else triggers an inquiry. But just the fact that the couple does not relocate to Canada for years could be what triggers an inquiry.

Technically the obligation to notify IRCC, as to any material changes, might continue after the PR visa is issued. For example, the sponsored person certainly has an obligation to notify IRCC if there is a change in marital status right up to the moment of landing and becoming a PR. And a failure to do so will FOREVER loom as a potential basis for terminating PR status or even revoking citizenship if the PR later becomes a citizen.

In any event, however, together with recognizing that many times plans and intentions are flexible and subject to contingencies (noting, after all, in all spouse sponsored from abroad cases, the plan and intent to relocate to Canada is undoubtedly at least contingent on the sponsored spouse actually being issued PR), the actual risk of a problem in this regard PROBABLY is rather SMALL, or even very small, UNLESS additional factors trigger concern and suspicion.


And Then There is the Combination of These:

The latter observation above leads the discussion back to subsequent circumstances (mainly related to remaining abroad for more than three years) and the potential who-accompanied-whom question, whether in a PoE examination, or in processing either a PR card application or a PR Travel Document application. The combination quite likely increases the level of risk, both in terms of the risk an official might take note and decide to make further inquiry, and the risk of a more or less negative approach if and when further inquiry has been triggered.

These risks are still nebulous and incredibly difficult to quantify. This could be merely about increasing a very small risk to a somewhat higher but still small risk. However, there are many other details which can affect the degree of risk. Traveling together should reduce PoE examination risks, for example. The sooner the couple actually relocates to Canada should reduce the risks (particularly as to possible perception of fraud). Periodically spending time in Canada together should reduce risks. Just to identify a small sample of factors which can influence things.

For example, if the sponsored spouse travels alone to Canada after more than a three year absence from Canada, that probably elevates at least the risks of inquiry to significantly more than a small risk.

Additionally, when the PR eventually applies for a new PR card, or for a PR Travel Document, unless the couple has relocated to Canada within three years, or at least not much later than that, the address history alone will obviously reveal that the couple did NOT relocate to Canada as the sponsor represented they planned to do. And that the PR had not established any in-fact residency in Canada. Whether this will trigger further inquiry and elevated scrutiny, or a negative approach in assessing credits toward RO compliance, is still very difficult to forecast. But it warrants being aware that the address history alone tends to reveal facts constituting potential reasons for concern and further scrutiny.