Anecdotal reports describing actual experience often offer a wealth of useful information. HOWEVER, a good deal of caution needs to be employed in any attempt to practically apply such information in a particular individual's case. It warrants emphasizing that INDIVIDUAL RESULTS MAY VARY, and frankly they will often vary and they can vary considerably.
There are almost always some differences in detail which can make a big difference in how things turn out.
Upfront it warrants recognizing that there are indeed many who immigrate to Canada who also obtain Green Card status in the U.S. Many have reported NO problems at all. Others have reported a wide range of problems, some largely a matter of inconvenience in dealing with a confrontational or accusatory official but some report outright negative actions taken by officials. Both sides of the border BUT, or so I have perceived, MORE so from U.S. authorities.
The latter is inherently a part of the respective systems. The U.S. considers the GC holder to still be an "alien." Canada immigration law, in contrast, considers the Canadian PR to be a Canadian, NOT a "foreign national" (Canada's term comparable to the U.S. term "alien"). So the countries' respective approaches to their PRs is substantively different.
And generally the U.S. rules tend to be both more strict AND more strictly applied.
However, it is NOT correct that
Yes, immigration rules in both countries set forth criteria for intent of residency. . .
Not really. As I cited and linked above, there is NO intent element or requirement for Canadian PRs. NOT even to qualify for a grant of citizenship.
In contrast, intent appears to still have a role in keeping U.S. GC status (as
@ImmiToCanada linked; it also would be helpful to know and review the primary legal authority, if someone has that information).
And very often intent can be a very slippery fact to establish.
Leading to the rest of the statement about "criteria for intent of residency."
Yes, immigration rules in both countries set forth criteria for intent of residency but the interpretation of that seems to be on a case by case basis.
Again, actually this only applies to keeping U.S. GC status, not Canadian PR status. And it may seem like quibbling, but it warrants noting that what varies on a case by case basis is not so much the interpretation of what the intent requirement is, but how this is applied, which of course depends more on various facts in the particular case (like duration of absences, place where one maintains their primary residence, residential ties generally, even place of employment, tax filing status, among other facts and circumstances) than it does on what the GC PR claims to be his or her intent.
The U.S. guide for new immigrants, for example, cautions: "
Your conduct will demonstrate your actual intent." As in NOT what you say your intent is.
And therein
lies the rub or, to be more to the point, therein is the RISK: different people, including different officers and different judges, can interpret the same conduct differently. They are largely interpreting the requirement the same, but reaching different conclusions about what the GC PR's actual intent is based on the GC PR's particular actions.
For example, is filing a tax return as a "resident" of another country sufficient to conclude that person does not have the intent to reside permanently in the U.S.?
To some extent, overt or explicit expressions of intent can be influential. However, this tends to be more so when the expression of intent is in the nature of an admission against interest.
Like doing things to obtain or to keep "
PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS" in another country. I do not know how common it is for U.S. authorities to focus much on this, whether in conducting PoE examinations or in the course of other processing a GC PR may be involved in, but no advanced degrees in psychology are necessary to recognize CONDUCT consistent with keeping PR status in a country other than the U.S. tends to at least suggest, if not "demonstrate," the lack of intent to PERMANENTLY RESIDE in the U.S.
Leading to other related conduct, again like filing a tax return as a RESIDENT of a country other than the U.S. That in effect is likewise a statement suggesting, if NOT demonstrating, the lack of intent to reside in the U.S. Here too I do not know to what extent there is a risk U.S. authorities will make inquiry related to this, or request documents related to this. What I do know, nonetheless, is that IF asked, the individual should answer HONESTLY, TRUTHFULLY, and the import of claiming to be resident in another country tends to speak for itself.
CLAIMED RESIDENCE versus ACTUAL PLACE OF ABODE:
Let's be frank: many people, in many contexts, will list an address as their place of residence even though their regular place of abode is at another address. In many contexts this is overtly OK. In some contexts this is a misrepresentation. It can be fraud. And if done in certain forms, it can otherwise be subject to criminal prosecution comparable to penalties for perjury or false swearing.
If a government official sees that a person is doing this, that can become a significant factor in how that official makes decisions, especially decisions depending on the person's credibility.
Nonetheless, anecdotally, many, many appear to get away with doing this even if in the particular circumstances it is NOT OK. Even when, say, something might give them away, like having a vehicle registered in a different jurisdiction.
Which leads things back to recognizing the
VARIABILITY of risks involved, which quite often are difficult if not nearly impossible to quantify in any meaningful way EXCEPT to recognize there is more than a nominal or remote RISK.
In respect to this, it warrants noting and emphasizing, the general trend appears to be toward more scrutiny, more cross-checking, and both sides of the border employing a more strict approach to enforcing the rules. What might have been easy to do a few years ago may now be far more risky, or at the least it is likely to become more risky.
And then all this circles back around to recognizing there tends to be a huge difference in how things go depending on whether an officer takes interest in looking more closely. In looking at case-by-case differences, it is well apparent that so long as examining officials see no cause to challenge things, then things tend to go a lot easier, and what might be particularly problematic details are, in effect, overlooked.
BUT ONCE AN OFFICIAL TAKES INTEREST AND ELEVATES THE DEGREE OF SCRUTINY, THEN MANY OF THOSE SAME DETAILS WHICH APPEARED TO HAVE LITTLE OR NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT CAN SUDDENLY LOOM LARGE AND PROBLEMATIC.
Like claiming to reside at an address which is very different from where your vehicle is registered, or where you claim to be a "resident" for taxation purposes, among other incongruous or even outright contradictory information.
NONE of this is to suggest, let alone advise, a particular course of action. It is, rather, to caution, as I already have:
"The scheme involves risks. There are no definitive outcomes. There are practical contingencies which can and likely will influence how things go. Plans are one thing. Life tends to be another. "
And this caution warrants the further caution I previously expressed:
"And there is a very real RISK that authorities on both sides of the border will look at this askance, perceiving this to be gaming the system, and thus lean toward the more negative inferences the facts suggest. Which is to say that even though reports indicate more than a few have succeeded in similar schemes, there are pitfalls lurking in the details."
What will trigger the difference between officials having little concern and in effect not digging into the details let alone becoming suspicious or taking a more skeptical view of things, I cannot say. It could be this or that detail.
I can say that there is plenty of anecdotal reporting amply illustrating that if a government official gets the impression someone is gaming the system, that tends to dramatically escalate the risks.
Which for the U.S. side of things leads back to that "intent" issue. It can be tricky. For the person who is in fact living and working in the U.S., obviously no problem. But as soon as you start shifting some of those residential-ties pieces abroad, the matrix of possible interpretations expands, including the more negative possibilities, and thus so will the risks that this or that official will get the impression someone is gaming the system and thus start looking at things through a far more narrow and negative lens. With predictable results.
