PR card transferred to local office for further investigation

[dpenabill]

1. It would be great if you shed some light as why CIC is going beyond the norm even though OP stayed more than 1000 days before he was ever detected?
2. Is CIC acting within the ACT? Don't you think that if they make negative determination, the OP can have recourse because he was not detected before he was back in compliance?
3. Have you come across a case law handling similar circumstances?
4. Was the OP caught in this RO determination because he acknowledged he was oout of Canada more than 1095 days?
Thanks for your clarification when you have some time..

As noted previously, given the OP's history, non-routine processing could have been anticipated.



Purpose of PR status is so individuals can permanently settle and live in Canada. The purpose of a remarkably flexible Residency Obligation is to accommodate unusual contingencies and circumstances, NOT to facilitate a lifestyle of extended absences generally.

This and its implications are overlooked, ignored, or disputed by many, and at least underestimated by many more. In contrast, the history of PR RO enforcement, and in particular the reasons stated for scores and scores of official IAD and FC decisions, amply illustrate this.

This is not to suggest that more is necessary; meeting the minimum PR Residency Obligation is sufficient to keep PR status. PRs can leverage or exploit the full range of flexibility afforded by the PR RO. And keep PR status. But as I and some others have oft repeated and emphasized, cutting-it-close has RISKS, not the least of which is the risk of falling short proving actual presence, which can loom large for any PR with continuing residential and employment ties abroad, or with extended absences abroad inconsistent with permanently settling in Canada.

The burden of proving compliance with the PR RO is on the PR.

Saying it is so does not make it so. That is, reporting compliance with the PR RO is not proving compliance with the PR RO.

It is far more likely that PRs cutting-it-close, or with a history of cutting-it-close, or in particular a history indicating prior breach of the PR RO, will be required to affirmatively prove their compliance with the PR RO.

Part of the proof problem is that the more time and ties an individual has abroad, the more skeptical IRCC is likely to be about time the PR claims or asserts he or she was actually in Canada, unless there is affirmative, direct, and objective evidence to show that presence.

Another part of the proof problem is that there are inherent concerns, if not outright questions, about a PR's credibility if and when the PR has a history which is not consistent with permanently settling in Canada. Credibility always looms large. The importance of credibility is perhaps second only to actually meeting the requirements themselves.


Some further observations regarding the purpose of PR and its implications:

There appears to be a common misconception among some PRs that the PR Residency Obligation is intended to allow, or even facilitate, a lifestyle which involves living or working outside Canada more than in Canada, a lifestyle which does not constitute settling in Canada to live in Canada permanently. This attitude overlooks or ignores the actual purpose of a grant of Canadian PR status: so the individual can permanently settle and establish a life in Canada.

The remarkably flexible and lenient PR RO is intended to accommodate a broad, broad range of contingencies and emergencies which immigrants to Canada might encounter. It is intended to give PRs enough leeway to accommodate such contingencies and emergencies so that PRs do not have to worry about proving their intent to settle in Canada permanently or about proving there was a compelling reason for the extended absence consistent with an intent to settle in Canada permanently.

The remarkably flexible and lenient PR RO is NOT intended to accommodate a lifestyle allowing PRs to live or work abroad more than in Canada, even though it does in fact incidentally allow PRs to, in effect, exploit the policy this way.

There is no hint, no hint at all (that I have observed in following the PR RO issue for nearly a decade now), that IRCC (same for CIC previously) deliberately punishes PRs who are, in effect, exploiting how flexible and lenient the minimal presence needed to comply with the PR RO.

But there are plenty of indicators that IRCC (same for CIC previously) is more likely to have concerns about a PR whose history is not consistent with settling down in Canada permanently. There are obvious reasons for this, with concerns about the credibility of such PRs looming large, as well as the simple logic that if there is a question about where an individual was at any given time, it is more likely that individual was where he or she was most of the time. That is, in the absence of direct evidence of actual presence in Canada, for a given period of time, it is reasonable to infer that a PR who is not settled and living in Canada permanently was outside Canada during that period of time. At the least, this imposes an obligation on IRCC to make sufficient inquiries, or even investigations, to determine the facts more conclusively than relying on the PR's own reporting.

Further more detailed responses to particular questions will follow in separate posts.

 

[dpenabill]

Why OP is subject to non-routine processing:

1. It would be great if you shed some light as why CIC is going beyond the norm even though OP stayed more than 1000 days before he was ever detected?

To the extent we can discern why (it is not as if IRCC announces its reasons), I had already addressed this (why the OP has encountered non-routine processing) in previous posts: IRCC has concerns about apparent inconsistencies in the information provided by the OP, or concerns the OP is not in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, or both.

PR RO compliance: Just because a PR reports he or she was present in Canada enough days to be in compliance with the PR RO does not prove the PR was in Canada enough to be in compliance. The burden of proof is on the PR. If IRCC identifies (perceives) any reason to question the OP's reported presence, IRCC not only can but actually has a legal obligation to question the OP's accounting of facts, to require the OP to prove compliance with the PR RO.

If it is possible the OP is not in compliance with the PR RO, IRCC has a mandate to make inquiry, investigate, and determine whether the OP has met his or her burden to prove compliance.


Inconsistencies: Reference to "inconsistencies" is a non-judgment or inconclusive way of stating IRCC anticipates the possibility of misrepresentation at some time, any time, in the OP's dealings with CIC, IRCC, or CBSA. In the correspondence from IRCC this reference is in the alternative, so it is not certain that IRCC has a significant concern about possible misrepresentation. It might have.

In this regard, however, where a PR reports 730+ days presence but IRCC perceives reason to question or doubt the PR was present for that number of days, that inherently entails at least some suspicion the PR has given false information about the number of days the PR has been present in Canada. Again, simple logic: if the PR reported 730+ days presence, and IRCC perceives reason to question this, IRCC must perceive reason to question the truthfulness of the PR's reported time in Canada. Was there are mistake or misrepresentation? At the least, the latter is a question on the table.

Scores and scores of PRs make errors in reporting their presence, and IRCC and CBSA far more often attribute this to unintentional error rather than deliberate misrepresentation. This is notwithstanding the odd coincidence that the overwhelming majority of these errors tend to under count days abroad rather than days in Canada; that is, oddly enough, these innocent mistakes tend to favour the PR.

The influence of motive should not be overlooked. An individual who wants to keep PR status but who may have fallen short of the PR RO, has a motive to fudge an accounting of days in Canada. Add to that other circumstances tending to invite questions, such as just the fact of being abroad more than in Canada tends to raise a question about how much time the individual actually was in Canada, the risk of non-routine processing or even outright challenging the presence-in-Canada calculation will increase significantly for PR's who
-- are cutting-it-close, or
-- have a history of cutting-it-close, or
-- in particular have a history indicating prior breach of the PR RO,
-- or who otherwise appear to not be permanently settled and living in Canada



Additional observation about what can trigger elevated scrutiny and a more skeptical assessment:

Warrants noting that discrepancies which might indicate a PR was in Canada more than the PR reported will not necessarily help the PR, even though some may focus on the fact that shows additional time in Canada. Discrepancies indicate reason to question the PR's credibility. Remember, credibility is mostly about how reliable a reporter of fact a person is. Dishonesty destroys credibility. But it is not the only reason a person's credibility can be compromised. Even if mistakes are innocent, the more mistakes, or the bigger the mistake, the more that shows the individual did not accurately report the facts, which raises questions about the extent to which that individual can be relied upon to have reported other facts.

If IRCC identifies something which shows a PR may have been in Canada during a time the PR reported he or she was outside Canada, to IRCC this may mostly be a reason to doubt the PR's reporting. And that can be trouble.

 

[dpenabill]

IRCC has a mandate to enforce IRPA generally and PR RO in particular:

2. Is CIC acting within the ACT? Don't you think that if they make negative determination, the OP can have recourse because he was not detected before he was back in compliance?

If there is a negative outcome, the OP will have a right of appeal. This is a right to an administrative appeal which is heard by the IAD. The OP will be able to present additional evidence in that appeal.

If the IAD appeal fails, the OP still has a right to at least request judicial review. If there is any significant issue indicated, there is a good chance that a FC will review the IAD decision. Ordinarily no new evidence can be introduced in this appeal (some may say that technically leave to allow judicial review is not an "appeal," but that is what it amounts to in practical terms).

It is not clear what actions being taken by IRCC you are asking about in terms of "acting within the Act." Obviously IRCC is acting within the IRPA and IRPA Regulations when it requires a PR to meet the burden of proving compliance with the PR Residency Obligation before issuing or delivering a PR status document (PRC).

The scope of the examination can be very, very broad.

I wonder whether there might be a typo in the OP's reporting of dates in the post here, that is as to the range of information about travel dates requested.

Even if the request goes back to May 2011, rather than just five years prior to the application for a PRC, there is no reason why IRCC cannot request this information.

Obviously, for purposes of calculating compliance with the PR RO as of May 2017, IRCC can (and I am quite certain it will) only count days between May 2012 and May 2017.

But it is easy to speculate many potential reasons why IRCC can otherwise be interested in an accounting of time prior to May 2012, including for example to compare with any previous representations made by the OP to either IRCC or CBSA (such as in the course of a PoE examination).

Note, in particular, an investigation into potential misrepresentations made for the purpose of obtaining entry or status is not subject to any statute of limitations. Any misrepresentation can be grounds for inadmissibility and loss of PR status forever . . . even after one has become a citizen.


Is it unusual for IRCC to question PRs who claim 730+ days presence?

3. Have you come across a case law handling similar circumstances?

The published IAD decisions include scores and scores of cases in which a PR has claimed to be present in Canada more than 730 days within the preceding five years, and CIC or IRCC have questioned and challenged that accounting. Many lost PR status despite reporting and continuing to claim sufficient presence to meet the PR RO.

There were several hundred fraud cases prosecuted during the later part of Harper's terms in which PRs had claimed presence in Canada and Canada challenged and refuted those claims. Many lost status. Some have gone to jail before being deported.

4. Was the OP caught in this RO determination because he acknowledged he was oout of Canada more than 1095 days?

The probable reasons why the OP has been subject to non-routine processing (again, we do not know why for sure, as IRCC does not announce its reasons for making inquiries or conducting investigations), and a full blown formal Residency Determination in particular, were discussed above (and in previous posts as well).

The actual reasons why IRCC might have concerns, questions, or outright suspicions in a particular case tend to arise from a confluence of multiple factors, not just a single factor (although some specific circumstances, such as a big discrepancy in the information provided, can trigger elevated scrutiny and all that entails).

As previously noted, any concerns about a PR's credibility almost always loom large. And of course a previous breach of the PR RO, at the least, raises a little concern about the PR's credibility.

There is no reason to speculate about how things have gone in the past. For either the OP here, or for PHCA, who is on the cusp of being in a similar situation. It appears, however, these individuals have previously passed a PoE examination at a time when, at that time, they were in breach of the PR RO. How that went could have a positive or negative influence, or virtually no influence, on how IRCC assesses their history. If, for example, there were FOSS notes made at the time, and those notes indicate some question about compliance with the PR RO but apparent H&C reasons were sufficient to allow the PR entry without being reported, that could have a very positive impact. If, in contrast, there is some documentation, including FOSS notes, that the PR was questioned about time outside Canada and gave information then that was not consistent with information now being given to IRCC or otherwise known to IRCC, obviously that can have a negative impact, ranging from inviting concerns about the PR's credibility to potentially triggering a misrepresentation inquiry.



Impact of a cured breach:

There have been no suggestions, none at all so far as I have ever seen reported, that IRCC employs pre-textual excuses for a full blown Residency Determination just because the PR is known to have been in breach of the PR RO sometime in the past. On the contrary, the indications are overwhelming that if IRCC is persuaded that a PR is currently in compliance with the PR RO, and has not engaged in misrepresentation, a prior breach of the PR RO is of NO concern. Not a problem. Breach cured.

That does not eliminate the implications of a prior breach, ranging from inferences arising from the extent of time the PR appears to have been abroad and the extent of continuing ties abroad the PR potentially continues to have, let alone the influence of any indication of previous misrepresentations (such as misrepresentations made to a CBSA officer at a PoE in order to obtain entry into Canada without being reported for a PR RO breach).


It is probably no coincidence that problematic non-routine processing tends to have an impact on PRs who have been cutting-it-close AND who may appear to be soon traveling abroad again, or at least appear likely to be going abroad again for an extended period of time. And of course, unfortunately for many, plans to go abroad briefly can tend to reinforce the perception of likely going abroad for an extended time or at least the perception of continuing residency or employment ties abroad.

For example, PRs who have been cutting-it-close and who apply for urgent processing tend to get non-routine processing instead. No telescopic powers necessary to see that coming.

There is such a pervasive tendency for people (all of us, me too) to look at their situation from a self-serving perspective, there is an almost overwhelming failure to recognize all the clues there are about who we are and the kind of life we live. And this is especially true for those living border straddling lifestyles (in the somewhat distant past now, I have been there, done that). What we do and what we will likely do is a lot, lot more apparent, and subject to exposure in a bureaucrat's examination, than we typically realize.

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

@Depnabill and seniors
1. It would be great if you shed some light as why CIC is going beyond the norm even though OP stayed more than 1000 days before he was ever detected...

A senior member has provided a detailed reply, let me touch upon some other points:

• The burden of proof is always on the PR, and not on CIC. PR application has a clear question asking for the day the applicant became PR, which implies any question regarding the Canadian residency can be raised.
• Every rule has two components: The letter and the spirit, of late, there is a larger emphasis on the letter, but the spirit part still lingers. In other words, if you breach RO any point after becoming PR, CIC can raise a question in the spirit of the law.

 

[PHCA]

With @mustafa8308 situation and @dpenabill explanation, I am now losing hope in my case. When I met with the immigration lawyer and consultant separately last year and both told me to just wait for 730 days completion, I thought it will better once I complete my RO. I mean, I know I am and will probably be subject to secondary review but didn't know that my status will be at risk. That is why I have been following forums like this to gather information and now trying to prepare all my supporting documents and evidences of 2 years residency in Calgary.

 

[dpenabill]

With @mustafa8308 situation and @dpenabill explanation, I am now losing hope in my case. When I met with the immigration lawyer and consultant separately last year and both told me to just wait for 730 days completion, I thought it will better once I complete my RO. I mean, I know I am and will probably be subject to secondary review but didn't know that my status will be at risk. That is why I have been following forums like this to gather information and now trying to prepare all my supporting documents and evidences of 2 years residency in Calgary.

The longer you stay in Canada the less risk there is of a problem.

The more serious risks arise if you leave Canada without being issued a new PR card.

If you stay and apply for a new PR card, then sooner or at least within a year or so, you will be issued a new card.

The consultant or lawyer was correct to inform you that FIRST you needed to stay in Canada two full years. That cures the breach. (So long as there were no misrepresentations made to officials along the way.) Then you just need to stay with the process, and to minimize risks you need to stay in Canada until the process is complete.

 

[PHCA]

The longer you stay in Canada the less risk there is of a problem.

The more serious risks arise if you leave Canada without being issued a new PR card.

If you stay and apply for a new PR card, then sooner or at least within a year or so, you will be issued a new card.

The consultant or lawyer was correct to inform you that FIRST you needed to stay in Canada two full years. That cures the breach. (So long as there were no misrepresentations made to officials along the way.) Then you just need to stay with the process, and to minimize risks you need to stay in Canada until the process is complete.

I am looking at PRTD document checklist and application - it is asking for 2 proof of PR status. Does an expired PR card count? What else are considered proof of pR status?

Thank you so so much!

 

[luic]

 Photocopies of all pages of all your past and current passport(s) - or travel document(s) - used to enter or leave Canada or other countries since May 10, 2011.  Any other document(s) supporting your physical presence in Canada since May 10, 2011.  Any other evidence that you have met the residency obligation (refer to Annex).  A description why you were not able to meet the residency obligation (if applicable).  A description of ties to Canada and level of establishment in Canada (if applicable).  A description of the extent of the hardship the loss of residency status would cause to you, your family members, and the best interests of any child directly affected by this decision (if applicable).  Supporting documents showing that there are compelling and compassionate factors in your personal circumstances that justify keeping your permanent resident status (if applicable). Please send the documents you wish to submit within 45 days of the date of this letter to: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada 55 Bay Street North Hamilton, ON L8R 3P7[/QUOTE]

@Depnabill & HamiltonApplicant,
Many thanks for your informative responses:
I noted that IRCC letter to OP did not ask records of movements from all countries OP had been to. Does this indicates anything in respect of CIC perceptions?
Had the OP got his CBSA record of entry to Canada which shows no entries for more than 730 days, would not this be sufficient proof of compliance with RO?
You made reference to PoE examination, how do we get our information, is it a FOSS access request?

 

[PHCA]

@mustafa8308 any news on your application? Hope everything is better and please update us if you have time.

 

[Ninio]

Hello Mustafa

I was reading what all of you wrote, I know this was more than a year and a half ago, but I am interested in knowing what happened to your case.

Did you get the PR ?
How long did the procedure take after it was transferred to a local office?

I applied on 30 April 2018, I got back an email on 16 August in order to present further documents (the same documents that was asked from you), they received them and started processing my application on 24 October 2018, and now we are on 16 January 2019 and still no answer yet.

Yesterday I called the immigration office just to see if I can have any information about my file, the agent told me that my file was transferred to the local office in Montreal for more studying. How long will that take? what position does that put me in?

I became a PR on 11 June 2013 and ends on 15 August 2018, during that period I was working since 2014 as the purchase manager for a certified Canadian company and I had many travels to China, France ,Lebanon and Dubai for that issue, I was physically present in Canada for 630 days and the rest of the days I was on my business trips. Now I am stuck in Canada with a non valid PR, and the company accepted my excuses for not traveling, but now I need to have some informations from the IRCC just to save my job.

I am married to a Canadian citizen since 2001 and I have 2 Canadian children, 16 and 14 years of age.

If any of the readers can help I would be grateful.

 

[scylla]

Hello Mustafa

I was reading what all of you wrote, I know this was more than a year and a half ago, but I am interested in knowing what happened to your case.

Did you get the PR ?
How long did the procedure take after it was transferred to a local office?

I applied on 30 April 2018, I got back an email on 16 August in order to present further documents (the same documents that was asked from you), they received them and started processing my application on 24 October 2018, and now we are on 16 January 2019 and still no answer yet.

Yesterday I called the immigration office just to see if I can have any information about my file, the agent told me that my file was transferred to the local office in Montreal for more studying. How long will that take? what position does that put me in?

I became a PR on 11 June 2013 and ends on 15 August 2018, during that period I was working since 2014 as the purchase manager for a certified Canadian company and I had many travels to China, France ,Lebanon and Dubai for that issue, I was physically present in Canada for 630 days and the rest of the days I was on my business trips. Now I am stuck in Canada with a non valid PR, and the company accepted my excuses for not traveling, but now I need to have some informations from the IRCC just to save my job.

I am married to a Canadian citizen since 2001 and I have 2 Canadian children, 16 and 14 years of age.

If any of the readers can help I would be grateful.

Did you have 730 physical days in Canada at the time you applied to extend your PR card in April 2018?

Business trips outside of Canada cannot be counted towards the residency requirement.

 

[Ninio]

My card expired in 15 August 2018, I was advised that I should renew my card 3 months before it ends , I applied for the renewal on 30 April 2018, on that date I had 600 days of physical presence in Canada.

As for the RO, it was clear that business trips abroad for a local certified Canadian company and the accompanying of a Canadian spouse will count towards my residency obligations.

Where does that put my case if I hadn't 730 days? refusal of my card? and then what?

 

[scylla]

My card expired in 15 August 2018, I was advised that I should renew my card 3 months before it ends , I applied for the renewal on 30 April 2018, on that date I had 600 days of physical presence in Canada.

As for the RO, it was clear that business trips abroad for a local certified Canadian company and the accompanying of a Canadian spouse will count towards my residency obligations.

Where does that put my case if I hadn't 730 days? refusal of my card? and then what?

The PR card renewal is going to be refused and IRCC will start the process of revoking your PR status. You will have the opportunity to appeal should you chose to do so.

 

[Ninio]

For the approval the wait is 10 months and for refusal 10 months as well? This year I have to renew my business contract, should I tell the company that it is over?

With all due respect to the immigration agents, but I will remain clinging to my opinion that traps are put in an indirect way and everyone interprets the law according to his temperament.

It is clear that:
Residency days need not to be consecutive and may be accumulated inside or even outside Canada in the following ways:

1- By accompanying a spouse / common-law partner who is a Canadian citizen.
2- As a child accompanying a parent.
3- By employment on a full-time basis with a Canadian enterprise or the Public Service of Canada.

I know there are a lot of people trying to manipulate this subject, but there are some people who respect the law and all that it provides. If the immigration Department was clear from the beginning and noted that only 730 days should be observed without any exceptions, things would have been different. We did not try to circumvent the law that we respect, but instead we applied its provisions strictly.

My Personal opinion with all due respect to all the friends here : good citizenship, even for 630 days is far better than staying for 3000 days in fraud, tax evasions and disrespect for laws. I think this is what immigration officers should look into

 

[jddd]

For the approval the wait is 10 months and for refusal 10 months as well? This year I have to renew my business contract, should I tell the company that it is over?

With all due respect to the immigration agents, but I will remain clinging to my opinion that traps are put in an indirect way and everyone interprets the law according to his temperament.

It is clear that:
Residency days need not to be consecutive and may be accumulated inside or even outside Canada in the following ways:

1- By accompanying a spouse / common-law partner who is a Canadian citizen.
2- As a child accompanying a parent.
3- By employment on a full-time basis with a Canadian enterprise or the Public Service of Canada.

I know there are a lot of people trying to manipulate this subject, but there are some people who respect the law and all that it provides. If the immigration Department was clear from the beginning and noted that only 730 days should be observed without any exceptions, things would have been different. We did not try to circumvent the law that we respect, but instead we applied its provisions strictly.

My Personal opinion with all due respect to all the friends here : good citizenship, even for 630 days is far better than staying for 3000 days in fraud, tax evasions and disrespect for laws. I think this is what immigration officers should look into

In 2014, when you were hired by the Canadian company, were you hired while you were living in Canada and then were asked to go on business trips?

During your times outside of Canada with your Canadian spouse or children, why did your spouse/children need to be outside Canada? Did your spouse or children need to be outside Canada and you followed them or were you the one who needed to be outside of Canada and they followed you?

@dpenabill has been answering questions and giving logical and well thought out answers in terms of these but from what I understand, you must have been employed and working in Canada and they just needed to have you away for business trips for those to count. Also, if you are the one who needs to be outside of Canada and your spouse/children were the ones following you, that possibly does not count either. I could have totally read things wrong but if you read through dpenabill's replies you may get some ideas on what may happen.