My canadian wife cheated on me and called CIC we separated

[dpenabill]

Yea you right. She did. And they send me letter to provide info and proof that relationship was genuine. Which i have submitted through lawyer 6 months ago.
No i havent applied for divorce , neither did she..i guess. Because i havent heard from her over 4 months now.
I asked my lawyer and she told me if they were not satisfied they would have requested more info or something by now.
My lawyer told me that i could travel to my home country and come back . But i am just not sure. Because when i leave Canada for work to usa every week...on my way back at the border sometimes cbsa officer ask me why am in the immigration system....and than i explain briefly and i am allowed in. Its random and many times they dont say nothing.
I wanted to travel back in a month r so. So just not sure....

As long as you have a valid PR card, for the purpose of boarding a flight to Canada from abroad, it makes no difference where you go abroad . . . the U.S., after all, is just as much "abroad" as any other country in the world . . . the only difference is that a PR does not need a Canadian PR card to travel to the border from the U.S. (as long as the PR can travel to the border using private transportation), but that is merely a matter of geography, the U.S. being the only country with which Canada shares a land border.

As for the status of an investigation into the fraudulent nature of the marriage or PR card application process otherwise, your lawyer is the best source of information and advice . . . if for some reason you are not confident in the lawyer's representation, see a new lawyer.

Of course, depending on how much time you are spending in the U.S. for work, there also could be a PR Residency Obligation compliance issue lurking.

 

[canuck78]

No sure why people ignore these red flags while they are in the relationship, during the sponsorship process, etc. It will only get worse in person. If you have concerns during a relationship best to walk away instead of enduring the insanity.

 

[John black]

As long as you have a valid PR card, for the purpose of boarding a flight to Canada from abroad, it makes no difference where you go abroad . . . the U.S., after all, is just as much "abroad" as any other country in the world . . . the only difference is that a PR does not need a Canadian PR card to travel to the border from the U.S. (as long as the PR can travel to the border using private transportation), but that is merely a matter of geography, the U.S. being the only country with which Canada shares a land border.

As for the status of an investigation into the fraudulent nature of the marriage or PR card application process otherwise, your lawyer is the best source of information and advice . . . if for some reason you are not confident in the lawyer's representation, see a new lawyer.

Of course, depending on how much time you are spending in the U.S. for work, there also could be a PR Residency Obligation compliance issue lurking.

Thank you for taking time to respond.i agree with u on that i dont think it would matter much where i travel to. My lawyer did tell me that i will not have a problem getting back since my PR still valid.

As far as investigation part into the matter is concerned , my lawyer keeps saying that they would had asked further or something by now. And also they might not even respond at all.

I asked a CBSA officer , how long it might take, according to him, it might take years. So i guess i will just wait it out.

You are right about The time i spent in us working. I was told since i am working for Canadian Company who sent me out to us every week, than it wnt matter.

I hope so.

 

[John black]

No sure why people ignore these red flags while they are in the relationship, during the sponsorship process, etc. It will only get worse in person. If you have concerns during a relationship best to walk away instead of enduring the insanity.

Honestly i couldnt agree with you more. I would advise the same.

 

[canuck78]

Thank you for taking time to respond.i agree with u on that i dont think it would matter much where i travel to. My lawyer did tell me that i will not have a problem getting back since my PR still valid.

As far as investigation part into the matter is concerned , my lawyer keeps saying that they would had asked further or something by now. And also they might not even respond at all.

I asked a CBSA officer , how long it might take, according to him, it might take years. So i guess i will just wait it out.

You are right about The time i spent in us working. I was told since i am working for Canadian Company who sent me out to us every week, than it wnt matter.

I hope so.

Not quite that simple. Were you working at the Canadian company in a Canadian position before being relocated to work in the US?

 

[John black]

Not quite that simple. Were you working at the Canadian company in a Canadian position before being relocated to work in the US?

I drive long haul for Canadian Company across us. Every week. Its a 5 day trip to California and back.

 

[dpenabill]

I drive long haul for Canadian Company across us. Every week. Its a 5 day trip to California and back.

Generally a long haul trucker operating out of Canada will NOT need credit for the time in the U.S. Even if the PR actually is driving into the States five days a week, say from dispatch Monday morning, from a location in Canada, until return to Canadian base Friday, that means four days a week count as days in Canada, over two hundred days a year IN Canada, well over an average of 150 days a year which will meet the RO.

That said, generally a long haul trucker operating out of Canada will be entitled to the credit for time driving in the States so long as the PR is employed (not as a contractor but as an employee) by a Canadian company that meets the criteria (Canadian owned, Canadian based, ongoing profitable operations in Canada), and the trips to the U.S. are in fact directed by operations IN Canada. One caveat is that there are additional nuances in qualifying for the credit, such as the employment or business itself NOT be about providing a means for the PR to get such credit for time working abroad.

Another caveat here is that some forum participants may still have the view this type of employment might not qualify for credit. I would emphasize confidence it will qualify EXCEPT that the SO-LONG-AS conditions, including nuances, can be tricky . . . after all, as I initially stated, generally a long haul trucker operating out of Canada will NOT need credit for the time in the U.S. Thus, IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THE PR DOES NEED THE CREDIT . . . THE QUESTION IS WHY, WHAT ARE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, and whether or not those circumstances affect qualifying for the credit.

Leading to a common observation I make: in practice there tends to be a bit of a Catch-22 in that to qualify for the credit a PR will generally NOT need the credit. So, if the PR actually needs the credit, why that is so can loom very large in evaluating the particular details and discerning if the credit is available for the time abroad. Again, generally the long haul trucker employed by a Canadian business and operating out of a base in Canada will EASILY meet the minimum PR Residency Obligation . . . so if the particular circumstances are such that such a long haul trucker does not have enough days in Canada, WHY not can matter, and the PR should very carefully review all the circumstances to make sure he or she is complying with the RO.

That is, I am confident that the long haul trucker employed IN Canada and operating out of a base in Canada, by a qualified employer, a Canadian business meeting the requirements, does qualify for the credit BUT if the trucker actually needs the credit that suggests something about the particular situation that might fail to meet ALL the requirements for the credit.

 

[John black]

Generally a long haul trucker operating out of Canada will NOT need credit for the time in the U.S. Even if the PR actually is driving into the States five days a week, say from dispatch Monday morning, from a location in Canada, until return to Canadian base Friday, that means four days a week count as days in Canada, over two hundred days a year IN Canada, well over an average of 150 days a year which will meet the RO.

That said, generally a long haul trucker operating out of Canada will be entitled to the credit for time driving in the States so long as the PR is employed (not as a contractor but as an employee) by a Canadian company that meets the criteria (Canadian owned, Canadian based, ongoing profitable operations in Canada), and the trips to the U.S. are in fact directed by operations IN Canada. One caveat is that there are additional nuances in qualifying for the credit, such as the employment or business itself NOT be about providing a means for the PR to get such credit for time working abroad.

Another caveat here is that some forum participants may still have the view this type of employment might not qualify for credit. I would emphasize confidence it will qualify EXCEPT that the SO-LONG-AS conditions, including nuances, can be tricky . . . after all, as I initially stated, generally a long haul trucker operating out of Canada will NOT need credit for the time in the U.S. Thus, IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THE PR DOES NEED THE CREDIT . . . THE QUESTION IS WHY, WHAT ARE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, and whether or not those circumstances affect qualifying for the credit.

Leading to a common observation I make: in practice there tends to be a bit of a Catch-22 in that to qualify for the credit a PR will generally NOT need the credit. So, if the PR actually needs the credit, why that is so can loom very large in evaluating the particular details and discerning if the credit is available for the time abroad. Again, generally the long haul trucker employed by a Canadian business and operating out of a base in Canada will EASILY meet the minimum PR Residency Obligation . . . so if the particular circumstances are such that such a long haul trucker does not have enough days in Canada, WHY not can matter, and the PR should very carefully review all the circumstances to make sure he or she is complying with the RO.

That is, I am confident that the long haul trucker employed IN Canada and operating out of a base in Canada, by a qualified employer, a Canadian business meeting the requirements, does qualify for the credit BUT if the trucker actually needs the credit that suggests something about the particular situation that might fail to meet ALL the requirements for the credit.

Thank you for your response. I had to get my incorporation , for the company i drive for, so that they could pay me. I am not sure if i am their employee or not.

Although you have mentioned with regards to that obligation of how long i could stay outa Canada... do u think i will meet those requirements. Because a colleague of mine told me that the days spent in us every week will not be calculated as out of canada since i drive for Canadian company.
Any idea where i might get clarity on that?
Regards

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you for your response. I had to get my incorporation , for the company i drive for, so that they could pay me. I am not sure if i am their employee or not.

Although you have mentioned with regards to that obligation of how long i could stay outa Canada... do u think i will meet those requirements. Because a colleague of mine told me that the days spent in us every week will not be calculated as out of canada since i drive for Canadian company.
Any idea where i might get clarity on that?
Regards

If you have a lawyer, better to go over the details with a lawyer.

If you are personally incorporated and operating as your own business, then driving on contract for another business PROBABLY WILL NOT QUALIFY for the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit. BUT the actual details matter. And I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice in assessing and applying personal details to the rules.

Note, for example, if the *Canadian* business is your own business, and that business is primarily about long haul trucking in a foreign country, such as the U.S., the odds are high THAT WILL NOT QUALIFY for the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit.

As I noted, IF you are not spending enough time in Canada to meet the PR Residency Obligation based on days actually IN Canada, that tends to signal there may be circumstances which mean the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit is NOT available. This is more or less a practical coincidence, not a rule as such, but nonetheless a telling signal.

Again, typically a long haul trucker operating out of a base in Canada should be spending enough days actually IN Canada to meet the PR RO. If not, that suggests there is a wrinkle in the situation. After all, that suggests really being based OUTSIDE Canada. And the grant of PR is for the purpose of facilitating permanent settlement IN Canada (and this purpose is very much considered when IRCC officials are evaluating the particular circumstances in the RO examination and calculation).

From another perspective: if the arrangements made attendant the employment have been influenced by the need to make the time abroad count toward the RO, that tends to rather emphatically signal the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit is NOT available. Again, the actual details matter, but the credit is NOT intended to facilitate working abroad, but, rather, to accommodate PRs whose CANADIAN employer sends them abroad ON TEMPORARY assignments.

To be clear: I am NOT qualified to assess your particular circumstances. I can recite the rules. I can emphasize that these rules are typically STRICTLY applied. I can caution that the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit can be TRICKY. And that it tends to be very tricky if and when the structure of employment is at all massaged so that a PR can qualify for the credit . . . IRCC tends to see through such arrangements and interpret things accordingly, with skepticism.

In regards to this, the whole picture matters. Even if, for example, in reviewing information suggesting marriage fraud, IRCC does not conclude there is enough proof to proceed with inadmissibility proceedings on the grounds of misrepresentation, the information of record may be considered in evaluating the PR's credibility generally and that can influence how strictly, how skeptically, IRCC approaches other issues, like assessing the facts related to whether or not credit for time employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business should be allowed.

 

[John black]

If you have a lawyer, better to go over the details with a lawyer.

If you are personally incorporated and operating as your own business, then driving on contract for another business PROBABLY WILL NOT QUALIFY for the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit. BUT the actual details matter. And I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice in assessing and applying personal details to the rules.

Note, for example, if the *Canadian* business is your own business, and that business is primarily about long haul trucking in a foreign country, such as the U.S., the odds are high THAT WILL NOT QUALIFY for the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit.

As I noted, IF you are not spending enough time in Canada to meet the PR Residency Obligation based on days actually IN Canada, that tends to signal there may be circumstances which mean the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit is NOT available. This is more or less a practical coincidence, not a rule as such, but nonetheless a telling signal.

Again, typically a long haul trucker operating out of a base in Canada should be spending enough days actually IN Canada to meet the PR RO. If not, that suggests there is a wrinkle in the situation. After all, that suggests really being based OUTSIDE Canada. And the grant of PR is for the purpose of facilitating permanent settlement IN Canada (and this purpose is very much considered when IRCC officials are evaluating the particular circumstances in the RO examination and calculation).

From another perspective: if the arrangements made attendant the employment have been influenced by the need to make the time abroad count toward the RO, that tends to rather emphatically signal the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit is NOT available. Again, the actual details matter, but the credit is NOT intended to facilitate working abroad, but, rather, to accommodate PRs whose CANADIAN employer sends them abroad ON TEMPORARY assignments.

To be clear: I am NOT qualified to assess your particular circumstances. I can recite the rules. I can emphasize that these rules are typically STRICTLY applied. I can caution that the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit can be TRICKY. And that it tends to be very tricky if and when the structure of employment is at all massaged so that a PR can qualify for the credit . . . IRCC tends to see through such arrangements and interpret things accordingly, with skepticism.

In regards to this, the whole picture matters. Even if, for example, in reviewing information suggesting marriage fraud, IRCC does not conclude there is enough proof to proceed with inadmissibility proceedings on the grounds of misrepresentation, the information of record may be considered in evaluating the PR's credibility generally and that can influence how strictly, how skeptically, IRCC approaches other issues, like assessing the facts related to whether or not credit for time employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business should be allowed.

Thank you for your detailed response. Highly appericiated. I guess i will check with my lawyer and see what she has to say. A bit tricky i guess.
Thanks a mil.

 

[canuck78]

Wasn’t clear that you were a long haul trucker which is a separate case versus many others doing work abroad. @dpenabill has already addressed the issue.

 

[John black]

Wasn’t clear that you were a long haul trucker which is a separate case versus many others doing work abroad. @dpenabill has already addressed the issue.

Thank you

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you for your detailed response. Highly appericiated. I guess i will check with my lawyer and see what she has to say. A bit tricky i guess.
Thanks a mil.

Perhaps NOT at all relevant, but FWIW a word of caution: many appear to reference a "lawyer" when they are actually referring to a non-lawyer consultant.

There have been more than a few "consultants" willing to help PRs structure things to facilitate meeting the PR Residency Obligation, including guidance or even direct help in setting up a "Canadian business" which will, supposedly, enable the PR to work abroad and get RO credit. Such arrangements are notoriously FLAWED, unreliable, and in more than a few situations have involved outright fraud.

There are undoubtedly many competent and trustworthy immigration consultants. So I should not paint them all with the same broad brush. But if you had assistance setting up a business which will purportedly enable you to meet the RO while working abroad, that raises a RED FLAG and is a situation worth revisiting and carefully analyzing BEFORE relying on it for credit toward meeting the RO.

 

[John black]

Perhaps NOT at all relevant, but FWIW a word of caution: many appear to reference a "lawyer" when they are actually referring to a non-lawyer consultant.

There have been more than a few "consultants" willing to help PRs structure things to facilitate meeting the PR Residency Obligation, including guidance or even direct help in setting up a "Canadian business" which will, supposedly, enable the PR to work abroad and get RO credit. Such arrangements are notoriously FLAWED, unreliable, and in more than a few situations have involved outright fraud.

There are undoubtedly many competent and trustworthy immigration consultants. So I should not paint them all with the same broad brush. But if you had assistance setting up a business which will purportedly enable you to meet the RO while working abroad, that raises a RED FLAG and is a situation worth revisiting and carefully analyzing BEFORE relying on it for credit toward meeting the RO.

I was certainly not aware of this one. Thank you for letting me know.
As a long haul driver a buddy of mine told me that being out in us every week , for example 1 day spent in us is considered half a day and 2 days spent in us is considered as one day in Canada. However i will it definitely run it by my lawyer who hasnt mentioned anything about PR obligation to me. I guess i would ask her specifically. Or any other lawyer. I checked on the cic website that says 730 days out of 5 years , one has to be here. I think i am ok so far.
Thanks a mil for taking time to respond.

 

[dpenabill]

I was certainly not aware of this one. Thank you for letting me know.
As a long haul driver a buddy of mine told me that being out in us every week , for example 1 day spent in us is considered half a day and 2 days spent in us is considered as one day in Canada. However i will it definitely run it by my lawyer who hasnt mentioned anything about PR obligation to me. I guess i would ask her specifically. Or any other lawyer. I checked on the cic website that says 730 days out of 5 years , one has to be here. I think i am ok so far.
Thanks a mil for taking time to respond.

Any part of a day actually physically IN Canada counts toward RO compliance. So the day a trucker departs Canada, and the day the trucker returns to Canada, both count as a day IN Canada. Even if the trucker only stays in Canada one full day in between trips, that would add up to three days a week, 150 days a year, minimum, times five that adds up to 750 over five years, enough to meet the RO.

If the trucker is in fact based in Canada, typically that would also mean long weekends and holidays in Canada, adding more days that count as actually physically present in Canada. So it really should be EASY for a trucker based in Canada to meet the minimum RO. WHICH IS ONE REASON WHY FALLING SHORT (just in terms of days actually present, with no credit for days outside Canada) WILL TEND TO RAISE A RED FLAG.

It really should be easy . . . again, so long as the PR trucker is in fact based in Canada. No need to rely on credit for time working abroad.

But there appears to be no shortage of PRs not really based in Canada trying to massage the situation to keep Canadian PR status (one of the more recently publicized crooked consultant cases involves a consultant who was facilitating businesses for this purpose, and he purportedly made many millions of dollars doing this . . . but he has been sentenced to seven years in prison, and IRCC appears to be investigating nearly every client he ever had).

Among those who make the effort to massage things to keep PR status, many if not most tend to look at and apply the rules with a strong bias in their favour, overlooking how the rules actually work in practice. It seems it was a lot easier to get away with it in the past. Not so easy these days.