My spouse (U.S. citizen) & I (Indian citizen) received our Canadian PRs a year ago. However Since receiving the PR my spouse stayed ~8 months in the U.S. since they sponsored me for an U.S. green card. My U.S. green card was approved but we decided not to move to the U.S. and preferred to stay in Canada. My spouse moved back to Canada and started working full-time. Now, given recent immigration rule changes in U.S. we are considering moving to the U.S. By next time I interview for my U.S. green card my spouse will have completed 2 years in Canada as a PR. My question is in case my U.S. green card does not come through for some reason, and we stay in Canada, will the fact that I applied for a U.S. green card twice, and that my spouse stayed outside of Canada for ~8 months have any impact on our PR renewal or citizenship application?
Under current law and rules and policy, IRCC does not even ask if a PR has made an application for status in another country. Not in a (renew) PR card application. Not in a citizenship application. And quite unlikely in the course of processing either (interview questions can range very widely, well beyond the scope of what might be expected, so it is possible but highly unlikely questions related to efforts to obtain status elsewhere could be asked).
So just making an application for status in another country, without it being granted, is NOT even
on-the-radar, let alone a relevant factor, let alone material. For either Canadian PR or citizenship.
For maintaining PR, other than not becoming inadmissible (such as for serious criminality), a PR only needs to comply with the PR Residency Obligation, which (with some exceptions) is specifically based on the number of days the PR is actually physically present in Canada, so here too actually obtaining status in another country is similarly at least of minimal relevance. However, if a PR fails to comply with the RO and is relying on H&C reasons to keep PR status, obviously obtaining status to permanently live in another country is a relevant factor (one which relates to both the reasons for the absence from Canada and to hardship if PR status is lost).
The citizenship application does require the applicant to declare immigration status (temporary as well as permanent) in other countries. Thus, yes, if a Canadian PR obtains Green Card status in the U.S. that is something an applicant for Canadian citizenship must disclose, including dates. Obtaining permanent resident status in another country does NOT disqualify a PR applying for citizenship. However, since IRCC asks for this information, by definition it is RELEVANT, and it may be material in relationship to some issues, such as questions about the applicant's actual physical presence in Canada. Again, under current law, the relevance let alone materiality of this is minimal. It should have ZERO effect if the applicant meets the burden of proving actual physical presence.
CAVEAT RE CURRENT vs FUTURE LAW/RULES/POLICY:
We have a Federal election pending and there is a real prospect of a significant change in government. A new government could implement significant changes affecting PR obligations, citizenship requirements, and procedures related to these. Permanent Residents should ALWAYS take care to stay informed about potential changes which could affect their status, rights, and privileges.
Policy can change with very little notice. The changes must be reasonable and the new policy must still be consistent with the law, that is with both the governing statutes and governing regulations (as well as fair procedure requirements generally). So what is relevant, what can be asked, can change anytime and change without notice.
Rules can change quickly, sometimes with minimal notice. Some rule changes can be made attendant policy changes (such as what information an applicant must submit to make a complete application). Others require a change in the law, that is in the applicable statutes or regulations.
The governing law can also be changed. Changing the law itself requires substantial notice and legislative procedure. Changing regulations can happen faster than changing statutes and does not require the Parliamentary procedure that is necessary to modify the governing statutes. Regulations must be consistent with the governing statutes. The Harper Conservative government was able to push through some major legislative changes affecting citizenship, for example, in just months. Usually major changes take nearly a year and are typically either overtly discussed in the election campaign well before the change is formally tabled let alone adopted, or are at least more or less directly discussed for a significant period prior to being formally tabled let alone adopted.
IMPACT of POSSIBLE CHANGES: Contrary to the expectations of some, changes in law can have an indirect or even direct RETROACTIVE impact. The latter is unusual and for PRs it is NOT likely to happen (the Harper government, however, did make a big change that directly affected the status of some PRs pursuant to which some lost PR status based on their actions taken YEARS prior to Harper's government let alone the adoption of the change itself in December 2012; see discussions about cessation of status in the citizenship conference).
An indirect retroactive impact is NOT the norm, but is somewhat common in varying degrees. Example: Harper changed the citizenship requirements, increasing the presence required by a lot, and that change applied to all PRs who had not yet applied for citizenship.
SCOPE of POSSIBLE CHANGES: Notwithstanding the somewhat see-saw changes in grant citizenship requirements under the last two governments, generally, usually, the law is stable and tends to be changed slowly. Tweaking the law is the norm.
That said, as the somewhat see-saw changes in grant citizenship requirements under the last two governments illustrates, any new government can proceed to make major changes. No one here can offer anywhere near reliable forecasts about what changes might be coming when there is a new government.
Some things seem unlikely to change anytime soon, like the 2/5 PR Residency Obligation rules. (Note: change of the RO is unlikely but nonetheless possible.)
Some things are more susceptible to change, like how strict existing rules are applied or even how some rules are interpreted. For example, well before implementing an actual physical presence requirement for grant citizenship, in June 2015, the Harper government began systematically implementing policies which interpreted the citizenship "residency" requirement in a way that was very comparable to imposing a physical presence requirement. Similarly, well before implementing an
intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada citizenship requirement (again in June 2015; later repealed by the Trudeau government 2017), they implemented policies which dramatically elevated hurdles for applicants perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise perceived to be
applying-for-a-passport-of-convenience. (If there is a Conservative government after this year's election, this is one change I would expect, including a return to elevated scrutiny of applicants who move abroad while a citizenship application is pending.)
IMPACT of TIME IN THE U.S.
For both the PR Residency Obligation and meeting grant citizenship presence requirements, what counts is the individual PR's personal history. Time in the U.S. is the same as time anywhere else in the world: that is time outside Canada, and thus time which does NOT count toward meeting the PR RO, time which does not count toward meeting grant citizenship presence requirements.
The time the PR's spouse spends abroad is mostly irrelevant. For either the PR RO or a grant citizenship application. That said, IF there is some question about the time the PR has actually been in Canada, the whereabouts of the PR's family is of course relevant. Spouses tend to live together. So where one spouse is known to have been living is at least relevant to weighing evidence about where the other spouse was during that time.
And obviously, if a PR has not complied with the PR RO and is relying on H&C reasons to keep Canadian PR status, and that PR has a spouse living outside Canada, that can be a significant factor in weighing the H&C factors.
