Coronavirus impact to stay requirements

[armoured]

If only I could say such things so directly and succinctly.
...
In particular, @Bs65 emphasizing "the residency obligation of 2 years out of every 5 is a generous obligation to meet," recognizes the dominant outside parameter for evaluating whether H&C reasons justify keeping PR status. Regarding which you added the exclamation mark, noting that EVEN IF there is a formal policy, it will most likely offer only limited relief.

I have rarely been accused of being succinct ).

I agree with your points overall, was only perhaps putting a slightly different emphasis.

Mainly, that I would not suggest anyone rely on a 'formal' policy being issued, or plan on the basis that such a hypothetical policy would cover their specific circumstances, particularly down the road.

Sure, there will likely be some leniency (whether formalised or not) - as in many cases the travel restrictions themselves will be a genuine H&C consideration (especially if they amount to a case where someone simply could not travel, e.g. no flights in or out of the foreign country, and travelled when they could). That doesn't mean this particular H&C consideration will be sufficient on its own - details of individual cases matter.

Legal advisors noting 'there is no formal policy' are correct and no-one should rely upon such a policy or leniency being granted (leniency generally being 'more tolerant than expected or required'), given the existing requirements are rather generous.

If there is such a policy in future, it can be evaluated at that time.

 

[canuck78]

Do you know if they are planning to provide any extensions to the 2 out of 5 years requirements to take into account the current coronavirus situation? I looked at recent threads and it does not seem so.
Here is the message I sent to IIRC just now:

As predicted. Covid will no change RO.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/coronavirus-covid19/citizenship.html

 

[armoured]

As predicted. Covid will no change RO.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/coronavirus-covid19/citizenship.html

As worded, this statement/announcement strictly speaking only applies to RO for citizenship applications: "You must still meet the physical presence requirement for your citizenship application."

Now, I am not stating that there will be a different or reduced residency obligation for PRs due to covid. Just that this announcement doesn't specifically address that. Although it does provide perhaps an indication of policy direction, i.e. that no-one should rely on RO 'adjustments' or some other formal policy forgiveness.

My own guess is that existing procedures and policies for H&C considerations actually provide sufficient room to address true hardship situations for PRs in edge cases for meeting RO caused by covid-related travel limitations, and that officers at border and others may be a bit more lenient as per previous discussions here. But only a guess and no-one should rely on some future policy absolving them of not meeting RO. Leniency is (almost by definition) not required but 'more than expected or required,' so rely on leniency at your own peril.

Note even the phrasing hardship 'caused' by covid travel restrictions is potentially tricky ... one thing to say 'caused' if you were stuck in a country with totally closed borders, another if you stayed abroad longer because you were worried about covid.

 

[canuck78]

As worded, this statement/announcement strictly speaking only applies to RO for citizenship applications: "You must still meet the physical presence requirement for your citizenship application."

Now, I am not stating that there will be a different or reduced residency obligation for PRs due to covid. Just that this announcement doesn't specifically address that. Although it does provide perhaps an indication of policy direction, i.e. that no-one should rely on RO 'adjustments' or some other formal policy forgiveness.

My own guess is that existing procedures and policies for H&C considerations actually provide sufficient room to address true hardship situations for PRs in edge cases for meeting RO caused by covid-related travel limitations, and that officers at border and others may be a bit more lenient as per previous discussions here. But only a guess and no-one should rely on some future policy absolving them of not meeting RO. Leniency is (almost by definition) not required but 'more than expected or required,' so rely on leniency at your own peril.

Note even the phrasing hardship 'caused' by covid travel restrictions is potentially tricky ... one thing to say 'caused' if you were stuck in a country with totally closed borders, another if you stayed abroad longer because you were worried about covid.

OP’s questions was whether there will be a change in the ROs. This confirms they aren’t going to suddenly change to 1.5 out of 5 years because people were in self-isolation for 6 months. OP should be planning to arrive before the 3 year mark. OP
should actually arrive with a few months buffer for emergencies and potential work travel.

 

[armoured]

OP’s questions was whether there will be a change in the ROs. This confirms they aren’t going to suddenly change to 1.5 out of 5 years because people were in self-isolation for 6 months. OP should be planning to arrive before the 3 year mark. OP
should actually arrive with a few months buffer for emergencies and potential work travel.

Although I agree overall with your points, I'm emphasizing different aspects:
-the announcement formally only applies to citizenship physical presence requirements.
-this does not mean that RO for PR requirements has changed.
-the existing policy re: H&C considerations for not meeting RO has not changed. They are required to consider such matters, but is by no means a "you don't have to meet the RO requirements" policy.
-realistically, some weight will be given to e.g. physical impossibility to travel. But that is no guarantee that it will 'work' in a given individual's case.

Yes, OP should plan to arrive in time to meet the requirements with a buffer - good advice generally. But the policy announced (link above) does not mean covid-related travel restrictions will be ignored (formally only applies to citizenship physical presence requirements). Nor does it mean anyone should count on formal or informal leniency about PR residency obligations when planning (or attempting to plan) what to do.

Personally I doubt any such formal guidance or policy will be issued until something resembling 'normalcy' in travel terms is re-established, and even if one is issued (I dont' think it will happen, personal opinion) then I doubt it will be as broad as some seem to expect. Those that rely on any form of general amnesty will likely be disappointed, but just a personal point of view. That said, the existing regs do require 'due consideration' (paraphrasing to be concise); but due consideration in the context of complicated PR cases is far from simple, and no-one should rely on that being enough in their individual case.

 

[canuck78]

Although I agree overall with your points, I'm emphasizing different aspects:
-the announcement formally only applies to citizenship physical presence requirements.
-this does not mean that RO for PR requirements has changed.
-the existing policy re: H&C considerations for not meeting RO has not changed. They are required to consider such matters, but is by no means a "you don't have to meet the RO requirements" policy.
-realistically, some weight will be given to e.g. physical impossibility to travel. But that is no guarantee that it will 'work' in a given individual's case.

Yes, OP should plan to arrive in time to meet the requirements with a buffer - good advice generally. But the policy announced (link above) does not mean covid-related travel restrictions will be ignored (formally only applies to citizenship physical presence requirements). Nor does it mean anyone should count on formal or informal leniency about PR residency obligations when planning (or attempting to plan) what to do.

Personally I doubt any such formal guidance or policy will be issued until something resembling 'normalcy' in travel terms is re-established, and even if one is issued (I dont' think it will happen, personal opinion) then I doubt it will be as broad as some seem to expect. Those that rely on any form of general amnesty will likely be disappointed, but just a personal point of view. That said, the existing regs do require 'due consideration' (paraphrasing to be concise); but due consideration in the context of complicated PR cases is far from simple, and no-one should rely on that being enough in their individual case.

Agree that each case needs to be considered individually but people need to adjust their plans if possible and prioritize arriving in Canada while still meeting their RO. Many have plans to work abroad for 3 years before resettling to Canada. Just because you want to work for 3 years doesn’t mean that you can’t move before. Being laid off for months because of covid shouldn’t influence your move. You were required to prove that you had the finances to move to Canada. Seen others say they can’t move because they have older parents who need them because there is coronavirus in the world. Unless your parents are sick with covid 19 or you can’t travel due to travel restrictions you can arrange things like deliveries if they can’t go out. I am afraid some people will think anything related to the coronavirus will be excused. In general people should plan on meeting their RO unless they or their family member is seriously ill and they are the only ones able to provide care, travel to hospital, etc. or there are some sort of travel restrictions that prevent them from moving.

 

[armoured]

Agree that each case needs to be considered individually but people need to adject their plans if possible and prioritize arriving in Canada while still meeting their RO.

Again, not disagreeing on overall points. We know there may be some leniency but no-one should rely on that.

I'd also draw attention to this: even if someone is allowed in with non-compliant RO (i.e. no formal procedures initiated), they will still be subject to RO compliance requirements going forward. (That seems unlikely to change based on the citizenship guidance).

Meaning: they will mainly have to stay in Canada and re-establish compliance, with zero or minimal buffer for future travel abroad for whatever reason (and waiting to get PR card renewed, etc, down the road).

Or put simply: covid-related travel issues might help to get leniency to return to Canada (once), but at least as things stand now, does NOT resolve any RO compliance issues going forward (whether for future travel, or sponsoring other family members, or whatever other matters that may came up). Only actually being in compliance with the residency obligation can do that.

Another reason to return as soon as feasible and establish and remain in compliance. Anything else does present risks.

 

[armoured]

Again, not disagreeing on overall points. We know there may be some leniency but no-one should rely on that.

I'd also draw attention to this: even if someone is allowed in with non-compliant RO (i.e. no formal procedures initiated), they will still be subject to RO compliance requirements going forward. (That seems unlikely to change based on the citizenship guidance).

Meaning: they will mainly have to stay in Canada and re-establish compliance, with zero or minimal buffer for future travel abroad for whatever reason (and waiting to get PR card renewed, etc, down the road).

Or put simply: covid-related travel issues might help to get leniency to return to Canada (once), but at least as things stand now, does NOT resolve any RO compliance issues going forward (whether for future travel, or sponsoring other family members, or whatever other matters that may came up). Only actually being in compliance with the residency obligation can do that.

Another reason to return as soon as feasible and establish and remain in compliance. Anything else does present risks.

I realise now I could have put this point much more succinctly:

Leniency at the border (in admitting PRs not in compliance with RO without formal report of violation and all that entails) does NOT mean that there will be any formal leniency about RO compliance and calculations for other purposes. PRs that enter should be prepared for what that entails.

Obviously it is possible there might be some formal policy in future, but it would be foolish to rely on that.

 

[Besram]

I landed in Canada let's say Dec, 2017.
[...]
Theoretically, my last return date shall no later than end of May, 2020, otherwise, I will not be able to stay 730 days in my first 5 years)

This does not add up. If you landed in Dec 2017, you have until Dec 2020 (the three year anniversary date of your landing) at the very least before you fall short of your RO compliance. Since you also have 160 days in Canada already, it will be even later.

 

[dreamon2019]

This does not add up. If you landed in Dec 2017, you have until Dec 2020 (the three year anniversary date of your landing) at the very least before you fall short of your RO compliance. Since you also have 160 days in Canada already, it will be even later.

Thank you for reply, it's an about time for example, not exact in my OP.
The last return date is well calculated. I just updated in my OP for note.

 

[Besram]

Thank you for reply, it's an about time for example, not exact in my OP.
The last return date is well calculated.

That's very confusing because the example you gave makes no sense if your actual landing date was different.

To clarify: you did not land in Dec 2017, but possibly in Dec 2016 + 160 days in Canada takes you to May 2020?

 

[dreamon2019]

That's very confusing because the example you gave makes no sense if your actual landing date was different.

To clarify: you did not land in Dec 2017, but possibly in Dec 2016 + 160 days in Canada takes you to May 2020?

Ops.....my fault, thank you, it's 2016......I've updated in my post.

 

[Besram]

Ops.....my fault, thank you, it's 2016......I've updated in my post.

Thanks for the clarification. For some reason your initial post seems to have disappeared now.

In any case, your options in order of preference are:

1) Return to Canada by your latest return date (May 2020). This will guarantee you will not have any issues. The price for peace of mind will be an expensive airfare, as you say.

2) Return to Canada as soon as you can find a reasonably-priced flight. The lower your breach, the better the chances that you will not be reported. But the risk is always there, and it's tough to say how a PR in breach of RO (however small the breach may be) will be treated and questioned while travel restrictions are in place. One the one hand, CBSA may focus more on enforcing health-related issues and may have less capacity to deal with RO compliance. On the other hand, questioning at the primary inspection line may be more extensive than usual for the exact same reason, and this may make it more likely that your RO breach will be discovered. It's hard to say - we simply don't know. Nobody on this forum has reported any experience trying to enter Canada during lock-down while also being in breach of RO. It's a gamble.

3) Return to Canada when travel restrictions have been lifted and normal travel has resumed. This is the least preferred option and may be a big gamble.

Remember that one of the factors officials will look at is whether or not you returned to Canada at your first opportunity. While you might argue that returning to Canada on a $10k+ ticket is not feasible, it's unclear if officials will take the same view. Therefore, it is best to return as soon as possible.

As for your cough: since you have had your cough due to an existing condition, you should be able to board a plane. I am unsure how they check for your symptoms, but if it's not super-obvious (i.e. coughing literally multiple times per minute) I would think you should not have an issues.

Besides that, there must be some sort of medical record that outlines the condition that you have? How did you disclose it during the upfront medical you had to do for your PR application?

 

[canuck78]

Thanks for the clarification. For some reason your initial post seems to have disappeared now.

In any case, your options in order of preference are:

1) Return to Canada by your latest return date (May 2020). This will guarantee you will not have any issues. The price for peace of mind will be an expensive airfare, as you say.

2) Return to Canada as soon as you can find a reasonably-priced flight. The lower your breach, the better the chances that you will not be reported. But the risk is always there, and it's tough to say how a PR in breach of RO (however small the breach may be) will be treated and questioned while travel restrictions are in place. One the one hand, CBSA may focus more on enforcing health-related issues and may have less capacity to deal with RO compliance. On the other hand, questioning at the primary inspection line may be more extensive than usual for the exact same reason, and this may make it more likely that your RO breach will be discovered. It's hard to say - we simply don't know. Nobody on this forum has reported any experience trying to enter Canada during lock-down while also being in breach of RO. It's a gamble.

3) Return to Canada when travel restrictions have been lifted and normal travel has resumed. This is the least preferred option and may be a big gamble.

Remember that one of the factors officials will look at is whether or not you returned to Canada at your first opportunity. While you might argue that returning to Canada on a $10k+ ticket is not feasible, it's unclear if officials will take the same view. Therefore, it is best to return as soon as possible.

As for your cough: since you have had your cough due to an existing condition, you should be able to board a plane. I am unsure how they check for your symptoms, but if it's not super-obvious (i.e. coughing literally multiple times per minute) I would think you should not have an issues.

Besides that, there must be some sort of medical record that outlines the condition that you have? How did you disclose it during the upfront medical you had to do for your PR application?

Think there will be some empathy about the difficulty returning until the airspace opens up. Once travel is much easier you should return and fast as possible. The bigger issue is that you seem to want to sponsor a spouse. Without meeting your RO you can’t sponsor a spouse.

 

[dreamon2019]

Think there will be some empathy about the difficulty returning until the airspace opens up. Once travel is much easier you should return and fast as possible. The bigger issue is that you seem to want to sponsor a spouse. Without meeting your RO you can’t sponsor a spouse.

I assume you were replying my post, (don't know why my posts are waiting for approval)
Thank you for carefully check my posts or remember me.
Yes, I tried to sponsor my fiancee, but this is not crucial since she has a visitor visa.

A new question came up to my mind, since my finacee is holding visitor visa currently, can she enters Canada with me if I declare she is common law partner of me, - the immediate family member?

Thank you.