The questions here have been answered well enough.
The bigger question is why these were questions in the first place.
I also fail to understand,
- Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
- Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
I also fail to understand why water flows uphill.
Which is OK. Since it doesn't. Water does not flow uphill. No need to understand why something is this or that when that is NOT what it is.
Thus, even though
@primaprime covered most of these queries quite well, it is important to be upfront and clear about the extent to which these queries are not based on actual policy or practice, or about how things actually work.
For example: "
Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?" and "
Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?"
There is NO such policy and it is obvious that Canada's policies and practices recognize and take into consideration the likelihood PRs will continue to have ties in the home country. Big time actually.
In particular, there is NO formal policy or practice preferring the new PR (so far as we know). And not only does the Residency Obligation allow PRs up to three years to make the move to Canada, fully recognizing the nature and extent of continuing ties in the home country, which many if not most have, it indefinitely allows (for life for PRs who do not become Canadian citizens) PRs to spend up to THREE years abroad in any five year time period in recognition of the likelihood that immigrants will have continuing ties in the home country for, basically, their life. And it warrants emphasizing, PRs are allowed to spend more time abroad
NO QUESTIONS asked, NO NEED to plead or prove intent; each and every PR is given autonomy to make choices about how much time to spend outside Canada for up to three years out of every five. Again, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
That is, PRs can choose to live outside Canada MORE than they live IN Canada for just about as long as they want, a year MORE outside Canada than they spend in Canada for any five year time period.
For life if they so choose. Even though the purpose of the grant of Permanent Residency is specifically so the individual can settle and live IN Canada permanently.
As for preferences . . . There is some discussion in this forum about somewhat more favourable odds a relatively new immigrant (roughly within the first five years; within the period of time the PR's first PR card remains valid) might have at a PoE. But that is about
CBSA screening NOT IRCC. And to the extent others and I are right about this (not everyone agrees the new PR has such better odds), that is mostly about balancing the relevant factors which influence H&C RO cases, with consideration given to
-- allowances for the difficulty of making the move to settle in Canada,
-- allowances for the nature and extent of continuing ties in the home country, and
-- the extent of the breach (this is a big one; for example, those arriving within six months past three years have a lot better odds than those arriving with less than six months before their PR card expires)
This year and next the impact of Covid-19 is something that will of course also be taken into consideration.
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
It was around two decades ago that Canada shifted from intent-based criteria to an objective days-in-Canada standard. Discussions about
what-the-rules-SHOULD-be get complicated. There is far more to consider than the impact on those affected. But generally the intent-based approach was too unpredictable and too prone to discrimination. The 730 days in Canada obligation allows individual PRs the flexibility to spend up to THREE years abroad without having to answer questions about why, without having to justify the stay abroad, without having to prove intent.
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
There is NO need to make the H&C case UNLESS there is a breach of the RO. And if there is a breach of the RO, obviously how big a breach matters; indeed, this can be, usually is, a major factor, if not the biggest factor, in whether or not the PR DESERVES relief for the failure to comply with the RO.
In contrast, however, in the H&C case the PR can present information outside the RO period. Thus, for example, even if a PR has been abroad for more than the last five years, NOT in Canada at all during the RO period, the PR can make the case he or she has ties and roots in Canada going back before the last five years. Thus the way in which the RO factors into the H&C assessment largely FAVOURS the PR.
And of course there are cases where compelling H&C reasons outweigh how long it has been since the PR was last in Canada. For example, see discussion in another thread about a PR parent long living abroad when his Canadian children's mother passed away. The impact on the Canadian children will tend to weigh far more than how long that PR remained abroad.
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
They don't. Again, PRs can go abroad to manage affairs in another country for up to three years in five. Any five. For as long as a person is a PR, which can be for life.
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
Right now everything is really, really slow in large part due to covid-19.
Otherwise, many PR TD applications are processed in days, not weeks but days.
In normal times there is much variability in how long it takes to make decisions. But decision-making that involves formal, official adjudication tends to take longer, a long while. Try filing a civil lawsuit to recover what you are rightfully owed, and these days that can take years if not many years. And if that is about a person's life-savings, yeah, those years can really change the course of one's life.
Otherwise sure, if the PR is clearly
INADMISSIBLE, which any PR who has failed to comply with the PR RO is, under the law, an application seeking relief from what the law requires is not a mere formality, not a decision to be made perfunctorily. Such adjudication tends to take longer than routinely issuing a Travel Document to a PR who is not inadmissible.
Further Observation Regarding Context:
In numerous topics here I have made a concerted effort to help illuminate the nature and scope of what PRs can present to support their case, to show they *deserve* an opportunity to keep PR status, a chance to actually settle and live in Canada, despite failing to comply with the PR RO.
However, I try not to get tangled in forecasting how things will go. The variables are many and complex, and interlaced. Trying to forecast a particular case is prone to over-emphasizing some factors while overlooking others. For big breaches, for PRs who are outside Canada and who have been outside Canada for more than four of the preceding five years, and who do not have a valid PR card (and thus are PRESUMED to NOT have valid PR status), absent a very compelling H&C case based on traditional H&C reasons (best interests of minor children in Canada for example), the odds of successfully getting relief and being allowed to keep PR status tend, so far as we can discern, to be quite low. For many it is nonetheless worth making the effort, including an appeal, to at least attempt to keep their PR status.
But there should be no misunderstanding regarding what this is about. Again, the PR abroad who does not possess a valid PR card is
PRESUMED to not have valid PR status, and if the facts clearly show the PR has been outside Canada so long as to be in breach of the RO,
that PR is INADMISSIBLE. As a matter of law.
Just as a PR who has engaged in serious criminality, organized criminality, misrepresentation, engaging in terrorism, spying against Canada, and engaging in crimes against humanity. These are all things PRs can do,
along with failing to comply with the RO, that render themselves INADMISSIBLE. Thereby resulting in the loss of PR status. Yeah, it is a big deal.
Many here, including me, will offer support and encouragement and information, as best we can, but for a PR who has been abroad for many years more than just three, there is nothing to be gained by sugarcoating things. The PR is INADMISSIBLE and unless there are very compelling H&C reasons the hurdle is high.
