Residency obligations during pandemic
- Thread starter kri772020
- Start date
There’s been no changes in the requirement to meet RO during Covid. As always, it’s always at the discretion of CBSA.
Overall: the Residency Obligation itself is NOT changed. Not likely to change. As a result, a PR (any PR) who is not in compliance with the RO:
-- who engages in a transaction with IRCC (applies for a PR Travel Document, applies for a new PR card, or applies to sponsor a family member), or
-- who is examined by CBSA upon arrival at a Canadian PoE while returning to Canada from abroad,
is (1) in breach of the RO, and thus (2) at RISK for a decision determining the PR to be inadmissible, a decision which terminates PR status unless there is a successful appeal.That *RISK* varies and varies by a great deal. The RISK varies greatly because the details, the individual PR's specific circumstances, vary so greatly.
The RISK can vary depending on the type of transaction. PRs applying for a PR Travel Document, for example, probably face a significantly higher risk of a negative outcome than a PR arriving at a PoE.
For illustration, I will assume the "they" you reference in your query is about CBSA border officials screening travelers entering Canada. Even among this group, how things go can and often do vary widely.
How soon the PR returns to Canada has a big influence in almost all cases, and is the biggest influence in most cases. So that "2.5 months" short looms as, for most, the biggest factor . . . the longer it goes before the actual arrival at the PoE, the greater the RISK.
Then, upon arrival at the PoE, the next biggest factor is whether or not the PR is referred for a Secondary examination and in Secondary examined as to RO compliance. There is, for example, a lower RISK of a referral to Secondary for PRs with a valid PR card, and particularly those who are not in breach of the RO by a lot, and even more so those who have been coming and going from Canada (in comparison to someone who was last in Canada more than three years ago . . . which is a more or less obvious breach).
It warrants remembering that upon arrival at the PoE, MOST PRs are WAIVED through at the PIL (Preliminary Inspection Line), and this includes at least SOME PRs who have failed to comply with the RO. Getting waived through reduces the risk to ZERO as long as the PR then stays in Canada enough to get back into compliance with the RO and does not make any application to IRCC until after that.
The RISK of NOT getting waived through goes up the more the PR is in breach of the RO and the longer the PR's last absence from Canada, and can be influenced by other factors specific to the individual (previous history with CBSA or IRCC for example).
The pandemic has, it very much appears, reduced the RISK of NOT getting waived through . . . for PRs with a valid PR card and at least for those who may not be obviously a lot in breach of the RO. That is, it appears that a significant number of PRs in breach of the RO are currently getting waived through, NO referral to Secondary. For how long this will continue to happen is a GUESS, a rather WILD GUESS I'd GUESS.
Then there is the entirely NEXT LEVEL of RISK for those PRs who are NOT WAIVED through but who are referred to Secondary for further immigration related examination. Same RISK factors at play. RISK increases the more the PR is in breach of the RO and the longer the PR's last absence from Canada, but now how it goes will for sure be influenced by other factors specific to the individual . . . and this gets into what are referred to as H&C factors. Why the PR failed to meet the RO is a big factor (big but in most cases the bigger factor is still how big the breach is). And the Pandemic will for sure be a significant factor taken into consideration. No Free Pass. But nonetheless it is obviously a huge factor affecting individual decision-making, and certainly delaying the move to settle in Canada for many PRs.
I cannot be certain, but my strong impression is that, as a positive factor weighing in favour of allowing a PR to keep status, despite failing to comply with the RO, the my-return-to-Canada-was-delayed-by-Covid explanation is likely to have a more positive influence for PRs who are still within the first five years of when they landed . . . BUT also influenced by:
-- how soon they get here (the sooner the better), and
-- how long they were abroad before March this year (that is, how long they had been abroad BEFORE travel restrictions started)
While individual judgment can play a role in how things might go, I disagree with those who say that much depends on the officer making the decision. After all, NO Removal or Departure Order is issued to a PR for a breach of the Residency Obligation UNLESS two separate officers make decisions concurring in that result. (Thus, at the very least, any negative outcome depends on the discretion exercised by TWO officers, not just one.)
Moreover, any claim that it is the individual officer's discretion that will make much if any difference between a PR who arrives at a PoE three months short of meeting the RO, still a year and a half shy of reaching the fifth year anniversary of the date that PR landed, VERSUS a PR who is well past the fifth year anniversary of landing and who was outside Canada for three of the previous five years as of March this year, applying for a PR Travel Document from abroad, has ZERO connection to the way things work.
The individual's particular circumstances matter, they matter a lot, and indeed they matter the most.
And how the individual PR behaves, how the individual PR answers questions, how credible the PR is, will have far, far, far more influence than any officer's "mood."