For a Permanent Resident, is the five-year window time flexible? What happens if 2 years' requirement (of staying in Canada) is not met?

[ggottawa]

I am Canadian living in Korea.

I have sponsored my Korean wife for the PR status, she received it, and she did the landing two years ago. After the landing, we came back to Korea to prepare a permanent move. Then, the COVID pandemic spread all over the world, and our departure was delayed until now. We are planning to leave for Canada late this year or early next year.

Considering that a permanent resident must stay in Canada for the minimum of 2 years out of 5 years’ period. I wonder if this five-year window time can be flexible as it is not easy to make an international travel these days. In other words, is the five-year window time an absolute requirement? Or can this window time be extended?

Also, what happens if she stayed in Canada a bit less than 2 years out of the window time (presumably 5 years) after we move to Canada?
Does she have to re-apply for the PR status by then?

Thank you.

 

[armoured]

I am Canadian living in Korea.

I have sponsored my Korean wife for the PR status, she received it, and she did the landing two years ago. After the landing, we came back to Korea to prepare a permanent move. Then, the COVID pandemic spread all over the world, and our departure was delayed until now. We are planning to leave for Canada late this year or early next year.

Considering that a permanent resident must stay in Canada for the minimum of 2 years out of 5 years’ period. I wonder if this five-year window time can be flexible as it is not easy to make an international travel these days. In other words, is the five-year window time an absolute requirement? Or can this window time be extended?

Also, what happens if she stayed in Canada a bit less than 2 years out of the window time (presumably 5 years) after we move to Canada?
Does she have to re-apply for the PR status by then?

Thank you.

There is a separate forum here on the residency obligation as it's a somewhat complex topic.

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/forums/permanent-residency-obligations.11/

Quick key points:
-PR status does not expire; the date of PR card has nothing to do with it.
-note the 2-in-5 requirement is on a rolling five year basis (at any point in time).
-there is no general 'loosening' or flexibility due to the pandemic (and in my view not likely to be).
-there is already a framework in place that requires examining officers to consider humanitarian and compassionate considerations (or exigent circumstances if you prefer).
-'examination' occurs primarily at a port of entry - i.e. a PR who enters who is not in compliance will have a chance to present/explain their circumstances (which must be considered). (If the examining officer agrees, can wave through; if not, start the process of saying not-in-compliance and potentially revoking - but will be admitted to Canada and allowed to appeal). It's at this stage that "covid made returning hard/impossible/scary" would be considered. (Not guaranteed will be accepted - perfectly understandable perhaps to be out of compliance by a month, but less so to claim return to Canada was delayed by a year because of covid.) Details of individual cases matter.
-Not to over-generalize, but PRs who are only slightly out of compliance are often given the benefit of the doubt and waved through; those grossly out of compliance - less so.
-When IN Canada, if not travelling abroad, a PR who is out of compliance can remain in Canada, is in Canada legally, and few negative consequences to being out-of-compliance and can stay until back in compliance.
-BUT: PR card, when expired, cannot be renewed until back in compliance. And PR card would be needed to return to Canada.
-Travel in and out of Canada when out of compliance runs the risk - at every border examination - of the non-compliance being an issue and the process started of revoking the PR status (subject to appeal, etc); previous leniency for non-compliance does not apply to future examinations. This may be a serious constraint for those who wish/need to travel frequently.

So all told: it's still in your interests and that of your spouse to return early enough to be and remain in compliance. That includes leaving enough 'buffer' for compliance taking into account planned and unexpected travel.

For many PRs, the issue of being able to travel on an ongoing basis - keeping in mind the need for valid PR card, RO compliance, etc - means having a buffer of physical-presence days to account for planned and unexpected travel.

 

[canuck78]

I am Canadian living in Korea.

I have sponsored my Korean wife for the PR status, she received it, and she did the landing two years ago. After the landing, we came back to Korea to prepare a permanent move. Then, the COVID pandemic spread all over the world, and our departure was delayed until now. We are planning to leave for Canada late this year or early next year.

Considering that a permanent resident must stay in Canada for the minimum of 2 years out of 5 years’ period. I wonder if this five-year window time can be flexible as it is not easy to make an international travel these days. In other words, is the five-year window time an absolute requirement? Or can this window time be extended?

Also, what happens if she stayed in Canada a bit less than 2 years out of the window time (presumably 5 years) after we move to Canada?
Does she have to re-apply for the PR status by then?

Thank you.

Would add that when she was granted Pr you had to show intent to relocate to Canada after granting PR so the fact that you have delayed relocation so long is not great. Also the reason IRCC needs a huge amount of proof these days to grant COPR these days since so many couple didn't return to Canada right away.

 

[screech339]

There is a separate forum here on the residency obligation as it's a somewhat complex topic.

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/forums/permanent-residency-obligations.11/

Quick key points:
-PR status does not expire; the date of PR card has nothing to do with it.
-note the 2-in-5 requirement is on a rolling five year basis (at any point in time).
-there is no general 'loosening' or flexibility due to the pandemic (and in my view not likely to be).
-there is already a framework in place that requires examining officers to consider humanitarian and compassionate considerations (or exigent circumstances if you prefer).
-'examination' occurs primarily at a port of entry - i.e. a PR who enters who is not in compliance will have a chance to present/explain their circumstances (which must be considered). (If the examining officer agrees, can wave through; if not, start the process of saying not-in-compliance and potentially revoking - but will be admitted to Canada and allowed to appeal). It's at this stage that "covid made returning hard/impossible/scary" would be considered. (Not guaranteed will be accepted - perfectly understandable perhaps to be out of compliance by a month, but less so to claim return to Canada was delayed by a year because of covid.) Details of individual cases matter.
-Not to over-generalize, but PRs who are only slightly out of compliance are often given the benefit of the doubt and waved through; those grossly out of compliance - less so.
-When IN Canada, if not travelling abroad, a PR who is out of compliance can remain in Canada, is in Canada legally, and few negative consequences to being out-of-compliance and can stay until back in compliance.
-BUT: PR card, when expired, cannot be renewed until back in compliance. And PR card would be needed to return to Canada.
-Travel in and out of Canada when out of compliance runs the risk - at every border examination - of the non-compliance being an issue and the process started of revoking the PR status (subject to appeal, etc); previous leniency for non-compliance does not apply to future examinations. This may be a serious constraint for those who wish/need to travel frequently.

So all told: it's still in your interests and that of your spouse to return early enough to be and remain in compliance. That includes leaving enough 'buffer' for compliance taking into account planned and unexpected travel.

For many PRs, the issue of being able to travel on an ongoing basis - keeping in mind the need for valid PR card, RO compliance, etc - means having a buffer of physical-presence days to account for planned and unexpected travel.

I don't see any issues with the OP's situation. His PR spouse can remain in RO compliant as long as she living with a Canadian husband outside Canada. Any days together with a Canadian spouse counts outside Canada towards PR RO. The PR spouse of the Canadian only need show documentation that she lived with the Canadian during the time in Korea. If the spouse does not have a PR card or expired PR card, she can apply for PRTD at nearest Canadian embassy with proof of living together with Canadian husband.

 

[armoured]

I don't see any issues with the OP's situation. His PR spouse can remain in RO compliant as long as she living with a Canadian husband outside Canada. Any days together with a Canadian spouse counts towards PR RO. The PR spouse of the Canadian only need show documentation that she lived with the Canadian during the time in Korea. If the spouse does not have a PR card or expired PR card, she can apply for PRTD at nearest Canadian embassy with proof of living together with Canadian husband.

I suggest leaving this discussion to the forum on residency obligation. This subject can be beaten to death again there much better than here.

 

[screech339]

I suggest leaving this discussion to the forum on residency obligation. This subject can be beaten to death again there much better than here.

I agree. I think he posted it in the wrong forum. But he has nothing to worry about.

 

[canuck78]

I don't see any issues with the OP's situation. His PR spouse can remain in RO compliant as long as she living with a Canadian husband outside Canada. Any days together with a Canadian spouse counts outside Canada towards PR RO. The PR spouse of the Canadian only need show documentation that she lived with the Canadian during the time in Korea. If the spouse does not have a PR card or expired PR card, she can apply for PRTD at nearest Canadian embassy with proof of living together with Canadian husband.

That’s incorrect. Cases exactly like this is where the issue of who accompanied whom often becomes an issue. Time together accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad does count towards RO for a PR but given that the wife never moved to Canada there is a good chance that time would not count. The system is set up to allow the Canadian citizen to pursue opportunities abroad and not be penalized by the RO requirement of a spouse. They were never living in Canada together and had never established a life in Canada so their situation is very different.

 

[armoured]

Yes, this subject is discussed extensively in the residency obligation forum.

While I don't want to wade into that, it is clear that it's by no means a no-brainer or automatic and preferable for the PR-spouse to avoid the issue by returning in time to remain in compliance.

 

[armoured]

Yes, this subject is discussed extensively in the residency obligation forum.

While I don't want to wade into that, it is clear that it's by no means a no-brainer or automatic

Just a housekeeping note as I don't think I was clear - in this sentence, that it's not a no-brainer and not automatic - I was referring to the issue of residency obligation compliance and a PR accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad. It's actually fairly complex - but discussed in the residency obligation forum.

 

[screech339]

That’s incorrect. Cases exactly like this is where the issue of who accompanied whom often becomes an issue. Time together accompanying a Canadian citizen abroad does count towards RO for a PR but given that the wife never moved to Canada there is a good chance that time would not count. The system is set up to allow the Canadian citizen to pursue opportunities abroad and not be penalized by the RO requirement of a spouse. They were never living in Canada together and had never established a life in Canada so their situation is very different.

If they never lived a life in Canada, sounds like the sponsor committed fraud on the "intent" on moving to Canada. Provided all the proof to move and settle to Canada only to do a soft landing and return to Korea. That is where the problem lies. not the PR's RO rules. The PR RO rules is not the problem. It's the original intent to move to Canada that the spouse obtained PR through fraud or misrepresentation on intent to settle,

 

[armoured]

It's the original intent to move to Canada that the spouse obtained PR through fraud or misrepresentation on intent to settle,

Please, let's take it down a notch - accusations of fraud or misrepresentation are a bit much - unless you know some specific pieces of information that were not true (and intentionally not true). Both charges require an intent to deceive.

Plans can change and things can come up that make it hard to do things when originally expected. The RO obligation is rather flexible in part to address such situations.

 

[screech339]

Please, let's take it down a notch - accusations of fraud or misrepresentation are a bit much - unless you know some specific pieces of information that were not true (and intentionally not true). Both charges require an intent to deceive.

Plans can change and things can come up that make it hard to do things when originally expected. The RO obligation is rather flexible in part to address such situations.

I agree it may seen harsh to be accused of fraud on intent. But when a sponsor is not ready to move and settle in Canada, then the sponsor should have waited until he/she is ready to move and settle in Canada. Until then apply once he/she is ready to move. Otherwise going ahead with the sponsor knowing full well he/she are seeing him/herself only to do a soft landing and return for convenience's sake. This action is not much different from marriage of convenience for PR purpose. The PR RO's rules regarding living Canadian spouse are not meant to be taken advantage of in which the sponsor may have mislead IRCC on the intention of moving to Canada and settle.

I won't discuss this any more. This is just my take on the matter.

 

[canuck78]

I agree it may seen harsh to be accused of fraud on intent. But when a sponsor is not ready to move and settle in Canada, then the sponsor should have waited until he/she is ready to move and settle in Canada. Until then apply once he/she is ready to move. Otherwise going ahead with the sponsor knowing full well he/she are seeing him/herself only to do a soft landing and return for convenience's sake. This action is not much different from marriage of convenience for PR purpose. The PR RO's rules regarding living Canadian spouse are not meant to be taken advantage of in which the sponsor may have mislead IRCC on the intention of moving to Canada and settle.

I won't discuss this any more. This is just my take on the matter.

Canada is no very strict when it comes to proof of intent to move because many people didn't move.

 

[screech339]

Canada is no very strict when it comes to proof of intent to move because many people didn't move.

Removing the ability for Canadian to sponsor overseas would solve this problem. They would have to be in Canada to sponsor much like PR have to go through.

 

[armoured]

I agree it may seen harsh to be accused of fraud on intent. But when a sponsor is not ready to move and settle in Canada, then the sponsor should have waited until he/she is ready to move and settle in Canada. Until then apply once he/she is ready to move. Otherwise going ahead with the sponsor knowing full well he/she are seeing him/herself only to do a soft landing and return for convenience's sake.

This makes no sense whatsoever; the 2-in-5 residency requirement applies to all PRs - who by the same logic have 'gone ahead with their PR application without knowing full well they can permanently move."

You can disagree with the policy, but it is what it is.

(From a personal perspective, if there were service standards applicable that were short and reasonable, it would remove the incentive - nay, requirement - to apply well in advance. Those with children in school, for example, have a real issue in coordinating with school years, matches / gaps between different education systems, etc., etc. This is before getting into issues about employment, health care, housing etc - and of course ignoring entirely the pandemic.

This action is not much different from marriage of convenience for PR purpose. The PR RO's rules regarding living Canadian spouse are not meant to be taken advantage of in which the sponsor may have mislead IRCC on the intention of moving to Canada and settle.

This is an absurd comparison. A marriage of convenience is absolutely and unquestionably a fraudulent act; planning to move and not being able to (for whatever reasons) is not. Again, the actual rules that apply are no different than for all other PRs.

I won't discuss this any more. This is just my take on the matter.

This is probably for the best. While everyone has a right to their opinion, some opinions are objectively just poorly thought out.