Leaving Canada Temporarily while spouse's PR (outland) is in progress Sponser being PR and sponsorship eligibility is Approved

[yourfather]

While I give you kudos for your research, it doesn't matter how much research you want to justify your choice, at the end of the day, it's the visa officers that decides. If you are so confidence that you are on the right side of your choice. Put money where your mouth is. Be Rosa Parks. Challenge the PR sponsorship rules if you think PR sponsorship rules are unfair like Rosa Parks did . Inform IRCC and officially submit documentation that you are PR sponsor currently living and working outside Canada. Verbally calling call center informing this is not good enough as they are not visa officers that makes decisions on the application. If you are not willing to officially inform IRCC of your current situation of living / working outside Canada as PR, then you really hope they don't "catch" you.. You are no different from anyone else who want to get a pass on their PR sponsorship violation. Your argument to support your case then become moot.

Please don't make assumptions on my behalf, neither me nor the OP here has any intent to hide from IRCC and travel. I will raise a webform before and after my trip. The pre-webform will inform about my travel along with my employer letter. Post-webform will have the details (photos, air-tickets, receipts) about the time spent with my wife to further strengthen the 'relationship' factor on the application

Lets leave it here, I will complete the trip and surely come back to update the forum.. be it positive or negative

 

[k.h.p.]

sure hope you don't travel somewhere and then, oh i don't know, flights are banned to return to canada, etc

 

[screech339]

sure hope you don't travel somewhere and then, oh i don't know, flights are banned to return to canada, etc

Lot of people are flying to border cities in US to drive across the border to Canada. There is apparently a huge demand for taxis going to the border to avoid Canada hotel quarantine rules.

 

[k.h.p.]

Lot of people are flying to border cities in US to drive across the border to Canada. There is apparently a huge demand for taxis going to the border to avoid Canada hotel quarantine rules.

yep, another great way to try to avoid laws. always looks good. it's perfectly allowed, but i mean, if you have to go through these efforts to avoid a regulation you don't like...

 

[armoured]

I will raise a webform before and after my trip. The pre-webform will inform about my travel along with my employer letter.

Again small warning (not in any way a threat) - informing them in advance, and whatever response you get (most likely just an email response saying they got it) - it should not be construed as 'approval' of your plans. Perhaps it will help, perhaps not - but in short, IRCC is under no obligation whatsoever to warn or advise you that what you're doing is not in compliance with how they construe the rules.

Good luck.

 

[screech339]

yep, another great way to try to avoid laws. always looks good. it's perfectly allowed, but i mean, if you have to go through these efforts to avoid a regulation you don't like...

I agree with you. It is a legal loophole that they can use. However there is no legal loophole for a PR to "live and work" outside Canada during PR sponsorship. Only a very "grey" zone that some PR thinks it allows them leeway or advantage.

 

[k.h.p.]

Again small warning (not in any way a threat) - informing them in advance, and whatever response you get (most likely just an email response saying they got it) - it should not be construed as 'approval' of your plans. Perhaps it will help, perhaps not - but in short, IRCC is under no obligation whatsoever to warn or advise you that what you're doing is not in compliance with how they construe the rules.

Good luck.

Up until they point that they issue a PFL. That is the moment they need to inform you.

 

[armoured]

Up until they point that they issue a PFL. That is the moment they need to inform you.

We've seen several cases here recently of refusals without a PFL(although on different reasons) l. Applicants had no other option but to appeal.

I do not know if the procedural grounds (no PFL) are sufficient to get the decision reversed or reconsidered in a useful way.

 

[k.h.p.]

We've seen several cases here recently of refusals without a PFL(although on different reasons) l. Applicants had no other option but to appeal.

I do not know if the procedural grounds (no PFL) are sufficient to get the decision reversed or reconsidered in a useful way.

The reason will determine whether or not a PFL is necessary. If it's based on a visa officer's subjective judgment based on information in front of her, procedural fairness can sometimes require an opportunity to respond.

If it's clear cut eligibility (ie, applied under a program that say, requires you to be from Hong Kong and you are a citizen of New Zealand) procedural fairness is not always engaged.

 

[armoured]

The reason will determine whether or not a PFL is necessary. If it's based on a visa officer's subjective judgment based on information in front of her, procedural fairness can sometimes require an opportunity to respond.

If it's clear cut eligibility (ie, applied under a program that say, requires you to be from Hong Kong and you are a citizen of New Zealand) procedural fairness is not always engaged.

Interesting how they decide. The cases I'm thinking of are ones I would definitely put in first category. But still, no pfl.

Don't know how they would proceed with sponsor eligibility for residency.

 

[k.h.p.]

Interesting how they decide. The cases I'm thinking of are ones I would definitely put in first category. But still, no pfl.

Don't know how they would proceed with sponsor eligibility for residency.

If there is a PFL there, it often comes up addressed to the spouse - "It appears that your spouse is ineligible" - rather than to the sponsor, but I've seen it delivered to the sponsor as well.

Also, I just re-read part of the procedural manual: another aspect of when a PFL is issued is "extrinsic" evidence (ie, evidence that did not come from the applicant). If the visa officer is relying on extrinsic evidence to potentially refuse an application, a PFL must be issued. This is why we see it based on info sharing, background checks, etc.

If it is information that is directly provided by the applicants, theoretically a PFL is not required.

So in this case - an applicant advising IRCC that they're rendering themselves ineligible to sponsor by leaving Canada and notifying IRCC? No PFL. Had IRCC come across the case based on checking the global entry/exit tracking system? PFL.

 

[yourfather]

So in this case - an applicant advising IRCC that they're rendering themselves ineligible to sponsor by leaving Canada and notifying IRCC? No PFL. Had IRCC come across the case based on checking the global entry/exit tracking system? PFL.

To the folks who are in need and monitoring this thread and not feeling comfortable to comment,

I request you not to pay attention to the lack of intelligence or common sense that is displayed with comments like the one above. The poster above has clearly stated that he/she is not an lawyer or immigration consultant in their signature, but still annoys everyone with their arbitrary law making abilities. Now the poster wants to issue PFL based on what he/she thinks is the norm, awesome! I am super-glad that these individuals are here, instead of IRCC

Forget about these self-proclaimed law makers here, canlii.org has real time IRCC decision records use the search feature to shortlist the R130 refusals. ALL THE SPONSORS who were refused on R130 have cut ties to Canada or stayed outside Canada for the entire processing of their application. Given the pandemic situation and slowdown in processing applications (averaging 18 months now), a 2-3 months stay outside Canada should not raise an issue at all. Provided you maintain all ties to Canada intact 'exactly' as when you left and more importantly not to create new ties during travel. I came across a case where IRCC were able to track down a sponsor's home ownership and a new automobile purchase abroad, during his travel. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii29470/2009canlii29470.html)

In short IRCC is way more intelligent and accurate with their decision making skills rather than what is being pointed out in this forum (Like a 3 month travel is straight denial). A 2-3 month stay outside Canada has nothing to do with R130 as long as you fulfill the principal residency requirement. I have requested a few members who had travelled and are planning to travel to get back to this forum and update us with their outcome. Which includes me.

Do not make your decisions based on this forum as it seems to heavily opinionated. Talk to your immigration attorney, licensed immigration consultants, raise webforms and call IRCC for more accurate info. It is easy for an anonymous poster here to say IRCC agents are clueless, but remember calls to IRCC are legally recorded as intimated. This is something from my experience, if IRCC agents are not comfortable with something they simply wont comment. But 3 different agents and my immigration attorney did clearly mention that a 3 month travel wont affect my eligibility + SA is already complete

 

[k.h.p.]

To the folks who are in need and monitoring this thread and not feeling comfortable to comment,

I request you not to pay attention to the lack of intelligence or common sense that is displayed with comments like the one above. The poster above has clearly stated that he/she is not an lawyer or immigration consultant in their signature, but still annoys everyone with their arbitrary law making abilities. Now the poster wants to issue PFL based on what he/she thinks is the norm, awesome! I am super-glad that these individuals are here, instead of IRCC

Forget about these self-proclaimed law makers here, canlii.org has real time IRCC decision records use the search feature to shortlist the R130 refusals. ALL THE SPONSORS who were refused on R130 have cut ties to Canada or stayed outside Canada for the entire processing of their application. Given the pandemic situation and slowdown in processing applications (averaging 18 months now), a 2-3 months stay outside Canada should not raise an issue at all. Provided you maintain all ties to Canada intact 'exactly' as when you left and more importantly not to create new ties during travel. I came across a case where IRCC were able to track down a sponsor's home ownership and a new automobile purchase abroad, during his travel. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii29470/2009canlii29470.html)

In short IRCC is way more intelligent and accurate with their decision making skills rather than what is being pointed out in this forum (Like a 3 month travel is straight denial). A 2-3 month stay outside Canada has nothing to do with R130 as long as you fulfill the principal residency requirement. I have requested a few members who had travelled and are planning to travel to get back to this forum and update us with their outcome. Which includes me.

Do not make your decisions based on this forum as it seems to heavily opinionated. Talk to your immigration attorney, licensed immigration consultants, raise webforms and IRCC agents for more accurate info. It is easy for an anonymous poster here to say IRCC agents are clueless, but remember calls to IRCC are legally recorded as intimated. This is something from my experience, if IRCC agents are not comfortable with something they simply wont comment. But 3 different agents did clearly mention that a 3 month travel wont affect my eligibility + SA is already complete

hi there

i'm on the internet asking for advice then getting angry when people have thoughts

oh look i forgot to do my stuff

 

[k.h.p.]

Given the pandemic situation and slowdown in processing applications (averaging 18 months now), a 2-3 months stay outside Canada should not raise an issue at all.

This is you, on your own, inventing what you think is case law, based on the opinion of someone you're paying and will continue to pay when you screw up, and a bunch of underpaid phone operators who are not visa officers and cannot provide you with immigration advice.

Hopefully your idea of moving outside Canada while still claiming to be inside Canada works for you. Just leave, and never bother anyone else who is attempting to answer your question.

 

[yourfather]

This is you, on your own, inventing what you think is case law, based on the opinion of someone you're paying and will continue to pay when you screw up, and a bunch of underpaid phone operators who are not visa officers and cannot provide you with immigration advice.

Hopefully your idea of moving outside Canada while still claiming to be inside Canada works for you. Just leave, and never bother anyone else who is attempting to answer your question.

Oh now you are the HR for IRCC call center? Congrats! do IRCC agents get RRSPs?

Yes right I am teleporting between Canada and North Korea. So IRCC will not about my travel ever!