Option for not meeting residency obligation as a PR holder

[Naheulbeuck]

And now, it is becoming impossible to meet RO without fully relocating to Canada. OK, I may do it eventually...

The permanent residency is meant for people who want to settle permanently in Canada but has been used as a convenience tool for people thinking of eventually, maybe, settling permanently in Canada. I don't assign blame here, immigration to Canada is not as easy as people would think or like and therefore, trying to keep more options is understandable.

Covid has however highlighted for people in those situations that it is not meant as such a tool, and that when something unforeseen and unavoidable happens, it can make it really difficult to meet the RO, and Canada has no obligation to make it easier.

In your case for example, the fact that you do not plan to settle permanently, either in the past 3 years or in the near future is what makes it hard for you to meet your RO.
The restrictions you mentioned would not apply to you if you did as France allowed people to leave IF it was to return to their place of residence or to settle somewhere else, with the caveat that it meant no guarantee that you could return to France when you want, even as a citizen.

This caveat was specifically for people like you who were concerned about maintaining their RO in other countries/move out of France permanently. It therefore takes away most of the proper argument that this prevented someone from maintaining RO.

Let's face it, for the vast majority breaching their RO, it is due to a personal choice to delay settlement/maintain residence in 2 different places at the same time (or over a period of time) whether that is for economic reasons, family ties, convenience...and well those choices do come with consequences (but can still be the right choice, after all being a PR of Canada may not be the greatest thing as the grass is not always greener.

 

[canuck78]

@canuck78 I logged just to reply to your illogical question (which keeps getting repeated over and over again across this site). If Covid happened during the 1st one year and ppl had 2 normal years after then your question is valid not the other way around.
1. Canada travel policy says "Avoid all non essential travel outside Canada" and defines non essential travel as "It is up to you to decide what “non-essential travel” means". So what happens to people who left Canada before covid? is Travelling to Canada for non essential purpose is it ok?
2. UK travel policy says "You should not travel to amber list countries or territories." and Canada is an amber country.
3. When I signed up to the PR RO rules, they did not warn me of additional hotel quarantine expenses that I should bear JUST bcos of THEIR new rules
4. Finally the most important point of all is "any travel during this time should be avoided by everyone", if not, its an irresponsible thing to do. What if I get covid and pass it on to your parents while travelling to Canada to meet RO rules (and your parents take seriously ill or die?) is that worth me travelling to just fulfil my RO?
Nobody is trying to trick Canada and get more time to stay outside, its the situation caused by Covid, however small it is still an impact. If hotel quarantine costs £2000 more and 2 extra months to get a job thats a lost opportunity of £12000 (almost $25000 cad), who should take that hit and why? The government, me or will you?
THINK before you blurt your narrow minded thoughts online. (Iam bracing for more illogical quabble from you, but you will promptly ignored)

1. Moving permanently to Canada is considered essential travel for most countries. Granting PR is meant for people who want to settle in Canada permanently.
2. You keep on mentioning “traveling” but when it comes to PRs they are moving to Canada to settle permanently.
3. Nobody predicted a quarantine when creating the rules. It all comes down to how much people prioritize their PR status. For most people the cost of a quarantine hotel and quarantine in general is another expense added to their relocation expenses and is a one time expense that is worth it to enter Canada and retain their PR status.
4. Essential travel is unavoidable. There are procedures in place to minimize risk and most people have the flexibility to delay travel, if needed, because Canada has a very lenient RO for PRs. If people are settling in Canada permanently, which is the purpose of the PR program, needing to delay travel for 1 year will not have any impact on their ability to meet their RO. If people are trying to meet their RO by coming to Canada on vacations or have delayed their travel to Canada to settle for 3 years they have less options. If you have only planned on settling in Canada 3 years after landing or plan on trying to meet your RO via numerous short visits to Canada you know you are taking a calculated risk and that any unexpected problem could result in you not meeting your RO. When relocating to another country there is a cost. Hotel quarantine is currently part of the relocation cost. Although unexpected it is a one time cost for most people and has only been in place for less than 6 months so people have had plenty of time to travel. Canada requires proof of settlement funds because it realizes that there is a cost to resettling to another country. Settling in Canada is a choice. There is nobody making you retain your PR status. If your priority is not settling in Canada then you can remain in France and keep working at your job. Nobody is forcing people to move to Canada but the PR program is not meant for people who want to settle in Canada in the distant future.

 

[cic86]

@canuck78 I logged just to reply to your illogical question (which keeps getting repeated over and over again across this site). If Covid happened during the 1st one year and ppl had 2 normal years after then your question is valid not the other way around.
1. Canada travel policy says "Avoid all non essential travel outside Canada" and defines non essential travel as "It is up to you to decide what “non-essential travel” means". So what happens to people who left Canada before covid? is Travelling to Canada for non essential purpose is it ok?
2. UK travel policy says "You should not travel to amber list countries or territories." and Canada is an amber country.
3. When I signed up to the PR RO rules, they did not warn me of additional hotel quarantine expenses that I should bear JUST bcos of THEIR new rules
4. Finally the most important point of all is "any travel during this time should be avoided by everyone", if not, its an irresponsible thing to do. What if I get covid and pass it on to your parents while travelling to Canada to meet RO rules (and your parents take seriously ill or die?) is that worth me travelling to just fulfil my RO?
Nobody is trying to trick Canada and get more time to stay outside, its the situation caused by Covid, however small it is still an impact. If hotel quarantine costs £2000 more and 2 extra months to get a job thats a lost opportunity of £12000 (almost $25000 cad), who should take that hit and why? The government, me or will you?
THINK before you blurt your narrow minded thoughts online. (Iam bracing for more illogical quabble from you, but you will promptly ignored)

I get a lot of pushback on this forum about adjusting the RO to meet the ground realities in Canada even as more and more people are finding it difficult if not impossible to meet the RO but most of the pushback comes from a mindset of "I went through the same or worse so should you" OR guilty until proven innocent as if we're all trying to cheat the immigration system in some way. Probably they had it easier when they entered Canada so now theyre telling everyone to follow the law to a T. Look, RO is not the gospel that can't be changed as per changing times.

First of all noone would even apply for a PR if they didn't want to settle here so this assumption that we're all trying to cheat the Canadian immigration system just because we want to enter Canada at a time that is tailored to our personal circumstances is absurd. If it says 2 out of 5 non-consecutive years then it's my choice when I want to enter and I don't need to give an explanation (not that I mind explaining) why I decided the last two years and if some pandemic strikes then I shouldn't have to explain why I didn't meet the RO in the first two years. If that's the case then change this RO to just 2 years from date of landing.

Even before the pandemic it was difficult to meet the RO, in the pandemic its not likely unless you're that one lucky guy who landed a job and is able to afford living there. Now even minimum wage jobs are difficult to come by unless you're fine ruining your health doing back breaking labour jobs which most of the people coming from educated households through express entry simply aren't cut out to do. You can't go from a desk job to a coal mine(I'm exaggerating a bit) just to keep the RO valid.

Anyway the bottom line is that RO is the least of Canada's concerns as they have enough people wanting to settle there. Demand far outweighs supply and I've heard they're planning to scrap express entry altogether and just convert all current visa holders/temporary workers to PRs.

 

[armoured]

Look, RO is not the gospel that can't be changed as per changing times.

It may not be the gospel but it IS the law - and unless there is a prospect of the law changing, it is what it is. (There currently appears to be zero prospect of the law being changed).

First of all noone would even apply for a PR if they didn't want to settle here

Actually lots of people do. This is a fact. Leaving out whether that is 'cheating', it's not what the intention of the law is.

If it says 2 out of 5 non-consecutive years then it's my choice when I want to enter and I don't need to give an explanation

This is absolutely true. If you are in compliance with the RO, it's entirely your business and choice.

and if some pandemic strikes then I shouldn't have to explain why I didn't meet the RO in the first two years.

Not sure what you mean by 'didn't meet the RO in the first two years' - a new PR who doesn't meet in the first two years is still in compliance and no issue. But if you mean out-of-compliance, BY LAW it is their business, whether pandemic or not. Now, every indication is that they are being quite lenient about truly pandemic-related issues - but all anyone is saying here, really, is that 'pandemic' is not a blank cheque to be out of compliance - particularly if the non-compliance dated to before the pandemic began.

Anyway the bottom line is that RO is the least of Canada's concerns as they have enough people wanting to settle there. Demand far outweighs supply and I've heard they're planning to scrap express entry altogether and just convert all current visa holders/temporary works as PRs.

Leaving aside the 'demand outweighs supply' and your characterization - the fact that the government has decided to make converting to PR for those already in Canada says nothing about any long-term plans to make RO compliance easier for those who are not in Canada. (Apart from perhaps continuing to be lenient about pandemic-related delays where THEY decide that it's a reasonable justification).

Sure, the government MIGHT decide to do something in future. If you wish to guess or rely upon that, that's your business and your risk. My guess is that they increase immigration by widening the scope/lowering some of the requirements to get more immigrants to come and stay rather than relaxing the ROs, because immigrants who do not actually reside in Canada are not contributing to meeting 'demand' anyway. (As I understand for the most part changes to immigration programs and the 'standards' required do not requite changes in law but that's outside my area of expertise).

This all basically repeats what @dpenabill and others have stated: the RO is under law; if you're in compliance with the RO, no issues; if you're out of compliance, they must - by law - make an assessment and determination; the existing RO is rather lenient and there is every indication - so far - that there is considerable leniency about covid-related non-compliance; but that does not mean a blanket "covid means non-compliance is okay / now you're back in compliance" policy.

 

[dpenabill]

I get a lot of pushback on this forum about adjusting the RO to meet the ground realities in Canada even as more and more people are finding it difficult if not impossible to meet the RO but most of the pushback comes from a mindset of "I went through the same or worse so should you" OR guilty until proven innocent as if we're all trying to cheat the immigration system in some way.

I concur in the particularly well-stated responses posted above by @armoured . . . in which, I'd note, there is no hint of a "pushback" coming "from a mindset of 'I went through the same or worse so should you' OR guilty until proven innocent as if we're all trying to cheat the immigration system in some way."

And to the extent one might describe my observations as "pushback," my comments are focused on illuminating and explaining how things actually work, and are intended to help in the way that knowing how things actually work usually enables an individual to make better decisions in navigating their way through the process. (I will address the how-it-should-be aspect below.)

Frankly, I see very little of the sort of pushback you are complaining about. I see many forum participants making a concerted effort to help others understand the nature and scope of the Residency Obligation and its enforcement, as well as the nature and scope of potential H&C relief for those who have failed to comply with the RO. Sure, there is some troll-bait-and-deride stuff peppered in discussions here and there, but as online forums go, this one seems to be working rather well.

I thought the comments posted by @Naheulbeuck were particularly on point, a very good response to one of the primary queries at issue in this thread.

While I typically emphasize and frame things differently, I also largely agree with most (not all but most) of the observations by @canuck78 in the post you quoted. There too, no hint of the mindset you describe. And even though that post addresses some of the harsher elements, it is clearly intended to highlight the practical realities which are key to making informed decisions.


REGARDING . . . "adjusting the RO to meet the ground realities in Canada even as more and more people are finding it difficult if not impossible to meet the RO"

Overview: there is no prospect of adjusting (changing) the RO itself, but the current system already incorporates a mechanism for adjusting the enforcement of the RO for individuals.

You have, in other threads, proposed making changes to the RO itself, using terms like "reduce" the RO. Several forum participants responded, me included, and most did so with no hint of the "mindset" you complain about.

Thing about this subject, reducing the RO itself, is that it is a dead end. Not on the table. Not in the ballpark. Not even in the back of the mind of any MP currently in Parliament. As I responded to you in at least one of those other discussions, and this is something I am as certain of as anything, there is no prospect of changes to the PR Residency Obligation that will be more liberal, more lenient or flexible, than the current 2/5 rule. And, as I also noted in the other discussion, "it could, however, be worse." Make no mistake, if changes to the RO were entertained by Parliament, the odds are overwhelming the changes would go in the direction of a more strict or limited RO. The way it is.

But that discussion is also off-topic in this thread, which is about PRs dealing with the RO and to what extent relief is available for those who are in breach due, at least in part or allegedly, to the impact of Covid-19.

So if your comment here about "adjusting the RO" is about changing the the Residency Obligation itself, that's an easy one: NOT going to happen. Be real (really): move on.

If the comment about "adjusting the RO" is about IRCC adopting some policy or practice specifically in response to the impact of Covid-19, that is a more complicated and perhaps difficult subject. Even as to this, however, there is still NO prospect that the RO itself will be changed, amended, or otherwise revised.

So it is important to focus on what sort of "adjusting" is contemplated, and to understand what is possible.

This is where the subject of H&C relief looms large. That is the pressure release valve wired into the existing system. That is, the current RO structure already includes a mechanism for "adjusting" the impact of the RO. It does not change the RO itself. Rather, in some cases, where H&C considerations warrant, it allows for "adjusting" how the RO will affect a PR. . . not across the board, but in respect to specific individual PRs who are adjudged (determined) to be deserving of the opportunity to keep their PR status DESPITE their failure to comply with the RO (the very liberal, generous 2/5 RO).

That is, to the extent there should be some adjusting of the RO, there is some adjustment available, at least in terms of how it is enforced. Available for a range of reasons, not just those Covid-related.

Which is why I and others have repeatedly referenced that to the extent Covid-19 explains why a particular PR has failed to return to Canada so long as to have breached the RO, this is a factor officials must and will consider before issuing a Removal Order or denying an application for a PR Travel Document.

Otherwise, IRCC may adopt and implement some general policies or practices relative to how officials weigh the Covid-19 factor in the H&C analysis. Maybe. No sign of one. The current, existing framework for evaluating H&C factors is probably seen as sufficient. But given the nature and extent of how this pandemic has affected so many, it would make sense if IRCC did attempt to craft a policy or practice specific to this. For someone who is genuinely concerned and ambitious, this is a subject that might be worth an ATI application. I do not have the time to pursue that, but would very much appreciate seeing the product if someone else will do it.