Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE

[dpenabill]

In another topic, there was a recent IAD decision relevant to this subject cited, linked, and discussed. That has to do with an IAD decision published here: http://canlii.ca/t/hs76z

It is an interesting decision but does NOT illuminate much about how the who-accompanied-whom question will be addressed in other situations.

Here is what I offered . . .

This is indeed interesting . . . albeit in the sense that it represents ONE possible outcome among situations in which PRs are relying on credit toward Residency Obligation compliance based on the accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse (partner) in circumstances which might involve the who-accompanied-whom question.

There is a topic specifically about this issue, including a discussion about Mustafa v Canada, 2018 CanLII 47219 (see http://canlii.ca/t/hs76z ), which while relied on in this IAD decision, is merely another IAD decision. See https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/

Obviously an IAD decision will NOT offer a definitive decision regarding how the who-accompanied-whom question will apply in other cases. And, indeed, even if appealed and the Federal Court offered a decision, that too would NOT be a binding precedent and thus NOT definitive, since FC decisions are NOT binding on any other Federal Court . . . and there are already divergent FC decisions about this.

There are, nonetheless, some salient elements evident in this particular case. As is often the case, relative equitable factors might explain the outcome here, including the PR being in a relatively sympathetic situation and the extent of the breach was not huge.

To my view the bigger question is what became of this individual's citizenship application. In this regard it warrants noting that this is a case which began when there was a Harper government and a persistent agenda to preclude granting citizenship to those who appeared to apply-on-the-way-to-the-airport.

In any event, it needs to be emphasized that the outcome in this particular instance does NOT represent the rule. Indeed, even though this particular case arose under a Conservative government, it was the current Liberal government arguing for a who-accompanied-whom analysis that would deny RO credit and thus result in the loss of PR status here. While THIS IAD panel did not agree, the Minister appears to have argued for the application of a who-accompanied-whom approach.

 

[canuck78]

In another topic, there was a recent IAD decision relevant to this subject cited, linked, and discussed. That has to do with an IAD decision published here: http://canlii.ca/t/hs76z

It is an interesting decision but does NOT illuminate much about how the who-accompanied-whom question will be addressed in other situations.

Here is what I offered . . .

Pretty ridiculous.

 

[dpenabill]

Further observations about the IAD decision in the Graziella Romain Louis case http://canlii.ca/t/hxz44 in which this particular IAD panel applied the interpretation and principles articulated in Mustafa v Canada, 2018 CanLII 47219 see http://canlii.ca/t/hs76z

and NOT the interpretation and principles articulated in Diouf, 2011 CanLII 59952 see http://canlii.ca/t/fn81r

These and related decisions are discussed in depth and at length in previous posts above.


FACTS AND ISSUES IN THIS CASE:

What is most interesting about this particular case is the Minister advocated a negative who-accompanied-whom analysis EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS NOT an issue in the original visa office decision to deny the application for a PR Travel Document and NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that Louis had, it appears, solidly established actual residence in Canada before going abroad (apparently living continuously in Canada from at least 2007 to October 2011). Indeed, Louis had sufficiently established residency to qualify for and be approved for a grant of Canadian citizenship.

Thus, this case does NOT fit within the range of "NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS" (to the standard approach which allows the credit so long as the couple have been living together, with NO regard to who-accompanied-whom) discussed at length above.

It is relatively easy to identify the probable reason this case was flagged and approached the way it was: it appears that Louis was among those the then Harper government perceived to be one in which an applicant for citizenship was applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, a class of citizenship applicants specifically targeted by the Harper government . . . so much so that the Harper government specifically adopted a provision in the requirements for citizenship which provided grounds to summarily deny any applicant who left Canada to live elsewhere while a citizenship application was pending (this provision was adopted after Louis had already been approved for a grant of citizenship, and it was subsequently repealed by the Liberal government).

Back when the visa officer denied the Louis PR TD application the Harper government was aggressively applying strict interpretations of the rules and laws to preclude a grant of citizenship to such individuals and to also terminate PR status.

Which leads to another significant prong of the facts: the visa officer's decision did not involve ANY consideration of credit toward the RO for time accompanying a Canadian citizen . . . Louis did NOT make a case for such credit in her PR TD application.

It was AFTER the visa office denied the PR TD application that Louis and her partner claimed they were a common-law couple who had been living together, and that she was thus entitled to the credit for time they were living together abroad.

This does not explain why the Minister was still advocating a narrow and strict interpretation of the "accompanying" credit before the IAD in 2018 when this appeal was heard and decided. Especially considering, again, that Louis had indeed established actual residency in Canada before going abroad (see, in contrast, the facts in the cases following the Diouf approach, in which with unusual exceptions the PRs had minimal establishment in Canada prior to going abroad). Especially considering that the Canadian citizen could simply apply to sponsor Louis again if PR status was terminated.


RAISING THE QUESTION: Does the Minister's approach in this case signal a policy toward a more strict approach considering who-accompanied-whom?

This single IAD case is NOT anywhere near enough of an indication of a policy change to infer any signal. While it cannot be seen as signalling a more strict who-accompanied-whom approach, it leaves open the possibility there is some trend in that direction.

The more looming RISK factor is the coming Federal election and the possibility of a Conservative government, and if so that would quite likely mean a definite trend toward a more strict approach.

I wonder if the Minister will appeal to the Federal Court.

I'd be surprised if there was an appeal as this would open up the term "accompanying" for a definitive interpretation of the word by the FCC. It's a can of worms as it appears here and there in legislation. As it is the IAD may or may not live by this analysis and the department can wait for a more important case to challenge, if it appears at all.

The risk management here would be to either lose this one and continue with the current practice, or to have every instance of "accompanying" in the Act scrutinized for any vulnerabilities. That would be a task.

Of course I do NOT know what criteria the litigation department of IRCC employs in deciding which decisions to appeal, BUT it is readily apparent that MOST IAD decisions are NOT appealed. The Minister's representative at the IAD hearing, Isabelle Joseph, can make a recommendation to appeal, of course, and that is probably a significant factor.

However, NO, a Minister's appeal would NOT necessarily "open up the term "accompanying" for a definitive interpretation of the word by the FCC."

NEITHER IAD decisions NOR Federal Court decisions establish binding precedents. There are already multiple IAD decisions and FC decisions interpreting "accompanying" differently in relation to the PR Residency Obligation credit available while "accompanying" a Canadian citizen spouse abroad. There is nothing about the Louis case which suggests it is likely to result further appeals beyond the FC even if it is appealed to the FC.

Remember, both IAD and FC cases are mostly about the facts in the individual case and applying the law to those facts.

Pretty ridiculous.

There is one case that is constantly used as precedence which is normal in the law but don't agree with the first judgement. In this case the partner clearly moved to Haiti after the woman had been living there. She also claimed she needed support after a traumatic divorce so moved home but was already in another relationship. She literally remained in Canada until she applied for citizenship and left and only planned to return for the ceremony.

Not sure what you are saying is "pretty ridiculous."

There is NO "one case that is constantly used as precedence" in relation to the who-accompanied-whom issue. Indeed, the who-accompanied-whom issue is mostly tied to particular fact patterns, which with rare exceptions (now including the Louis case) is ONLY applied within a range I have described as "NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS" to the standard approach pursuant to which the credit is allowed so long as the couple is living together.

What is more perplexing about Louis is the extent to which the Minister's representative advocated the who-accompanied-whom approach, as I discuss above, especially considering that Louis' spouse can simply sponsor her for PR again anyway . . . why waste the effort to strip this PR of status when she can so easily simply regain it?

Unless the citizenship case is also still pending. That seems unlikely. But it is possible. There were some flaws in the Harper era citizenship laws regarding suspending citizenship applications (such that the government was in effect compelled to proceed with grants of citizenship in cases which should have gone the other way), which the Liberal government eventually fixed (which fixes would not apply to a 2014 citizenship grant decision), and perhaps it is the grant of citizenship which is looming in the balance, explaining why the Minister was still pushing for a negative outcome in this case. That seems improbable to me, but again it is possible. After all, there are few if any signs that the current government is otherwise pushing a stricter interpretation of the accompanying a citizen credit toward RO compliance. That is, I rather doubt this case has much importance beyond its impact on the individuals involved.

 

[dpenabill]

A Further Observation and Clarification: There Is Little or No Sign A More Definitive Interpretation of "Accompanying" Is Needed.

Some of the posted comments appear to suggest the who-accompanied-whom question poses a problem in need of a fix, a definitive ruling or change in the law; that is, that the meaning of "accompanying" needs clarification or a definitive interpretation.

I do NOT see it that way. Not at all.

There is a STANDARD approach to allowing credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse. It is amply illustrated in the appendix to the guide for PR card applications in which the Residency Obligation is addressed in detail, including a detailed description of what is required to document eligibility for the credit and the documents which will support this. THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST PR's PROVIDE, LET ALONE REQUIRE PR's TO PROVIDE, ANY INFORMATION ABOUT WHO-ACCOMPANIED-WHOM.

There is NO indication that who-accompanied-whom is considered EXCEPT in a narrow range of situations, situations involving what I have described as "NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS."

ENF 23 still states that "it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom." (Section 7.5 on page 25)

As I have discussed, I do not see that the IAD Louis case indicates any significant change . . . sure, it extends the range of notable exceptions a bit, but it is nonetheless a case in which it is easy to see why the government had concerns and was approaching the PR more stringently.

So sure, as this topic addresses, there are SOME situations in which PRs living abroad and relying on the accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse credit should take extra care and evaluate their situation with due consideration for the possibility that who-accompanied-whom could be a factor. But generally, as I have oft emphasized above, a PR settled in Canada who subsequently moves abroad WITH a Canadian citizen spouse, does NOT need to worry about a who-accompanied-whom question SO LONG AS the couple is primarily living together.

 

[dpenabill]

Just an update to cite and link a late 2019 IAD decision which goes into some depth analyzing differing approaches to the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit:

In'Airat v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 124093 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4cls

The analysis is worth reading for anyone who has concerns about this issue or who comments in response to queries posed about this issue. I do not intend to try paraphrasing or even summarizing the Panel's analysis.

EXCEPT: This panel cites some legislative history which supports the view that who-accompanied-whom does NOT matter. Otherwise this panel holds that nonetheless one must accompany the other and therefore to qualify for the credit the couple must either actually travel abroad together, "or within a reasonable time-frame" both go to a place they reside together. Thus rejecting the approach that just living together abroad will qualify for the credit.

The analysis seems persuasive.

While it is entirely not clear to what extent it is an approach that will be followed by CBSA or IRCC or other panels, there is another 2019 decision by a different panel adopting a similar (though not as fully analyzed) approach (numbered differently), with a different result given different facts. See Jiang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 128447 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4wmz

In particular, the influence that reasoning has on other players (other IAD panels, IRCC, CBSA, even the Minister) is NOT clear is that there is also another 2019 IAD decision going the other way:
Gehrke v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 124068 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4cms
where the approach that the credit applies as long as the couple travel together was rejected, and rather the credit is only available where the Canadian citizen "is the primary person or the cause for being outside Canada." One acknowledged factor was how long the PR has lived and worked abroad, approaching 9 years. One possible but not acknowledged factor might be discrimination. See the decision to decide for yourself.

 

[dpenabill]

A Further Observation and Clarification: There Is Little or No Sign A More Definitive Interpretation of "Accompanying" Is Needed.

Some of the posted comments appear to suggest the who-accompanied-whom question poses a problem in need of a fix, a definitive ruling or change in the law; that is, that the meaning of "accompanying" needs clarification or a definitive interpretation.

I do NOT see it that way. Not at all.

Unfortunately, I am WRONG on too many occasions (I am, for sure, NOT an expert, even if I can find and regurgitate certain information at length). The post quoted above, from nearly a year ago, is an example. I was WRONG.

This is more obvious lately, but to be clear, I was also wrong back then, about a year ago.

A more definitive interpretation of "accompanying" is needed.

Many of the somewhat recent cases which illustrate that a more definitive interpretation of "accompanying" is needed were already well in the pipeline a year ago. And after all, some six months plus before that it was @Tubsmagee and @zardoz who did the research and identified the surge in cases where who-accompanied-whom was making a difference. I was slow, way too slow, to adequately pick up the trend . . . especially since it was becoming increasingly the case that representatives for both the Minister of IRCC and the Minister for Public Safety were arguing for the who-accompanied-whom approach.

There is stark inconsistency in how the rules are being applied depending on which official is making the decision, including those acting as quasi-judicial decision-makers (the IAD panels). There are now three rather commonly applied approaches,

-- credit depends on who-accompanied-whom, OR​

-- the Temporal-Nexus approach where it does not matter who-accompanied-whom but there must be a temporal connection in when BOTH moved from Canada to another country (that is, credit depends on couple moving from Canada together or at least around the same time), OR​

-- credit is available for any days the PR was ordinarily living together with the Canadian citizen partner abroad (does not matter who-accompanied-whom)​

Canadians, including Canadian PRs, deserve to know what the rules are and how they will be applied. Canadian PRs should not need to guess which interpretation of the rules will be applied to them. The maxim that individuals are responsible to know the law that applies to their behavior depends on the law being knowable, not a guess as to which version of three might be applied.

The situation is a reminder of the mess caused by differing interpretations of the citizenship residency requirement before the law changed to impose a physical presence requirement. For decades there were a number of different ways the citizenship residency requirement was interpreted, and ultimately each individual Citizenship Judge was free to apply whichever version that CJ thought was the right one. Thus, applicants did not know, not for certain, which way the rules would be applied to their case. Much inconsistency and injustice resulted.

Now we have three rather different interpretations of the statutory provision allowing credit toward the RO for the time a PR is abroad accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-partner. Any particular PR who has been living abroad with a Canadian citizen partner may encounter any one of these three approaches. The results involve much inconsistency. Many if not most of us perceive such inconsistency and lack of predictability to likely result in injustice. That's not good.

It is time for either the Parliament to clarify what the rule actually is, or amend the law to implement a more specific rule (like Parliament replaced a vague residency requirement with an actual physical presence requirement for citizenship). Or, there should be a review all the way to the Federal Court of Appeals which can impose a definitive interpretation of what "accompanying" means (a Federal Court decision will not accomplish this because these decisions do not establish binding precedent).


IN THE MEANTIME . . .

In the meantime, as is wont to happen, in the last few weeks this issue has suddenly surfaced in multiple scenarios underlying various queries in this forum, which along with some of the commentary suggests there is probably more than a little misunderstanding and some outright misconceptions about the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-partner-credit toward RO compliance. And I have been banging out some detailed responses, scattered about in multiple topics. Including discussion and citation of some of the more recent cases (mostly 2019 cases but some 2018 cases I had not previously seen as well).

And in the meantime, what more recent IAD decisions illuminate is that it is NOT safe to categorize the who-accompanied-whom question as an outlier or unlikely absent "notable exceptions." These days consideration of who-accompanied-whom clearly appears to be more than merely possible, a real risk in certain situations, and perhaps quite likely in certain situations.

The latter, in which it now seems likely some version of who-accompanied-whom questions might arise, includes a few such situations that have been discussed in other topics here within the last two to three weeks or so.

I am hoping to keep this topic as current as practical. It gets difficult and time consuming chasing these discussions in multiple topics.

Without revisiting the recently posted commentary in other topics, but in an effort to keep the sources cited here fresh, here are some additional decisions regarding this issue:

Kirpal v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 130765 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j5hmh
No credit given because citizen was accompanying the PR, not the PR accompanying the citizen; but H&C relief allowed

Haddadian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 130720 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j5hkm
No credit based on no temporal nexus in moving abroad (PR abroad was in common law relationship with a Canadian the PR met AFTER the PR was already abroad)

And as already oft cited in other topics, the new PRIs (adopted February 2020) containing guidelines for Residency Determinations is here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/card/permanent-resident-determination.html


Pleading Excuses: Part of why I was slow to pick up the trend is that it was only four and five years ago that CIC/IRCC was increasingly issuing multiple-entry PR Travel Documents to some PRs living abroad with a Canadian citizen partner, which seemed to signal a more lenient, flexible approach to such cases. And right up to now, IRCC's request for supporting proof to get this credit is still focused on showing the couple are living together abroad (in conjunction with showing the qualifying relationship and the partner's citizenship), with NO questions about why the couple are living abroad or who accompanied whom.

 

[dpenabill]

This post is largely about whether or not the rules governing the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-spouse-abroad credit toward the PR Residency Obligation need revision to clarify the application of this credit in situations where it is not clear the PR is "accompanying" the Canadian citizen spouse, which does not affect many but has had an impact in cases where it is more or less obvious that the PR did not *go with* or *accompany* the citizen spouse, but was already abroad, especially for PRs who have never actually settled in Canada.

In particular, I am copying the below quote from another topic, and responding in this thread which is where I have made an effort to consolidate (perhaps only for my own convenience) ongoing information in regards to the potential for a who-accompanied-whom issue affecting PRs relying on the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-spouse-abroad credit toward the PR Residency Obligation.

As the date of the previous post above, here, reflects, this issue has not come up much of late, which is obviously due (at least in large part) to the impact of the global Covid-19 pandemic. The latter continues as viciously as ever and is likely to skew all sorts of immigration related processes and issues. At least for awhile.

Going forward, for some time, we are likely to learn less and will almost certainly see more incongruities and inconsistencies relative to what has been, historically, the range of typical processing and related issues.

In particular, we have rather little feedback about how IRCC, including Visa Offices processing PR TD applications, or CBSA in PoE screening, are approaching PRs with RO compliance issues during this time. Let alone the who-accompanied-whom issue.

The applicable statutory provisions, the rules, have not changed. There is no hint significant changes are coming any time soon. In the meantime, one impact of the pandemic is fairly predictable: it very likely has delayed and will continue to delay a move back to Canada for a significant percentage of PRs abroad, including those relying on the accompanying-a-citizen-spouse abroad credit.

I assume that IRCC (and perhaps CBSA, although reports of CBSA PoE screening including who-accompanied-whom inquiries are very few, too few to support conclusions, and this is going back to before the pandemic) will be approaching PR RO compliance much as it did before the pandemic, EVENTUALLY, in which event this particular who-accompanied-whom issue will likely continue to arise in SOME (just some) cases where PRs are relying on the accompanying-a-citizen-spouse abroad credit.

Agree that mostly this does not change (much) what is known about how to achieve (relative) certainty about PR status.

While I'm in general pro-transparency and predictability, I'm more willing to accept a situation where the application of the law/rules is generally more lenient than the strict language of the law, and think it has to be seen in the context of a residency obligation framework that is already pretty flexible. And in addition, since this particular rule applies primarily to PRs with citizen-spouses, they also have the 'back-up' solution of being sponsored anew.

Beyond that, I'd note two points: if this provision is ever clarified to increase certainty, it is likely to be in the direction of more strict and narrow interpretation; and, I think the likelihood of this being considered a priority are low.

It's a reality of parliament/government attention that the prominence of the problem matters - and we're talking about a relatively limited number of cases where the precise interpretation matters much. (To make a guess - probably well less than 1000 cases a year? Possibly even in the low hundreds? In the context of an immigration system that admits a couple hundred thousand per year, a rounding error - and a rounding error that doesn't seem to produce that many truly problematic or profoundly unfair results)

And on top of that, it's an issue where it's actually somewhat difficult to provide precise, simple language that would actually resolve most of the cases - so new (probably tighter) rules would likely not actually 'fix' the issue, and many would still end up requiring longer procedures and judgment that would often still be subject to appeal, etc.

Even worse, attempts to fix the issue could actually make things worse in terms of increased administrative load and costs to government. Sometimes a lack of precision combined with relative leniency is actually just more efficient. (If it's only a little bit broken, maybe fixing it is the wrong approach?)

Anyway, as you well note, this doesn't really have direct relevance to the OP's case and question, for which the current framework applies.

These are all very astute and useful observations, and to the extent certain positions are asserted, very reasonable, such as the preference for a liberal or lenient application rather than, say, a more strict rule. Similarly, the more or less administrative-efficiency argument. For this alone they warrant copying into this topic.

A year ago, or there about, we were perceiving a distinct trend toward a more restrictive and perhaps aggressive approach in how IRCC was assessing RO compliance for PRs living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse. Especially in arguments made by the Minister's counsel in IAD proceedings. Covid-19 appears to have been the main and perhaps only reason that trend has, it seems, abated.

It is difficult to discern even a very vague idea about how many PRs might be affected. And, for many of those affected, the absence of any real or substantial settlement or roots IN Canada, tends to suggest their problems derive largely from their own conduct blatantly contrary to the purpose and intent of the law.

But if, as many of us were apprehending a year ago, IRCC is moving toward an interpretation and application of the credit that expands the screening of PRs living abroad with Canadian citizen spouses, toward more broadly and more often denying credit based on a who-accompanied-whom analysis, those potentially affected deserve to know what the rules are and how they will be applied. As I have said, Canadian PRs should not need to guess which interpretation of the rules will be applied to them.


Some Observations About My Approach, Generally:

Because I make an effort to stay mostly focused on the way things actually work, there are only a very few matters for which I discuss what the law or rules should be (as opposed to addressing what they are). One, for example, was when there was a "residency" requirement for citizenship, with at least three very different interpretations and approaches, regarding which I discussed and advocated the need for clarifying revision at length . . . but of course scores of Federal Court justices had been railing and begging for clarifying revision for at least a decade before I wrestled with the issue. There was no doubt and widespread agreement about the residency requirement being so inconsistently interpreted and applied there was gross unfairness.

Another issue I have discussed in this way is the 2012 revision of IRPA which added a provision for automatically terminating the PR status of refugees based on "reavailment" of home country protection, which in turn could be based on (and under the Harper government was aggressively pursued) conduct that was not at all inconsistent with continuing to be a Canadian PR. (A complicated subject, discussed in the Citizenship conference of this forum, aggravated by the manner in which many were essentially entrapped.)

In any event, relative to my observations here, I do not wade into a what-the-rules-should-be fray lightly. Even when I do, it is almost always in favour of revision eliminating some problem with the existing rules which either results in overt injustice (such as the termination of PR status of refugees rules) or involves ambiguities that can lead to serious injustice or result in outcomes that are so inconsistent as to be inherently unjust.

I may hold and express strong opinions apart from my observations here . . . for example, I had some strong views contrary to Harper's "intent to reside" requirement for citizenship, but kept those to myself and focused, at the time, on dealing with what the requirement was and how it would work, including efforts to correct grossly erroneous overstatements about it that permeated this and other forums.

Regarding this issue, whether or not the accompanying a citizen spouse credit should be subject to a who-accompanied-whom analysis, it warrants noting and highlighting a significant distinction: What the fix should be, is one thing. Whether a fix is needed, is very much another. They are related, of course, considering that administrative-efficiency aspect for example.

But as I noted, a big part of why I rather recently (albeit that was nearly a year ago now) came round to the view this subject warrants a *fix* was the apparent trend toward more frequent and more aggressive application of the who-accompanied-whom analysis . . . and if that is the direction the Canadian government is headed, PRs living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse should have the benefit of a clear statement regarding what the rule actually requires.

 

[armoured]

Thank you @dpenabill for your kind comments. I should note that I do not have deep knowledge of the subject, and indeed only read most of this thread today. Some thoughts (for what they are worth) after reading a bit more, including skimming some of the decisions rendered.

1) In terms of the transparency and clarity that PRs would like to see: I'm genuinely disturbed by the apparent contradiction between the language in ENF23 and the actual application (albeit in sporadic decisions), i.e. ENF23 states "In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met." (My emphasis). This language is quite clear and simple and if it does not reflect actual application by IRCC staff or IAD decision-makers of how they will approach the question (and it clearly does not, at least not consistently), it is a major problem and can lead to arbitrary differences in ways cases are treated.

2) Potential changes: those advocating changes should, however, be aware that changes may not be the ones they desire, or in other words, 'be careful what you wish for.' The most simple change to this from IRCC/government perspective would be either to remove this language, to tighten it, or to make explicit that examining officers should apply judgment when determining whether to give 'credit' in the context of the factual elements of a particular case (likely considering the intent of the law). Or potentially make explicit that officers should make a determination based on who-accompanies-whom and disallow such credit in cases where the PR is not accompanying a spouse.

As I noted in that other thread, I am skeptical that government/parliament would undertake a significant review of this policy: the actual number of such cases appears to be relatively small, and given the difficulties in precisely describing the limits of this policy, it is not clear that it would actually resolve that high a proportion of such cases, nor actually reduce the administrative burden (and costs). At present, it seems to come up most (based on the IAD cases) where someone considers there's some 'abuse' of the intent (note: not using abuse here in any legal sense).

In addition, since these are spousal cases, most such PRs who lose would have the option of re-applying for permanent residency anew under sponsorship. (This obviously would be an issue for those that divorce, and for all involves some extra cost and inconvenience, including potentially long processing times)

3) The actual cases: as noted, I've only skimmed some of the cases cited, and certainly do not have the information / data to compare to previous ones or note trends. My impression, however, is that when one looks at the actual cases that led to IAD decisions - most of them are not-even-close. (In my personal opinion only).

a) The dominant thread in most of these cases is the following scenario: PR gets status in Canada; either spends very little time in Canada or spends several years but then subsequently departs; and effectively returns to home country and continues previous life. Spouse and children reside in Canada some of the time or not at all, sometimes with the spouse already a Canadian citizen, in other cases the spouse remaining in Canada long enough to obtain Canadian citizenship. Often the couple seems to have permanently (re)-settled in what was (often) the country of origin in the first place.

Whether or not this would raise suspicions regarding 'gaming' the system or simply seen as not respecting the intent of the law, the appearance is that the PR has not in fact 'settled' in Canada at all or really changed their life much from prior to becoming a PR - or just out and out left Canada. And of course, the two-in-five residency obligation is to some degree already designed to allow PRs considerable room to transition to full-time settlement in Canada (or indeed to partially reside in home country on an ongoing basis as long as enough time in Canada). There is room for a discussion, of course, of whether it is fair for IRCC to evaluate differently 'home country' returns differently than some third country - but I can also understand the logic that the two-in-five RO already exists to provide for such circumstances. And again, many of these cases do not appear to be even close in terms of the facts.

[I do not mean to minimise the struggles with making a living in a new country or economic or importance of family ties "back home" - esp in covid times. But those issues exist for all immigrants, and the 'accompanying Canadian citizen' rules seem to serve as an additional RO buffer for some, rather than anything resembling the initial legislative intent.]

b) A less frequent scenario seems to be 'immigrated to Canada, but settled in USA.' Let's call this the trans-migration or stepping stone problem. I don't have deep thoughts on this except to note that we can/should expect that this will be an ongoing issue, since the US immigration system - H-1b visas in particular - in certain circumstances encourages temporary/employment immigration without a clear and straight path to permanent status. This is where my knowledge of US immigration ends, but let's just say that Canadian immigration is not designed to be a backup, and there will always be some issues here (varying over time with changes to US immigration policy). Those that want to retain Canadian PR status may simply have to decide at some point to reside in Canada, even if professional opportunities/remuneration are lower.

4) Other factors (ties to Canada, credibility, time away all matter): you have described this well here and in other threads. I described this in simple terms as "not even close" but clearly when these decisions get to IAD, they are considering these other factors as well, not just who-accompanies-whom. And the lack of ties to Canada and/or time out of Canada seem to loom large in these decisions. Again, the original intent - which it would seem both examining officers and IAD have in mind - is that "PR accompanies Canadian citizen" implies quite strongly that this was to be temporary. (Without getting hyper-textual, to me 'accompany' does imply this, as opposed to PR and citizen settle in foreign country - permanently). So PRs/citizens travelling together to work/reside abroad for two years is clearly different than four years is different from ten or twenty years.

I would also expect that to some degree the 'home bias' issue might influence decisions as well. A PR/citizen couple going to a third country for a time-limited assignment may get somewhat less scrutiny. (That said it is hard to say whether 'home bias' cases are more frequent in the IAD decisions because that's the most frequent type of case or because IRCC staff are actually looking at these cases differently).

5) Practical advice: Canada does not have and likely never will have a pre-approval process, and hence there is no way to get 100% certainty in advance that who-accompanies-whom will not matter in future. Hence, as with the residency obligation in general, there are only increasing levels of risk - that can be managed somewhat. These are choices.

From low level of risk to higher (note this does not account for all scenarios - and clearly this MAY not be possible for all, but may help for those looking for more certainty about PR status):
i) First, and most simply: avoid having the formal or even informal consideration of "days accompanying citizen-spouse" ever be made. IRCC cannot deny such days if they are not needed to meet the RO; comply with the residency obligation in the first place, without calculation of days-accompanying.

ii) Up to the five-year anniversary of first landing/PR card expiry: PR can board commercial transport and arrive at a port of entry for 'informal' examination, possibly referred to secondary. As with all PRs close to or well out of compliance, there is at least the chance - and in some cases the probability - that POE examining officers will decide not to start the 44(1) process or file a formal report. They may accept (without examining in detail) that the PR accompanied the citizen - or not care about that determination based on the prima facie evidence that the PR and citizen are returning (by dint of having arrived at the border). They might give a warning, or comment, but doesn't matter if they don't start the formal process.

And of course, should it go to formal examination/determination at this stage - RO compliance in practice is not entirely binary - being more out of compliance is clearly treated differently than less out of compliance. Having arrived back in Canada to settle will likely be considered favourably.

iii) Formal examination: the number of points when formal consideration of who-accompanies-whom is actually somewhat limited - applying for a PRTD or a new PR card, where the PR does not have the physical-presence days without receiving 'credit' for the days-accompanying. In most cases, this would seem to mean being examined while abroad (or less frequently in Canada but possibly transiting, for example).

But, this is where the uncertainty is and the risk higher. @dpenabill has documented well the cases where who-accompanies-whom has been considered, and I don't have much to add. It seems they are looking more at sum-of-parts and context and intent, and especially credibility, and those have been covered already.

 

[dpenabill]

1) In terms of the transparency and clarity that PRs would like to see: I'm genuinely disturbed by the apparent contradiction between the language in ENF23 and the actual application (albeit in sporadic decisions), i.e. ENF23 states "In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met." (My emphasis). This language is quite clear and simple and if it does not reflect actual application by IRCC staff or IAD decision-makers of how they will approach the question (and it clearly does not, at least not consistently), it is a major problem and can lead to arbitrary differences in ways cases are treated.

Once again you have offered many astute observations (including the rest of the post beyond what I quote).

Until I made the March 2020 post (nearly a year ago now), above, just before the pandemic crashed hard into the scene, there was a lot of activity relative to how the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit was applied with consideration of the who-accompanied-whom question. Since then this has been a rather quiet issue, which seems largely if not almost entirely due to the impact of the pandemic. And it warrants noting that the few occasions in which this issue has surfaced in the last year are situations similar to that posed in the discussion recently in the other topic (from where I copied your post above), and that is inquiries by PRs asking about what they might expect rather than reports from actual cases in which IRCC or CBSA has acted.

It is difficult to judge how important this subject is in the general scheme of things. That said, it can be, and in some cases for sure is, of much importance to at least some PRs.

And in regards to the latter, when the law is applied differently to individuals otherwise largely in the same circumstances, that is, there is a different outcome for one person compared to another without a rational and legitimate reason for the difference, that is virtually the definition of an injustice. Which happens. Which does not necessarily compel reform. But if there is a pattern and authorities themselves are overtly handling cases in a way that will continue to result in such disparate and unjust outcomes, that suggests a real problem . . . and of course there is the frequency factor. The more this happens, the more justice itself demands redress.

It is near impossible to so much as guess the scope of this now.

But there is a clue, a big clue: what the Minister's representative has been arguing before IAD panels. In most of the more recent (2018 and 2019) cases, the Minister argues that the accompanying-a-citizen-spouse credit toward RO compliance requires the PR accompany the citizen, in going abroad, and does not apply if the citizen was the one accompanying the PR abroad.

There is another clue, and that is both the fact of the PR being issued a 44(1) Report upon arrival in Canada, and the IAD decision, in the Gehrke v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 124068 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4cms case. That case does not fall into the not-a-close-call category. The PR had been well settled in Canada for many years. The relationship with the citizen arose in Canada and was well established, clearly meeting common-law criteria initially but then formalized in a legal marriage. There was not the slightest question about the couple being together, living together.

The ONLY issue was why the couple was living abroad.

As I noted before, the possibility of discrimination (against persons in same-sex relationships) MIGHT explain the outcome in contrast to most cases, but the IAD panel nonetheless engaged in a thorough analysis and documented its reasoning based squarely on the who-accompanied-whom issue. And what hammers the outcome down hard is, again, the fact that the Minister's representative argues that the accompanying-a-citizen-spouse credit toward RO compliance requires the PR accompany the citizen, in going abroad, and does not apply if the citizen was the one accompanying the PR abroad . . . which, as I have oft noted and which you do as well, is blatantly inconsistent with ENF 23 . . . and moreover, is not so much as hinted at in any of information IRCC provides for PRs relying on this credit in PR card applications or PR TD applications.

While it is quite common for different IAD panels (just individuals acting in a quasi-judicial role) to have differing views and approaches, the Minister's representative is expected to in fact represent the Minister's view, to express the agency's position.

For anyone interested in this subject, while there are many decisions cited above offering quite a lot of insight into the various ways this issue has been approached and handled, two of them tend to outline the issue and different approaches rather well, including the one I just mentioned; in particular, a good start toward understanding this issue should probably begin with reading these two cases:

-- the Gehrke v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 124068 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4cms case, and​

​

-- the In'Airat v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 124093 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4cls case.​

In any event, as I previously observed, we are actually likely to learn less going forward, for quite some time, due to the pervasive disruptions caused by the pandemic.

Also a note about alternatives: while the harshness of the potential injustice can be mitigated by the citizen sponsoring the other if necessary, usually, this is not always available . . . a couple living abroad expecting someday to return to Canada, for example, can suddenly experience the death of the citizen . . . and there can be other reasons why a citizen might not be eligible to sponsor a spouse.

And a note about how-long-abroad. Yes, this looms large in RO compliance cases. Perhaps that was a big factor in why there was such a different outcome in Gehrke (abroad for many years, almost no time actually in Canada in last five years) versus In'Airat (physically IN Canada for well over a year during the relevant five years).

I have not formulated a view as to what the fix should be. I recognize the risk a cure can be worse than the disease. That said, I tend to see the approach articulated in the In'Airat v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 124093 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4cls case as fairly persuasive.

No advanced degrees in political science or jurisprudence necessary, however, to recognize the blatant inconsistency between what the Minister is arguing in the IAD cases and what IRCC publishes about credit for time abroad accompanying a citizen spouse . . . although the PDIs now being issued are less so than the Operational Manuals, such as ENF 23 . . . noting, however, the PDIs are silent as to what "accompanying" means, whereas the in the IAD cases the Minister is overtly, explicitly arguing a particular meaning, a meaning which, however, does not appear to be anywhere near uniformly applied . . . except, for those more or less obvious cases (PR never settled in Canada cases for example; PR and citizen establish relationship after PR has already been living abroad cases; or it is otherwise obvious the couple did not go abroad together) . . . and, possibly, where this or that bias triggers a stricter approach.

 

[armoured]

Until I made the March 2020 post (nearly a year ago now), above, just before the pandemic crashed hard into the scene, there was a lot of activity relative to how the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit was applied with consideration of the who-accompanied-whom question. Since then this has been a rather quiet issue, which seems largely if not almost entirely due to the impact of the pandemic.

Thank you, the additional context helps. And I'll admit I was generalising, and my views on this not fixed, so my characterisation of most of these cases as 'not close' was rather overbroad.

The relationship with the citizen arose in Canada and was well established, clearly meeting common-law criteria initially but then formalized in a legal marriage. There was not the slightest question about the couple being together, living together.

The ONLY issue was why the couple was living abroad.

As I noted before, the possibility of discrimination (against persons in same-sex relationships) MIGHT explain the outcome in contrast to most cases

I'm perhaps being overly optimistic or generous in hoping that it is not that form of discrimination; my own speculation here would be that there is a consistency in these reports of 'home bias' (or perhaps not-settled or anti-gaming bias), that the approach may be that IRCC staff believe that effectively settling/returning to one's home country is not consistent with the intent (caveat, as they may see the intent), reinforced by the 'how long abroad' factor. (However, biases are not necessarily mutually exclusive)

which, as I have oft noted and which you do as well, is blatantly inconsistent with ENF 23 . . . and moreover, is not so much as hinted at in any of information IRCC provides for PRs relying on this credit in PR card applications or PR TD applications.

I have not formulated a view as to what the fix should be. I recognize the risk a cure can be worse than the disease. That said, I tend to see the approach articulated in the In'Airat v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 124093 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j4cls case as fairly persuasive.

The arguments here are quite persuasive - in this decision, particularly about the intent of parliament at the time regarding who-accompanies-whom. And as noted, it is disturbing and indeed absurd that their current instructions in ENF23 are the opposite of what they are arguing in IAD. (I'm surprised that the Minister's representatives haven't been more harshly questioned on this issue - perhaps they have and I've missed - and the inconsistency and unfairness of having instructions they do not themselves follow.)

While on a gut level I have some sympathy with the 'intent' issue (of providing for temporary flexibility to reside abroad), I'm deeply uncomfortable with the inconsistency esp of instructions.

Also a note about alternatives: while the harshness of the potential injustice can be mitigated by the citizen sponsoring the other if necessary, usually, this is not always available . . . a couple living abroad expecting someday to return to Canada, for example, can suddenly experience the death of the citizen . . . and there can be other reasons why a citizen might not be eligible to sponsor a spouse.

These are fair points. Part of what I wrote above is that I see little likelihood they'll address this head-on given the (probably) low number of such cases.

On these points, however, one could argue (and I would) that some of the extreme slowness and delays and backlogs (not just covid) in handling all sorts of files seem to me so serious that they border on arbitrary and unfair, with potential knock-on issues as above (e.g. if simple cases take a year or more to decide, individuals with spouses for example may see deaths during the process with similar results). The current backlog in citizenship applications and PR card renewals - worsened by covid but existed before covid - is a case in point, where on the one hand just a 'processing delay' but creating great inconvenience and disruption, which at some point get into the territory of arbitrary and capricious with potential unjust consequences, and affecting a greater number of files.

 

[dpenabill]

Another update . . . regarding a tangent with a wrinkle.

The fail-safe option PRs have if they are in a marital relationship with a Canadian, pursuant to which they can be sponsored for PR anew if they lose PR status, may not be as secure as thought.

Moreover, more generally, it appears that a PR's history of absence from Canada, resulting in noncompliance with the Residency Obligation, and fact of renouncing status, can actually be used to support a decision denying a later application for PR . . . which is contrary to conventional wisdom oft expressed in this forum, with which I have agreed, that losing PR status due to noncompliance with the RO should not hurt an individual's later application for a PR visa.

This is not about credit for PRs accompanying citizen spouses abroad, so not specifically about who-accompanied-whom questions.

And it is dated news. The decision invoking these observations was issued two years ago: Elfadul, 2019 CanLII 145852, https://canlii.ca/t/jdm4x

But it is a related tangent in that as occasionally noted in this thread before, and more than occasionally noted in other threads, if a PR in a marital relationship with a Canadian citizen loses PR status due to a failure to comply with the Residency Obligation (such as where the accompanying-citizen-spouse-abroad credit is denied), the citizen spouse can sponsor the former PR for a new PR visa (this is also possible if one spouse is a PR and in compliance with the RO).

In fact, this option is cited as a reason why H&C considerations might not weigh in favour of the PR . . . even if the PR has children in Canada, for example, it is fairly common to see decision-makers cite the option of being sponsored for PR as a factor mitigating the hardship a loss of PR status would impose. Just as one relatively recent example (involving a PR spouse living in Canada), earlier this year the IAD cited this option among reasons for denying H&C relief to a PR who had failed to comply with the RO:

There is no barrier to him returning to Canada as a visitor and his spouse can sponsor him again for permanent residence. I do not find that the Appellant losing his permanent residence has a significant impact on the children’s best interests.​

See IAD Ojomo decision, 2021 CanLII 81265, https://canlii.ca/t/jhvcg​

Which brings this back to the Elfadul IAD decision, 2019 CanLII 145852, https://canlii.ca/t/jdm4x

This decision is consistent with the observation that, generally, a former-PR who lost status due to noncompliance with the RO can be sponsored for PR again by a Canadian spouse (either a PR or citizen; in this case a citizen). BUT it is noteworthy in this context because this individual had to appeal a decision denying a PR visa (note: technically it was his spouse who appealed because it is the sponsoring spouse who has the right to appeal in these cases), which was denied because the visa officer was not satisfied he "would establish permanent residence in Canada" based on reasons including:

-- the PR's lack of establishment in Canada when he was a PR​

-- the PR's renunciation of his PR status (done in recognition of inadmissibility for breach of RO, so he could qualify for a visitor's visa to visit family in Canada)​

It warrants noting, with some emphasis, that another aspect of this is that the consensus here, in which I have oft expressed agreement, is that losing PR status due to noncompliance with the RO does NOT disadvantage a later application for PR; so, for example, many of us here have commented that renouncing PR status when clearly in breach of the RO by a lot and lacking a H&C case will not have a negative impact on a subsequent application for PR.

The IAD found the visa officer's decision to not be valid in the law. So in terms of outcome this decision is consistent with what many of us have cited, that is:

-- individuals in a marital relationship with a Canadian have the option of being sponsored for PR again if they lose PR status due to a RO breach​

-- renunciation or loss of PR status related to or arising out of noncompliance with the RO does not disadvantage future applications for PR​

But this decision turned on the credibility of the individual's evidence of intent to establish permanent residence in Canada. It does not suggest, let alone state in dicta, let alone state as a holding, that the visa officer should not have considered the former PR's lack of establishment in Canada when he was a PR and his renunciation of his PR status in determining whether he met the requirement prescribed in Regulation 70(1)(b), that the individual is "coming to Canada to establish permanent residence."

So what stands out to me is that apparently at least some visa officers will be considering, as negative factors, a former PR's lack of settlement in Canada, and a PR's prior renunciation of PR status. And, moreover, apparently the Minister will push for the IAD to uphold the denial of a PR application based in part on these considerations.

For my part I will be more circumspect in the future about assuring PRs with Canadian spouses that being sponsored for PR again is an option. It is, still; I do not mean to suggest otherwise. And even before now I typically cautioned that the application for PR again should not be made until the individual is actually ready to make the move to and settle in Canada. But, and even though it is best to avoid reading too much into solitary cases, the latter caution now appears to be even more germane.

 

[Tubsmagee]

I always appreciate reading through your posts/threads, @dpenabill … It is good to consider the good and the bad, even if that doesn’t determine what will happen in a particular case.

 

[scylla]

Another update . . . regarding a tangent with a wrinkle.

The fail-safe option PRs have if they are in a marital relationship with a Canadian, pursuant to which they can be sponsored for PR anew if they lose PR status, may not be as secure as thought.

Moreover, more generally, it appears that a PR's history of absence from Canada, resulting in noncompliance with the Residency Obligation, and fact of renouncing status, can actually be used to support a decision denying a later application for PR . . . which is contrary to conventional wisdom oft expressed in this forum, with which I have agreed, that losing PR status due to noncompliance with the RO should not hurt an individual's later application for a PR visa.

This is not about credit for PRs accompanying citizen spouses abroad, so not specifically about who-accompanied-whom questions.

And it is dated news. The decision invoking these observations was issued two years ago: Elfadul, 2019 CanLII 145852, https://canlii.ca/t/jdm4x

But it is a related tangent in that as occasionally noted in this thread before, and more than occasionally noted in other threads, if a PR in a marital relationship with a Canadian citizen loses PR status due to a failure to comply with the Residency Obligation (such as where the accompanying-citizen-spouse-abroad credit is denied), the citizen spouse can sponsor the former PR for a new PR visa (this is also possible if one spouse is a PR and in compliance with the RO).

In fact, this option is cited as a reason why H&C considerations might not weigh in favour of the PR . . . even if the PR has children in Canada, for example, it is fairly common to see decision-makers cite the option of being sponsored for PR as a factor mitigating the hardship a loss of PR status would impose. Just as one relatively recent example (involving a PR spouse living in Canada), earlier this year the IAD cited this option among reasons for denying H&C relief to a PR who had failed to comply with the RO:

There is no barrier to him returning to Canada as a visitor and his spouse can sponsor him again for permanent residence. I do not find that the Appellant losing his permanent residence has a significant impact on the children’s best interests.​

See IAD Ojomo decision, 2021 CanLII 81265, https://canlii.ca/t/jhvcg​

Which brings this back to the Elfadul IAD decision, 2019 CanLII 145852, https://canlii.ca/t/jdm4x

This decision is consistent with the observation that, generally, a former-PR who lost status due to noncompliance with the RO can be sponsored for PR again by a Canadian spouse (either a PR or citizen; in this case a citizen). BUT it is noteworthy in this context because this individual had to appeal a decision denying a PR visa (note: technically it was his spouse who appealed because it is the sponsoring spouse who has the right to appeal in these cases), which was denied because the visa officer was not satisfied he "would establish permanent residence in Canada" based on reasons including:

-- the PR's lack of establishment in Canada when he was a PR​

-- the PR's renunciation of his PR status (done in recognition of inadmissibility for breach of RO, so he could qualify for a visitor's visa to visit family in Canada)​

It warrants noting, with some emphasis, that another aspect of this is that the consensus here, in which I have oft expressed agreement, is that losing PR status due to noncompliance with the RO does NOT disadvantage a later application for PR; so, for example, many of us here have commented that renouncing PR status when clearly in breach of the RO by a lot and lacking a H&C case will not have a negative impact on a subsequent application for PR.

The IAD found the visa officer's decision to not be valid in the law. So in terms of outcome this decision is consistent with what many of us have cited, that is:

-- individuals in a marital relationship with a Canadian have the option of being sponsored for PR again if they lose PR status due to a RO breach​

-- renunciation or loss of PR status related to or arising out of noncompliance with the RO does not disadvantage future applications for PR​

But this decision turned on the credibility of the individual's evidence of intent to establish permanent residence in Canada. It does not suggest, let alone state in dicta, let alone state as a holding, that the visa officer should not have considered the former PR's lack of establishment in Canada when he was a PR and his renunciation of his PR status in determining whether he met the requirement prescribed in Regulation 70(1)(b), that the individual is "coming to Canada to establish permanent residence."

So what stands out to me is that apparently at least some visa officers will be considering, as negative factors, a former PR's lack of settlement in Canada, and a PR's prior renunciation of PR status. And, moreover, apparently the Minister will push for the IAD to uphold the denial of a PR application based in part on these considerations.

For my part I will be more circumspect in the future about assuring PRs with Canadian spouses that being sponsored for PR again is an option. It is, still; I do not mean to suggest otherwise. And even before now I typically cautioned that the application for PR again should not be made until the individual is actually ready to make the move to and settle in Canada. But, and even though it is best to avoid reading too much into solitary cases, the latter caution now appears to be even more germane.

Interesting...

 

[Princes2020]

Very informative posts. I skimmed through several links and found each decision a good learning. I hope this thread will help a lot to ppl who’re likely stuck in such situations in future. Keep it up guys!

 

[jakklondon]

Very informative posts. I skimmed through several links and found each decision a good learning. I hope this thread will help a lot to ppl who’re likely stuck in such situations in future. Keep it up guys!

But don't be confused by too much Ado about nothing. There is a certain individual who occasionally misses his daily doze of mental health pills and writes 800 paragraphs for what could be summed up in one sentence.
Here is the conclusion from one of the IAD decisions posted above: PR who is in breach of RO and renounces PR status on the account of breach of RO can be successfully re-sponsored for PR by his Canadian spouse. And if untrained/high-school drop-out immigration officer with no clue about immigration law and intent of parliament denies such application (on the grounds that former PR had earlier denounced PR status due to inadmissibility stemming from breach of RO, and thus proven not to have intent to settle in Canada), such divorced from law decision of immigration officer can be appealed to IAD and overruled.