Thetruthshallsetufree said:
People who pose questions in this forum need help..so why are you guessing...
I cannot and do not speak for the individual whose post you quote, in which some guessing is expressed.
But some of us offer guesses based on relatively informed and well-thought out analysis, usually rooted in personal experience or more or less reliable accounts of personal experiences from others, and at least some participants do their homework, including researching official and formal sources of information. Such observations typically regard matters otherwise unclear or largely unknown, and are an effort to shed some light on the subject while also recognizing limitations as to what is actually known or as to what can be predicted.
Thus, usually, to frame observations as a "guess" is an
honest disclaimer which should help readers better understand and put in context those observations. Many such observations are generally in the form
this-is-what-is-known,
this-or-that-seems-likely-based-on-experience-or-what-is-known, and from this
this-and-that-can-be-extrapolated-but-not-all-that-confidently . . . or, more briefly "
this-is-what-I-guess." Always FWIW.
In comparison, there are many in forums like this who make grossly overly broad declarative statements, oft times in a form conveying unfounded definitiveness, oft times with little regard for important nuances or exceptions. There are indeed some in these forums who specifically offer advice even though this is
not an appropriate venue for giving advice and it is especially irresponsible to offer personal advice given the extent to which there can be, and usually are, many unstated factors which can have a dramatic impact. While it is perhaps difficult to draw a distinction between
advice per se and well-informed
suggestions, for me a
red flag goes up anytime I see a post overtly offering advice . . . unless it is in response to a very easy question.
Easy questions invite easy answers, the sort of stuff readily answered by FAQs or just reading the instructions. Asking what is the PR Residency Obligation is, is an easy question: two years out of five years presence in Canada with some credit otherwise available in particular circumstances. No guessing necessary.
Questions about the status of a PR, who is abroad and is already in breach of the PR Residency Obligation, and what that PR should do, those are more complicated. To some extent there are more or less obvious answers, like the sooner the PR returns to Canada, the better the PR's odds are of retaining PR status, but there are many other factors which will have some influence on how things actually go. Thus, for example, for the PR long in breach of the PR RO who probably cannot return to Canada without being reported, getting to Canada sooner probably does not help much, even though for many PRs in breach, perhaps most, getting to Canada sooner is usually a big factor.
Your situation appears to be on the more complicated side, with more than a few contingencies looming. Your situation is obviously complicated and difficult enough no one here can reliably assure you of a positive outcome, or how to approach things toward assuring yourself of a positive outcome.
Also note in particular that applying more complicated elements to variable factors is rather more difficult, often more nuanced, usually subject to different outcomes depending on many particular aspects of the matter. In the meantime, more than a little of the actual decision-making (both by IRCC and CBSA) is based on criteria and methods subject to less than clear applications and some of which might not be public information, and is in any event also subject to the broad discretion of the person making the decision, with widely varying results for which there is not even much statistical information available to the public let alone direct, concrete information reflecting the decisions made.
It also warrants noting that many times the ordinary reading of the rules can be misleading. It can take a rather concerted effort to follow the official sources in conjunction with reported experiences (always subject to careful and critical reasoning) sufficient to even vaguely outline what can happen in the more complicated situations.
In addition to that, those with a lot of background in these matters often recognize more or less unwritten rules or policies in play. (Some of these are more obvious and do not require all that much background, for example: credibility matters and matters a lot; impressions matter; more in particular, there is no rule which requires a PR to prove he deserves to keep PR status but that can loom as an important factor in how things go.)
In your circumstances some unwritten considerations are likely to be important; for example, you quote another participant's observations and ask:
Thetruthshallsetufree said:
You say I have to prove to immigration that we have re-kindled our relationship: Kindly tell me what constitutes proof of such " re-kindlement " from Immigration's point of view. Would appreciate a detailed reply. And thank you so much for your help.
There is no formal rule about this. The formal rule is that eligibility to sponsor a spouse requires the sponsor and PR applicant to be in a qualified relationship which is genuine. I do not mean to speak for
Leon but it is easy to discern that in the circumstances you describe, if there is a sponsorship application IRCC is likely to have some concerns and questions about the genuineness of the relationship and where there is evidence of a breakdown in the relationship, as it appears there is here, it is likely IRCC will require proof that the qualified, genuine relationship has been re-established . . . which in general terms suggests a probable need to show when, why, and how your relationship was "re-kindled." But of course what that means is very, very specific to the individuals involved. Since that is not a formal requirement or element, there is no detailed outline of what would constitute proof of this. Lots of
it-depends at play.
Back to the guessing you ask about, that was a discussion which took place two years ago. Today I see a lot to disagree with in the posts by all the participants in that discussion. But if I look back at some of my posts two years ago, there are many I would likewise disagree with today. Those of us here trying to help recognize we can always learn more and develop a better understanding, that what we said yesterday might not be the best response tomorrow.
An example of this is somewhat relevant to your situation. If, for example, you recognize there is no path for you to retain your PR status, and due to circumstances you conclude your wife would not likely be able to sponsor you and you otherwise have no path to obtain PR status again if you lose it, a week ago I might have affirmed another approach to rejoining your family in Canada, at least in the longer term. That is, you could stay abroad, not attempt to return to Canada while your wife stayed in Canada until she qualified for and obtained Canadian citizenship, and after becoming a citizen she then came abroad to live with you.
A week ago I thought that as long as you had not done something leading Canada to formally terminate your PR status, that if your then citizen spouse and you lived together for two years, you would then be in compliance with the PR RO based on credit for accompanying a citizen spouse abroad . . . which, until just the last few days, I was quite confident was all that would be necessary to qualify for the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit.
As of yesterday, or so, that was the consensus here, that IRCC would not inquire into or be concerned about whether you were accompanying your citizen spouse abroad or whether it was the other way around. I now have a contrary and more informed view, and I suspect this approach would not succeed either. We learn more as we go. For more about that in particular, see discussion at:
dpenabill said:
All of which leads me to express more caution about the accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse credit toward the PR RO. It does appear, indeed, that who accompanied whom can make a difference. This appears to loom more when the PR is, as I previously quoted, "well ensconced in the foreign jurisdiction."
The circumstances in which this arises probably are relatively uncommon, but nonetheless, and somewhat contrary to what I (and others) have previously oft posted, there are circumstances in which the PR-citizen couple living together might NOT be enough to be given the credit for accompanying a citizen spouse. Who accompanied whom can affect how this goes.
Your PR status, it seems, depends in significant part on whether your wife will be able to successfully sponsor you as a member of the family class, and as previously discussed above, this might not be easily accomplished.
You could probably benefit from the assistance of a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer . . . a lawyer, not a consultant.
