matthewc
Hero Member
- Jan 18, 2010
- 592
- 47
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Inland (CPC-Vegreville)
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 27.09.2006
- AOR Received.
- 05.12.2006
- VISA ISSUED...
- 11.02.2008
- LANDED..........
- 31.03.2008
I linked to R61(4) above, but it's here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-2002-227/page-3.html#codese:61-ss:_4_
R61(4) as currently written appears to have been in place since the inception of the IRPA in 2002, so I'm at a loss to explain why none of those decisions referred to it.
Rather than a copy of the regulation in hand, though, if you do feel the need to take something official with you, make it a copy of the relevant processing manual, ENF 23, section 7.5. The processing manuals are what CIC are used to referring to on a day-to-day basis:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf
"7.5. Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada
R61(4) provides that each day a permanent resident is outside Canada accompanying (that is,
ordinarily residing with) a Canadian citizen constitutes a day of physical presence in Canada,
provided that the Canadian citizen they are accompanying is a spouse or common-law partner or
parent.
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."
7.6 deals with a PR accompanying another PR who is working who for a Canadian company.
I wouldn't suggest taking an appeals decision, as that will confuse matters. You do, of course, also need plenty of proof that the citizen and PR were actually residing together outside Canada.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-2002-227/page-3.html#codese:61-ss:_4_
R61(4) as currently written appears to have been in place since the inception of the IRPA in 2002, so I'm at a loss to explain why none of those decisions referred to it.
Rather than a copy of the regulation in hand, though, if you do feel the need to take something official with you, make it a copy of the relevant processing manual, ENF 23, section 7.5. The processing manuals are what CIC are used to referring to on a day-to-day basis:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf
"7.5. Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada
R61(4) provides that each day a permanent resident is outside Canada accompanying (that is,
ordinarily residing with) a Canadian citizen constitutes a day of physical presence in Canada,
provided that the Canadian citizen they are accompanying is a spouse or common-law partner or
parent.
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."
7.6 deals with a PR accompanying another PR who is working who for a Canadian company.
I wouldn't suggest taking an appeals decision, as that will confuse matters. You do, of course, also need plenty of proof that the citizen and PR were actually residing together outside Canada.