Yes, I understand. It is strange. I was employed by Canadian organization. I got a job that needs me be outside of Canada. soon I could loose it and cost the government more to stay unemployed. I just hope we can get an estimate even if it was 1 year. What local office are you transferred to?
Email from CIC that PR card renewal needs secondary review
- Thread starter Pual Newman
- Start date
I think it's the one in Hamilton. Did you contact a lawyer or someone to know if there is a way out. Since I have plans, I am certainly thinking to apply for urgent processing? Anyone has experience with that?
I didn't get any support. I applied twice for urgency with completed list of docs including big cost of changing tickets. They refused the urgency since (I think) it is unusual case that required transfer to local office. What i did now I am booked into these flexible tickets where you can change your date.
What was your reason? Did you provide the appropriate proof? How long did it take for them to reply? Did you use the web from or send documents?
My reason was to continue my work placement outside Canada. I got all the needed document from employer and me like booked tickets not less than 3weeks not more than 3months. First time I sent paper, they never replied. Second time we called the call center and asked us to send urgency again. We changed tickets with huge cost and sent online. They said they received it but never said it is accepted or not. The reality they didn't consider the second time.
I have heard that many people use the web form and get accepted. If anyone can share, please tell us your experience.
Obviously I do not know, but I suspect there may be an issue about whether you qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit.
The substantive elements for the credit matter far more than the labels, but labels can have influence. Thus, while generally this or that term is not so important, you refer to a "placement" outside Canada. That suggests having a position abroad for a Canadian organization, which would NOT qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit. In particular, "placement" suggests an indefinite or even permanent position rather than explicitly a TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT, which is one of the crucial elements necessary to qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit.
If this is the issue . . . . as long as you continue to STAY in Canada in the meantime, and the closer you are to meeting the PR Residency Obligation without counting any time abroad in the employ of a Canadian employer, the better chance you have that this will not go in the direction of proceedings to terminate your PR status. In the meantime, the working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit is discussed in-depth in other topics, which you might want to peruse for the purpose of getting a better understanding about qualifying for this credit. NOTE: qualifying for this credit is a LOT more tricky, and difficult, than many PRs realize . . . just being employed by a Canadian business or organization is NOT sufficient to get the credit.
If this is not the issue . . . . I do not know what the issue is underlying your application going into non-routine processing.
These are posts from the timeline tracking thread. I am responding in regards to the underlying question about who, when, or why an individual PR's PR card application is referred for non-routine processing, which is more appropriately addressed in this topic.
"I have seen lot of cases where people have just few days extra from the threshold of 730 . . . and they got the renewed PR cards smoothly . . . "
There are, nonetheless, "lots of cases," as in many other cases, where PRs cutting-it-close are referred to non-routine processing, some to Secondary Review, others referred to the local office for RO compliance determinations. The reports suggest that a PR is cutting-it-close, in a way that MIGHT (not necessarily will) trigger either a referral to SR or to the local office, is basically being outside Canada more than IN Canada . . . that is, roughly speaking, less than 900 days IN Canada within the previous five years is cutting-it-close.
But your observation nonetheless is a good reminder that such decisions (whether to refer a PR to SR or other non-routine processing) do NOT entirely or only depend on the number of days. As your observation suggests, as long as IRCC does not question the number of days, just having more than 730 is enough, and indeed precisely 730 days is enough.
As can be seen again and again, there are many cases where the new PR card application sailed through smoothly for PRs with just a couple or few weeks more than 730 days presence, BUT also NO shortage of cases where the new PR card application ended up in non-routine processing despite the PR claiming more than 900 or even a 1000 plus days IN Canada.
There are many factors which undoubtedly have influence in how it goes. One looms much larger than most others, and that is the extent to which it appears (or does not appear) the PR is settled in Canada PERMANENTLY (or at least relatively so). This factor may be second only to whether or not the PR has in fact been IN Canada more than 730 days within the preceding five years.
Another big factor is the PR's general credibility . . . if IRCC has any reason at all to doubt the PR's credibility, that can tip the scales in a big hurry. Even a PR claiming to have never left Canada can end up having to prove presence in Canada if IRCC has reason to suspect misrepresentation.
There are other factors. Many of the relevant factors tend to have influence in the two big ones:
-- factors tending to indicate a PR has NOT settled in Canada and is primarily living or working abroad, or
-- factors tending to indicate the PR is not being truthful
-- factors tending to indicate the PR is not being truthful
Which MIGHT (and only might, but maybe not) illuminate a little about the situation faced by @Harryhere101's kids. Children ordinarily (not always but ordinarily) live with their parents. If a parent has been living and working abroad, that is at least a suggestion the children could have been abroad with the parent, and thus, perhaps, more so than declared in their PR card applications. So that is a factual situation which might compel IRCC to make more thorough inquiries in order to verify where the children actually were, and when. That is, a situation which might compel non-routine processing, be that a referral to SR or a referral to the local office.
This is a good illustration about how this or that fact, in itself, does not dictate a particular inference, but what IRCC might conclude depends a great deal on context, on what other, surrounding facts might suggest.
This forum is rife with questions premised on isolated facts, as if this or that particular fact will determine how things go. That is NOT how it works.
Sure, some facts will dictate certain outcomes. If in fact a PR was actually present in Canada for 730 days (let alone 747 or 753 or more) within the preceding five years, that meets the PR RO. End of inquiry.
BUT that is ONLY IF IRCC sees that as an actual fact, and not a questionable assertion. And whether or not IRCC will have questions about this fact depends on an assessment of many other facts and circumstances, and an assessment of the many parts as a whole, and an assessment of the whole taking into consideration the many parts.
NOTE: to be clear, it is obvious that cutting-it-close tends to increase the risks of non-routine processing, either a SR referral, or local office referral. And the more the PR is cutting-it-close the bigger the risk of a SR or local office referral.
Last edited:
Hello Harry,
No news yet. They only respond when we call that they are still processing. It is 4 months now.
It is Montreal. I hope all people reading give us time estimation. IRCC is unable to estimate any times
Hi - any reason why they sent yours to second reviews? how many days did u stay in canada? was your broder record and stamps clearly support your case?
a question - any red flag in your application which made them send it to second reviews? is your border entry records and passport stamps clearly support your case of over 730 days?
question: do you know what could ave flagged them to refer your application to local office? were you close to 730? didn't you passports stamp and record of border entries support your case?
all
can poeple kindly elaborate on what could have flagged the immigration agent to forward your application for second review? if the canadian entry border report and passport stamps clearly support your case, why would they send for second reviews?
can poeple kindly elaborate on what could have flagged the immigration agent to forward your application for second review? if the canadian entry border report and passport stamps clearly support your case, why would they send for second reviews?