Got an R-1 but have not met the 2 year residency requirement

[carlE]

Now I have a couple more questions based on living in Canada without a PR Card:

Will employers care if I don't have my PR card? I remember the two employers I had in the past asked for the card.

In general, how tough will my life be living in Canada for two years without the card? I used to see it as my primary ID

 

[armoured]

RC1 automatically qualifies for PR card renewal without meeting RO so not meeting RO would never be an issue.

If not compliant and someone got the PRTD without H&C why risk losing your PR status when you enter Canada?

R-1 literally means determined to be compliant with RO by IRCC - 'passed with a final determination of 1' (meets the residency obligation under one of the provisions of etc). Hence literally means qualifies for PR card renewal.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/op/op10-eng.pdf

You are interposing yourself as making some other determination, or believing that it MUST be an error. You do not know that.

So: explain what risk of losing PR status once one has been issued a return visa under R-1?

As an alternative to what I've turned 'silly and paranoid' (which I stand by), applicant can order gcms notes.

 

[carlE]

R-1 literally means determined to be compliant with RO by IRCC - 'passed with a final determination of 1' (meets the residency obligation under one of the provisions of etc). Hence literally means qualifies for PR card renewal.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/op/op10-eng.pdf

You are interposing yourself as making some other determination, or believing that it MUST be an error. You do not know that.

So: explain what risk of losing PR status once one has been issued a return visa under R-1?

As an alternative to what I've turned 'silly and paranoid' (which I stand by), applicant can order gcms notes.

I see your point, and I can't stand the idea of living in Canada for two years without any id other than a foreign passport. My concern is based on the fact that I won't be able to prove that I meet the RO, and it's confusing that they gave me the R-1 and I would have to wait for two years without a government issued identification.

 

[armoured]

You have a point, I also thought it was crazy that they issued the R-1 by mistake. The decision was made within a week, I'm not sure they would have made a decision so quickly to realize later that they made a mistake

If there were some error, in my opinion, far more likely to be one of type (RC-1 instead), but again, that invents an explanation that is not needed.

Even if there were an error, far more likely IN CANADA that they decide to go with the decision that was made recently by another office ('why rock the boat' principle) esp when the normal in-Canada procedure in case of doubt is just to issue a card and ask you to pick it up in Canada.

 

[carlE]

If there were some error, in my opinion, far more likely to be one of type (RC-1 instead), but again, that invents an explanation that is not needed.

Even if there were an error, far more likely IN CANADA that they decide to go with the decision that was made recently by another office ('why rock the boat' principle) esp when the normal in-Canada procedure in case of doubt is just to issue a card and ask you to pick it up in Canada.

As I said before, I believe you're right, I just wish someone who had gone thru the same situation would tell me everything went fine. Lol

 

[armoured]

As I said before, I believe you're right, I just wish someone who had gone thru the same situation would tell me everything went fine. Lol

My thoughts on this are in that other thread.

I don't believe it likely that after issuing an R-1, they would turn around and instigate the 44(1) procedure.

As noted, my other suggestion would be to order gcms notes on your case - this may not be as easy to do as for a usual case - and see if there are any relevant notes.

 

[carlE]

My thoughts on this are in that other thread.

I don't believe it likely that after issuing an R-1, they would turn around and instigate the 44(1) procedure.

As noted, my other suggestion would be to order gcms notes on your case - this may not be as easy to do as for a usual case - and see if there are any relevant notes.

Thank you for taking the time! I believe that a lot you posted here and the links helped me understand better my case

 

[armoured]

Thank you for taking the time! I believe that a lot you posted here and the links helped me understand better my case

Hope it helps. I do have to caveat though: I can't say for certain. I believe what I've written, it's logical, it's based on decent sources but ... it's not my decision to make, and I will admit it's not without some risk (even if I think low). I coudl be wrong though.

 

[canuck78]

R-1 literally means determined to be compliant with RO by IRCC - 'passed with a final determination of 1' (meets the residency obligation under one of the provisions of etc). Hence literally means qualifies for PR card renewal.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/op/op10-eng.pdf

You are interposing yourself as making some other determination, or believing that it MUST be an error. You do not know that.

So: explain what risk of losing PR status once one has been issued a return visa under R-1?

As an alternative to what I've turned 'silly and paranoid' (which I stand by), applicant can order gcms notes.

If they were compliant with R1 no issue but they aren’t. How are we sure R1 will overrule actually verifying they are compliant? There is certainly a chance but why take a risk if someone has their SIN#?

 

[armoured]

If they were compliant with R1 no issue but they aren’t.

What does this even mean? The R1 is a determination that they are compliant with the RO.

How are we sure R1 will overrule actually verifying they are compliant? There is certainly a chance but why take a risk if someone has their SIN#?

Reasons for doing so are pretty clear: things like eligibility for health care, getting a SIN if needed, requests that do arise from employers (whether they are right to make such requests or no), even driver's licenses (I think).

Whether worth the risk: depends on what the risk is. As far as I can tell - from procedures and logic, low; from facts - can't think of a single case where someone who has received an R-1 who has had an issue. Can you? Can you show me one?

My only limiting additional condition: has the R-1, applies for PR card within Canada, and does not leave during processing of that PR card application.

Note, I did not use to think this - until I found the literal manual that says R-1 means in compliance status has been determined.

To boldly state that in a case you do not know the details of (but person has said they applied with H&C), that the R-1 determination MUST be in error strikes me as ... bold. And not the good kind of bold.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . I just wish someone who had gone thru the same situation would tell me everything went fine. Lol

(another edit, another part of what I had been posting I somehow lost . . . )

Unfortunately how it has gone for others is not likely to indicate how this will go for you.

A lot probably depends on just how much in breach of the RO you currently are and the extent to which you have H&C reasons that will help tip the scales in your favour.

We have seen previous reports of PRs getting a R-1 coded PR TD despite not actually being in RO compliance based on RO credit. Whether this is a mistake, an error, or a deliberate exercise of leniency, is not clear.

First order of business is to get here, to settle here, and then decide how to proceed. It might be a good idea to see a GOOD immigration lawyer to discuss this with.



Reminder: RO compliance determinations are DATE specific. There is a different calculation for every day.

I don't believe it likely that after issuing an R-1, they would turn around and instigate the 44(1) procedure.

I agree, although probably with a good deal more emphasis on what is "likely," recognizing that how likely depends on the extent to which there has not been a significant change in circumstances.

That said, I do NOT know what the risks are.

The risk at the Port-of-Entry should be very low. The PR TD itself evidences a recent Residency Determination and thus there is no cause, no basis, for CBSA officers to question the returning PR's compliance with the RO . . . allowing that if, however, CBSA officers see something that in their view warrants further inquiry, they can make further inquiry and an outcome based on the facts as of the date of the PR's arrival.

(Edit to add: I had further discussed distinguishing how the RC-1 H&C decision works, but a slip of the keyboard erased it and some further discussion clarifying the differences in any subsequent Residency Determination . . . a tangent I will not try to reconstruct . . . except to emphasize that the risk for a PR given a R-1 coded PR TD when applying for a PR card can vary depending on the factual circumstances as of the date of the PR card application.)

If they were compliant with R1 no issue but they aren’t. How are we sure R1 will overrule actually verifying they are compliant? There is certainly a chance but why take a risk if someone has their SIN#?

What does this even mean? The R1 is a determination that they are compliant with the RO.

It means that if there is a Residency Determination, the PR does not have sufficient credit toward meeting the RO to comply with the RO as of the date of that determination.

"The R1 is a determination that they are compliant with the RO." Yes, as of the date the PR TD application was made.

And, as I noted, I agree that if the PR promptly uses the PR TD, comes to Canada, and is established in Canada, the risk a PR card application triggers inadmissibility proceedings is probably low, in the not likely range.

But, again . . . I do NOT know what the risks are.

Reminder: in some key respects I am NOT on the same page about this, and expressed this just a little over a month ago, where I noted in particular:

Remember: a determination of RO compliance, or a determination of whether to allow H&C relief, are date specific and there is a new and different calculation for each day. Generally a month or three or more does not change things much, especially given the somewhat liberal approach IRCC employs in determinations other than overseas PR TD applications (for which there is a presumption the individual does not have valid PR status), so there is generally not much that would change the outcome when comparing a determination based on the date a PR TD was made versus one based on a date the PR actually arrives at a PoE or a somewhat later date a PR card application is made.

The caveat here is that if there is a significant difference in the key factors, comparing circumstances as of the date of the PR TD application versus a later date (such as date a PR card application is made), the outcome can be different.
The thing about a PR who returns to Canada using a PR TD coded R-1 is that almost always means that as of the date they made the application for a PR TD they were actually in compliance with the RO. That will mean they are very likely to still be in RO compliance when they travel here, or at least not in breach by much. PRs in RO compliance can safely apply for a PR card.

There are scenarios warranting some caution.

We have seen, for example, some PRs who applied for a PR TD relying on H&C considerations issued a PR TD coded R-1 not RC-1. Since they are in breach, and there is not a definitively positive H&C determination, they should probably be more cautious before making the PR card application.

My take . . . it seems to me that the optimism advanced by @armoured is not sufficiently taking into consideration:

-- the determination of RO compliance in granting a PR TD is based on facts as of the date the application for a PR TD was made​

​

-- -- versus -- -- ​

​

-- the determination of RO compliance attendant a PR card application is based on facts as of the date the PR card application was made​

If both applications are made the same day the RO compliance determination should be the same. Of course this does not ordinarily happen.

If there is a significant span of time between the date the PR TD application was made and the PR's arrival date in Canada, and if as of the date the PR card application is made the PR is way short of meeting the RO, my sense is there is a real risk that IRCC could proceed with inadmissibility.

In particular, my best estimate is that the extent of risk depends on the extent to which the PR is in breach of the RO. If a fairly small breach, the risk should be quite low, assuming the PR is NOW settled in Canada.

The safe approach is waiting to actually be in compliance. That said, the more clearly a PR has come to Canada to stay, evidenced by being well-settled here, the more it might be OK to proceed with the PR card application without waiting that long. Especially if the PR has significant H&C factors they can present attendant the PR card application.

 

[armoured]

We have seen previous reports of PRs getting a R-1 coded PR TD despite not actually being in RO compliance based on RO credit. Whether this is a mistake, an error, or a deliberate exercise of leniency, is not clear.

Just noting this point as relevant below and to the discussion: this SEEMS to be a trend. What exactly it means, I agree, remains uncertain. But the trend indicates to me this is not very likely to be an error. (That is an inference of mine that could be mistaken, yes.)

First order of business is to get here, to settle here, and then decide how to proceed. It might be a good idea to see a GOOD immigration lawyer to discuss this with.

Agree. Also suggest trying to get GCMS notes.

"The R1 is a determination that they are compliant with the RO." Yes, as of the date the PR TD application was made.

And, as I noted, I agree that if the PR promptly uses the PR TD, comes to Canada, and is established in Canada, the risk a PR card application triggers inadmissibility proceedings is probably low, in the not likely range.

But, again . . . I do NOT know what the risks are.

Overall agree.

My take . . . it seems to me that the optimism advanced by @armoured is not sufficiently taking into consideration:

-- the determination of RO compliance in granting a PR TD is based on facts as of the date the application for a PR TD was made​

​

-- -- versus -- -- ​

​

-- the determination of RO compliance attendant a PR card application is based on facts as of the date the PR card application was made​

​

I both admit that I have changed my view on this, but also note two stipulations and conditions about this (relative) optimism:
-PR applying relatively soon after arriving in Canada, and travelling to/arriving in Canada not long after PRTD issued;
-PR not leaving Canada after applying for the PR card.

Perhaps obvious but I guess worth saying, also based on no negative comments/inferences at port of entry, or other changed circumstances /reasons to believe something is afoot.

In addition to the reasons you note, I'd add: simple administrative history and likelihood that any officers analyzing the case (upon submission of PR card renewal application) will see the recent issuance of PRTD and either use the same assessment, take for granted the assessment was done (by office abroad who are instructed to presume inadmissibility, a test they are not - as I understand - required to apply within Canada), or at minimum give serious consideration whether an adverse decision is credible for an applicant holding a recent R-1 PRTD. Call this administrative logic or bureaucratic momentum or whatever you wish, but my experiences with bureaucracy: where possible, do not reassess unless obvious reason to do so or required by regulation. Not to mention other alternatives like requiring pickup in Canada (to test whether person is more-or-less settled in Canada).

I do not believe this stance is very optimistic but it is subjective.

If there is a significant span of time between the date the PR TD application was made and the PR's arrival date in Canada, and if as of the date the PR card application is made the PR is way short of meeting the RO, my sense is there is a real risk that IRCC could proceed with inadmissibility.

I would make small point here that I think span of time between receipt of PRTD and travel to return to Canada is quite important - possibly decisive - in that I think even IRCC (and other bodies that may look into this) would at minimum grant some leniency and probably NOT initiate 44(1) in cases where the PRTD application took a very long time to assess.

Especially if the PR has significant H&C factors they can present attendant the PR card application.

To reiterate a small point: on application for the PR card renewal, the H&C factors WILL be evaluated (must be), anew, even if the designation on the visa was R-1 and not RC-1. Not to mention other factors such as time periods/delays at IRCC that were not in the control of the PR.

Again, yes, I cannot say with certainty. But my view on the balance of probabilities has changed. As it is, we do not see many reports of those who have recently returned under PRTDs being 'reported' formally at all; instead there is a preponderance of the only issues that arise are for those that apply and leave Canada (when out of compliance). That may be a data issue (what gets posted here) - I'm sure that's a factor. But increasingly I just think we've been excessively conservative, esp for cases where there has already been a positive PRTD decision.

I reiterate though: subject to some important conditions, esp not leaving Canada after applying.

 

[carlE]

Just noting this point as relevant below and to the discussion: this SEEMS to be a trend. What exactly it means, I agree, remains uncertain. But the trend indicates to me this is not very likely to be an error. (That is an inference of mine that could be mistaken, yes.)



Agree. Also suggest trying to get GCMS notes.



Overall agree.

​

I both admit that I have changed my view on this, but also note two stipulations and conditions about this (relative) optimism:
-PR applying relatively soon after arriving in Canada, and travelling to/arriving in Canada not long after PRTD issued;
-PR not leaving Canada after applying for the PR card.

Perhaps obvious but I guess worth saying, also based on no negative comments/inferences at port of entry, or other changed circumstances /reasons to believe something is afoot.

In addition to the reasons you note, I'd add: simple administrative history and likelihood that any officers analyzing the case (upon submission of PR card renewal application) will see the recent issuance of PRTD and either use the same assessment, take for granted the assessment was done (by office abroad who are instructed to presume inadmissibility, a test they are not - as I understand - required to apply within Canada), or at minimum give serious consideration whether an adverse decision is credible for an applicant holding a recent R-1 PRTD. Not to mention other alternatives like requiring pickup in Canada (to test whether person is more-or-less settled in Canada).

I do not believe this stance is very optimistic but it is subjective.



I would make small point here that I think span of time between receipt of PRTD and travel to return to Canada is quite important - possibly decisive - in that I think even IRCC (and other bodies that may look into this) would at minimum grant some leniency and probably NOT initiate 44(1) in cases where the PRTD application took a very long time to assess.



To reiterate a small point: on application for the PR card renewal, the H&C factors WILL be evaluated (must be), anew, even if the designation on the visa was R-1 and not RC-1. Not to mention other factors such as time periods/delays at IRCC that were not in the control of the PR.

Again, yes, I cannot say with certainty. But my view on the balance of probabilities has changed. As it is, we do not see many reports of those who have recently returned under PRTDs being 'reported' formally at all; instead there is a preponderance of the only issues that arise are for those that apply and leave Canada (when out of compliance). That may be a data issue (what gets posted here) - I'm sure that's a factor. But increasingly I just think we've been excessively conservative, esp for cases where there has already been a positive PRTD decision.

I reiterate though: subject to some important conditions, esp not leaving Canada after applying.

Thank you for your time! I will get the gcms and get back to this thread with a response, so others who may fall under the same situation are not as lost as I am.