Reminder: Still BEGGING for SOME SOURCE, ANY OBJECTIVE SOURCE of information (obviously government source preferred, but at this juncture any objective report will help) describing reasons for denying H&C relief to a removed-as-a-minor PR.
BUT for further clarification . . . To be clear, the reason for the absence factor I describe above is NOT an argument, and definitely NOT my argument. It is merely a description of what is articulated in scores and scores of official sources.
I avoid presenting arguments as much as possible. My personal opinion does NOT count for much, and I make an effort to NOT rely on my own views much. (So no one should take it personally when I do not give much weight to other personal opinions either.)
I have grown lazy citing sources, for a couple reasons, but mostly so when I am largely repeating propositions for which I (and typically others as well) have previously cited and linked sources . . . such as the key factors I discuss in posts above. Moreover, my posts tend to be very long to begin with, often bordering or well into pedantic territory, which repeated citation of sources tends to further exacerbate.
In any event, I am mostly referring to what a wide range of sources reveal are the actual factors considered and how they are considered, relying extensively on IAD and FC decisions, but also taking into account sources like the relevant Operational Manuals but also considering anecdotal reports in forums like this.
Technically the most important factor, and the one most cited, is the "best interests of a child directly affected by the determination" factor (which is reiterated in literally many HUNDREDS of official sources), but in PR RO cases this factor tends, PRACTICALLY, to be a wash, the fact of the PR's absence tending to show the PR's absence is no great hardship to the child, or if the child is outside Canada, that it is no great hardship for the child to continue living outside Canada. (Again, to be clear, the latter is NOT my opinion but a paraphrased and condensed version of what is very often cited in official sources.) Which is to say this factor, the best interests of a child, generally has little impact on the outcome in at least a very large number of RO cases, probably the vast majority.
For the majority of PRs in breach of the Residency Obligation, the key factors which really make a difference (again, relying on sources, not my own opinion) are:
There are other factors. Some can make a significant difference if the above factors are a fairly close call. The PR's intentions, for example, can have significant influence if the nature of the breach is not too extensive and the reason for the absence is not overtly negative. For example, while it is not entirely clear, the H&C analysis discussed in many IAD decisions suggest more leeway is allowed the PR still short of the fifth year anniversary, in breach but making a good faith effort to make the move to Canada to settle to stay (a fairly strong showing of intent).
For example, in contrast to the good faith effort of the new PR (less than five years since landing), which appears to get some leeway, a very strong showing of intent to settle and stay supported by actually coming and staying, even for YEARS pending an appeal, often falls short if prior to the Report or denial of a PR TD the PR was absent for years and had minimal establishment in Canada. That is, the best intentions do NOT make up for an extensive breach. (Will try to mention one other potentially important intention factor below.)
But those three factors tend to make or break the H&C case:
Again, I am NOT arguing the weight of these factors. I am describing how official sources actually interpret and apply the H&C analysis in PR RO cases.
Additionally, none of the factors are independent but, rather, are considered in relation to each other. A small breach, for example, can be offset by a less compelling reason (and contrary to the view of some here, this includes even personal choice factors, like attending school or staying at a job, potentially having some positive influence). For the removed-as-a-minor PR, the total lack of personal choice has undoubtedly been a dominant factor for many years, in large part totally offsetting the length of the absence.
As I have often reiterated, other than the rather obvious very-little-to-remote-chance cases (we see them, rather often actually), which are easy to forecast (they have little or no chance), it is very difficult if not impossible to quantify the odds in individual cases . . . with perhaps only a few exceptions.
One of those exceptions has been the removed-as-a-minor PR coming to Canada SOON after reaching the age of majority. Indeed, in the past some forum participants have expressed virtual assurance they will be issued a PR TD, while most have soberly said the odds are very good but acknowledge NO guarantee.
THERE REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE THIS HAS CHANGED . . . so long as the removed-as-a-minor PR was in fact REMOVED from Canada (as in removed from a life being lived in Canada) and is making a timely effort to come to Canada.
WHAT THE RECENT ANECDOTAL REPORTS reflect is that some young PRs who had relatively minimal establishment in Canada are denied a PR TD. In response to this some forum participants have proffered the proposition that this is actually a specific policy or practice. And they have proffered the rationale for this. Both making sense. And as you speculate, this may have been accomplished by the distribution of a directive applicable to these kinds of cases.
BUT this fails to offer much insight into what makes the difference.
For the eighteen or nineteen year old PR living abroad whose only life in Canada was a matter of weeks or few months more than five or ten years ago, and who otherwise has no significant ties IN Canada, the recent anecdotal reports tend to be bad news if they were planning on coming to Canada as a PR to study or even to live and work in Canada. There appears to be quite a large number of such PRs in the world.
SOME PARTICULAR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING PERSONAL CHOICE ELEMENT:
As for illness as a reason for remaining abroad, as I noted before this is actually a lot WEAKER reason than many apprehend. Whether it is personal illness (which can be treated in Canada) or the illness of a family member. Again, this is NOT MY OPINION. This derives from what official sources say in actual cases.
BUT THIS DOES BRING UP A POTENTIAL ISSUE WHICH I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED: I have a strong sense (this is a personal view) that some young PRs might be making the application for a PR TD TOO SOON, BEFORE THEY REACH THE AGE OF MAJORITY.
As I noted before, we know (again based on what is decided in actual cases officially reported) that when a minor PR applies for a PR TD together with a parent PR (or similarly they arrive at a PoE together), if the parent's application is denied the child's application is (usually) also denied. And similarly, if the parent is issued a 44(1) Report at a PoE, the child is as well (unless there is a real difference in their cases, like the child actually has been in Canada while the parent has been absent).
So, back to my analysis -- If the child is making an application for a TD to return to Canada, while still a minor, that must be done with the parent's permission. If the child has the parent's permission to come to Canada, that may obviate or offset the lack-of-personal-choice element in being "removed" from Canada as a minor.
This is ONE I DO NOT KNOW . . . but have seen some indications that suggest watching for related information regarding this.
As is often the case, others able to express things far more simply than I can, @canuck78 has generally described what appears (by a good margin) to be the current approach.Your argument is well and good when it comes to being forced to leave
BUT for further clarification . . . To be clear, the reason for the absence factor I describe above is NOT an argument, and definitely NOT my argument. It is merely a description of what is articulated in scores and scores of official sources.
I avoid presenting arguments as much as possible. My personal opinion does NOT count for much, and I make an effort to NOT rely on my own views much. (So no one should take it personally when I do not give much weight to other personal opinions either.)
I have grown lazy citing sources, for a couple reasons, but mostly so when I am largely repeating propositions for which I (and typically others as well) have previously cited and linked sources . . . such as the key factors I discuss in posts above. Moreover, my posts tend to be very long to begin with, often bordering or well into pedantic territory, which repeated citation of sources tends to further exacerbate.
In any event, I am mostly referring to what a wide range of sources reveal are the actual factors considered and how they are considered, relying extensively on IAD and FC decisions, but also taking into account sources like the relevant Operational Manuals but also considering anecdotal reports in forums like this.
Technically the most important factor, and the one most cited, is the "best interests of a child directly affected by the determination" factor (which is reiterated in literally many HUNDREDS of official sources), but in PR RO cases this factor tends, PRACTICALLY, to be a wash, the fact of the PR's absence tending to show the PR's absence is no great hardship to the child, or if the child is outside Canada, that it is no great hardship for the child to continue living outside Canada. (Again, to be clear, the latter is NOT my opinion but a paraphrased and condensed version of what is very often cited in official sources.) Which is to say this factor, the best interests of a child, generally has little impact on the outcome in at least a very large number of RO cases, probably the vast majority.
For the majority of PRs in breach of the Residency Obligation, the key factors which really make a difference (again, relying on sources, not my own opinion) are:
-- extent of the breach
-- extent of ties in Canada, which includes the extent of establishment in Canada
-- reason for the absence (what precluded the PR from returning to Canada sooner)
-- extent of ties in Canada, which includes the extent of establishment in Canada
-- reason for the absence (what precluded the PR from returning to Canada sooner)
There are other factors. Some can make a significant difference if the above factors are a fairly close call. The PR's intentions, for example, can have significant influence if the nature of the breach is not too extensive and the reason for the absence is not overtly negative. For example, while it is not entirely clear, the H&C analysis discussed in many IAD decisions suggest more leeway is allowed the PR still short of the fifth year anniversary, in breach but making a good faith effort to make the move to Canada to settle to stay (a fairly strong showing of intent).
For example, in contrast to the good faith effort of the new PR (less than five years since landing), which appears to get some leeway, a very strong showing of intent to settle and stay supported by actually coming and staying, even for YEARS pending an appeal, often falls short if prior to the Report or denial of a PR TD the PR was absent for years and had minimal establishment in Canada. That is, the best intentions do NOT make up for an extensive breach. (Will try to mention one other potentially important intention factor below.)
But those three factors tend to make or break the H&C case:
-- the bigger the breach, the more negative weight that factor carries
-- the more ties the PR has in Canada, including being more established in Canada, the more positive weight that carries
-- the less personal choice there is underlying the reason for the absence, or the more compelling the reason to be abroad, the more positive weight that carries
-- the more ties the PR has in Canada, including being more established in Canada, the more positive weight that carries
-- the less personal choice there is underlying the reason for the absence, or the more compelling the reason to be abroad, the more positive weight that carries
Again, I am NOT arguing the weight of these factors. I am describing how official sources actually interpret and apply the H&C analysis in PR RO cases.
Additionally, none of the factors are independent but, rather, are considered in relation to each other. A small breach, for example, can be offset by a less compelling reason (and contrary to the view of some here, this includes even personal choice factors, like attending school or staying at a job, potentially having some positive influence). For the removed-as-a-minor PR, the total lack of personal choice has undoubtedly been a dominant factor for many years, in large part totally offsetting the length of the absence.
As I have often reiterated, other than the rather obvious very-little-to-remote-chance cases (we see them, rather often actually), which are easy to forecast (they have little or no chance), it is very difficult if not impossible to quantify the odds in individual cases . . . with perhaps only a few exceptions.
One of those exceptions has been the removed-as-a-minor PR coming to Canada SOON after reaching the age of majority. Indeed, in the past some forum participants have expressed virtual assurance they will be issued a PR TD, while most have soberly said the odds are very good but acknowledge NO guarantee.
THERE REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE THIS HAS CHANGED . . . so long as the removed-as-a-minor PR was in fact REMOVED from Canada (as in removed from a life being lived in Canada) and is making a timely effort to come to Canada.
WHAT THE RECENT ANECDOTAL REPORTS reflect is that some young PRs who had relatively minimal establishment in Canada are denied a PR TD. In response to this some forum participants have proffered the proposition that this is actually a specific policy or practice. And they have proffered the rationale for this. Both making sense. And as you speculate, this may have been accomplished by the distribution of a directive applicable to these kinds of cases.
BUT this fails to offer much insight into what makes the difference.
For the eighteen or nineteen year old PR living abroad whose only life in Canada was a matter of weeks or few months more than five or ten years ago, and who otherwise has no significant ties IN Canada, the recent anecdotal reports tend to be bad news if they were planning on coming to Canada as a PR to study or even to live and work in Canada. There appears to be quite a large number of such PRs in the world.
SOME PARTICULAR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING PERSONAL CHOICE ELEMENT:
As a matter of law, in Canada, minors have no control over where they live. The lack-of-personal-choice factor is not even a question of fact until the young PR reaches the age of majority. This is why the removed-as-a-minor PR case has been one of the few situations in which it has been fairly easy to forecast very good odds of H&C relief. SO long as the PR did make the effort to come to Canada SOON after legally having a personal choice.Minors are in such cases first of all proving that they were removed against their own will and much less why did that happen (because unless it would be their direct family member as parent or a sibling; they cannot really claim to be restrained by illness of the other person, only by decision of their own parents).
As for illness as a reason for remaining abroad, as I noted before this is actually a lot WEAKER reason than many apprehend. Whether it is personal illness (which can be treated in Canada) or the illness of a family member. Again, this is NOT MY OPINION. This derives from what official sources say in actual cases.
BUT THIS DOES BRING UP A POTENTIAL ISSUE WHICH I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED: I have a strong sense (this is a personal view) that some young PRs might be making the application for a PR TD TOO SOON, BEFORE THEY REACH THE AGE OF MAJORITY.
As I noted before, we know (again based on what is decided in actual cases officially reported) that when a minor PR applies for a PR TD together with a parent PR (or similarly they arrive at a PoE together), if the parent's application is denied the child's application is (usually) also denied. And similarly, if the parent is issued a 44(1) Report at a PoE, the child is as well (unless there is a real difference in their cases, like the child actually has been in Canada while the parent has been absent).
So, back to my analysis -- If the child is making an application for a TD to return to Canada, while still a minor, that must be done with the parent's permission. If the child has the parent's permission to come to Canada, that may obviate or offset the lack-of-personal-choice element in being "removed" from Canada as a minor.
This is ONE I DO NOT KNOW . . . but have seen some indications that suggest watching for related information regarding this.