Re: @ leon. Can that help to avoid questions about my date of departure ?
This was recently written by David Cohen and it kinda ties to this discussion
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-blog/
Two Classes of Permanent Residents
November 30, 2009
Depending on their nationality, Canadian landed immigrants receive different treatment when it comes to residency requirements.
You would expect the Government of Canada to treat all of its landed immigrants (permanent residents) equally and certainly not to discriminate against some of them based on their country of origin. The facts, however, tell another story, at least when it comes to complying with the residency obligations that are, supposedly, incumbent on all landed immigrants, no matter the country they came from.
Briefly, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) establishes residency requirements for landed immigrants with respect to each five-year period after the granting of permanent residency status. A landed immigrant complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period, by accumulating at least two years of Canadian "residency days". All permanent residents are expected to have two years of Canadian residency days in each five year period of time. On the surface, everything seems fair. Where the discrepancy occurs is in the treatment of permanent residents, who have not complied with the residency obligation.
Let's look at the following hypothetical example to illustrate my point.
Suppose Mr. X landed in Canada as a permanent resident six or ten or even twenty years ago. After spending a short time in Canada, Mr. X left our country to pursue an employment opportunity abroad and has never been back. Now, many years later, he wishes to return to Canada and resume his life as a Canadian landed immigrant. Based on what I have stated above, you would say this can't happen because Mr. X has not accumulated two years of Canadian residency days in each five year period since becoming a permanent resident. Your assessment of the situation would be correct, but only partially. If Mr. X happens to be a citizen of certain countries, such as India, China or a Middle Eastern nation, his days as a Canadian permanent resident are likely over. On the other hand, if Mr. X is a national of other countries, such as the U.S., Australia or a Western European nation, then he might very well be able to return to Canada and eventually resume his status as a Canadian permanent resident.
You are probably wondering how this obvious favoritism can occur. Let me explain how it happens.
An individual who is a citizen of a country requiring a temporary resident visa (TRV) to enter Canada will not be able to board a commercial carrier back to Canada without the TRV or a Travel Document issued by a Canadian visa office unless they are in possession of a valid Canadian permanent resident card. Once the permanent resident card has expired that individual must approach a Canadian visa office (outside Canada) and apply for a Travel Document that will be acceptable to a commercial carrier. In the application for a Travel Document, a determination of Canadian residency status takes place. If Canadian immigration authorities decide that the applicant has not accumulated two years of residency days in the last five years and in the absence of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the application for a Travel Document will be refused. Permanent residence status has been lost.
Now compare this situation to that of an individual from a country that does not require a temporary resident visa for travel to Canada. The latter individual requires only a valid passport to board a commercial carrier destined to Canada. There is no requirement for a valid permanent resident card or Travel Document from a Canadian visa office to board a Canadian bound commercial carrier. Once in Canada as a visitor, all the individual needs to do is remain here for two years. At that point, the individual will have actually accumulated two years of Canadian residency days in the last five years. IRPA and its Regulations permit the immigration authorities to only examine the preceding five years - nothing further back. And in the last five years the individual resided in Canada for two years. Canadian permanent residency has effectively been restored.
Lucky for some, unlucky for others. It shouldn't be that way.
8 Comments:
At November 30, 2009, Anonymous said...
You have higlighted a flaw with the system. However what you have failed to do is to proffer a solution. I know you are vast in immigration law. It would only be fair if you make a corrective suggestion to this system.
At December 01, 2009, Anonymous said...
A comment about solutions corresponds to be made by immigration authorities, who are in duty of it.
At December 01, 2009, Anonymous said...
Discrimination in distiguishing between background exists since some need a visa to enter Canada and others not. So, nothing would be against the Charter of rights here. Nevertheless, when the bar coded passport is scanned by CBSA officer, it is noted the date of entry; thus, Immigration officer reviewing the application to renew PR has full access to all dates and to compare what's submitted, and based on it, they are refusing a fair # of crooked applicants.
At December 01, 2009, Anonymous said...
By Israr Gilani
You have highlighted and pin pointed a problem currently me and my family is facing. we are a family of six individuals (two spouoses and four children) one of my 12 years of age child is Canadian by birth, all other five are Citizen of Pakistan. In January 1995 we became landed immigrants in Canada, on 11th January 1997 my yougest son was born in Markham, Ontario. All were enrolled in Canadian educational institutions. In December 2005 we had to travel abroad to attend an emergency ocurred due to sudden death of my father while our Permanent Resident Cards were submitted for renewal. According to the CIC guidelines in June 2006 we applied to the Canadian Embassy abroad for travel documents that was refused by the visa officer. The visa officer approach was clearly discreminatory and based on illogical facts. I 100% agree with the content of your article as some rules are discreminatory and some funtionaries are also having discreminatory mentalities that needs to be addressed by the authorities. However, my application is curently with the Federal Court of Canada for final decision but we have suffered a lot due to above stated situation.
At December 01, 2009, Ziad Haddad said...
Residency is not about staying in there. It is all about having a job and the degree of contribution to the community. I think there are other priorities and more important issues to the Canadian Government than thinking about evaluating the immigration system fairness in as far as this specific area is concerned.
Staying in Canada as a visitor for two years to afterwards claiming the supposedly "lost" permanent residency on the basis of being in there is not favorable as no contribution by the immigrant "visitor" was done to the community and no benefit was taken by that visitor from being in there. I can not see the benefit of an Australian or Western European staying in Canada as a visitor for two years with out a job, unless he is authorized to work in the first place then the whole argument would have been solved.
The question that we should ask, if there was any diversity, discrimination or different treatment by the Canadian System "after" obtaining the permanent residency on the basis of the country of origin?, I doubt it.
Selecting who to land, enter, or be given a TRV is a Nation and Government right; it goes for Canadians, Middle Externs, European, North Korean and Chinese alike. These are the international rules. They have nothing to do with discrimination. Each country is measured through the efforts of its people to have a clean sheet of healthy history and each person is responsible for his background to have it internationally accepted to obtain a TRV anywhere. No one can enforce otherwise.
At December 01, 2009, Ziad Haddad said...
Just to Clarify and to clear a point; my comments were prepared and sent before the posting of Mr. Israr Gilani case which abviousely I had not seen while preparing my comments. Therefore my comments were not as a reaction to the respected Gilani rather, general comments
Thanks,,,
At December 01, 2009, anoop singh said... I have been trying to immigrate to Canada for the past 5 years. There seems little or no hope.My documentation has been accepted by the Canadian Embassy, New Delhi and I have never ever got a feedback about this inordinate delay from the authorities.I feel this is highly prejudicial and discriminatory. Why did the authorities accept my documentation in the first place? Now why this delay? In the long run aspiring, qualified and highly skilled immigrants like me will loose interest and fade out from the endless immigration queue.
At December 01, 2009, Anonymous said...
Colonialism is both good and bad. However, the fact remains that Canada, and many countries in the world, were at one time part of British Empire. As Such, the Crown was responsible for much of what Canada has become. This is a National cultural debt, and as such Canada expresses that gratitude by being a little more friendly towards the UK. By extension, Canada must therefore be amenable towards those countries (Westerners) that are considered to be traditional allies of the Crown. Having said that, I admit this observation fails when it comes to India and especially Pakistan, who seems to have attempted a bloodless coup of London by virtue of the flood of immigrants to the U.K.
