I don't know how it is now. Years back (when I was fully in RO compliance) I flew to Canada from the US. And it was like night and day, in comparison with my land POE experience. I was all up in arms, ready for secondary inspection, planning to call supervisor, make a formal written complaint etc. I ended up just scanning my documents at the kiosk and when I approached CBSA agent on my way to exit, all he did was glance at me and my hand (I held my passport/ticket/customs form), and he just nodded without asking any questions.
maximum residency can only reach a little more than 730 days, apply renewal or not?
- Thread starter bricksonly
- Start date
@bricksonly . . . An Addendum Regarding RO Credit Based on Accompanying Canadian Citizen Spouse, and the Who-Accompanied-Whom Factor:
I did not address this in much depth in my previous post since your situation, as described, does not appear to pose much risk regarding a potential who-accompanied-whom issue. That said, the references to periods of time living apart and you more or less joining your Canadian citizen spouse rather than the two of you moving together (as in not exactly accompanying one another) to the U.S., distinguishes your situation some from the typical scenarios in which, according to IAD and Federal Court decisions, and the arguments made by counsel representing the Minister in those cases, the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit is intended to apply. Still, probably NOT an issue . . . unless there are other factors or circumstances further distinguishing your situation from the typical scenarios in which the credit is intended (mostly oriented to a couple living in Canada moving abroad together).
I did, however, allude to possible other factors in that vein: your arrival at a Canadian PoE traveling apart from your spouse, as in again NOT accompanying one another.
We do not know what triggers the more strict, severe approach to assessing the applicability of this accompanying-citizen-spouse credit. I cannot say how much more likely that sort of scrutiny will be if you and your spouse fairly often travel to Canada separately, not together. Odds are there is NO risk of this sort of scrutiny as long as you are usually traveling together. Probably no need to consider this issue further if you typically arrive at a Canadian PoE accompanying one another.
But otherwise, given the history of your respective moves, neither accompanying the other in the move to the U.S., if there is otherwise a pattern of not traveling together, you may want to at least be cognizant that this is a question that can sometimes arise, that sometimes officers (both CBSA in PoE examinations, or IRCC attendant a PR TD or PR card application) can focus on who-accompanied-whom or, it should not be overlooked, if whether one was accompanying the other at all, and be prepared to explain things including, in particular, on-going ties and plans connected to Canada.
Again, this does not appear to be a high profile risk for you . . . but there are a few hints that it could be otherwise depending on whether there is a readily seen pattern of traveling apart.
And a reminder: when you are traveling separately, even if you have a new PR card, probably a good idea to have documentation verifying marital relationship, spouse's citizenship, and something (not a lot but something) to show you share the same address. Or at least have very specific information regarding these things (date and place of marriage for example, something that shows spouse's citizenship like date and place of birth in Canada if that applies, date and place of oath if naturalized, and again specific information about living in the same residence).
I did not address this in much depth in my previous post since your situation, as described, does not appear to pose much risk regarding a potential who-accompanied-whom issue. That said, the references to periods of time living apart and you more or less joining your Canadian citizen spouse rather than the two of you moving together (as in not exactly accompanying one another) to the U.S., distinguishes your situation some from the typical scenarios in which, according to IAD and Federal Court decisions, and the arguments made by counsel representing the Minister in those cases, the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit is intended to apply. Still, probably NOT an issue . . . unless there are other factors or circumstances further distinguishing your situation from the typical scenarios in which the credit is intended (mostly oriented to a couple living in Canada moving abroad together).
I did, however, allude to possible other factors in that vein: your arrival at a Canadian PoE traveling apart from your spouse, as in again NOT accompanying one another.
We do not know what triggers the more strict, severe approach to assessing the applicability of this accompanying-citizen-spouse credit. I cannot say how much more likely that sort of scrutiny will be if you and your spouse fairly often travel to Canada separately, not together. Odds are there is NO risk of this sort of scrutiny as long as you are usually traveling together. Probably no need to consider this issue further if you typically arrive at a Canadian PoE accompanying one another.
But otherwise, given the history of your respective moves, neither accompanying the other in the move to the U.S., if there is otherwise a pattern of not traveling together, you may want to at least be cognizant that this is a question that can sometimes arise, that sometimes officers (both CBSA in PoE examinations, or IRCC attendant a PR TD or PR card application) can focus on who-accompanied-whom or, it should not be overlooked, if whether one was accompanying the other at all, and be prepared to explain things including, in particular, on-going ties and plans connected to Canada.
Again, this does not appear to be a high profile risk for you . . . but there are a few hints that it could be otherwise depending on whether there is a readily seen pattern of traveling apart.
And a reminder: when you are traveling separately, even if you have a new PR card, probably a good idea to have documentation verifying marital relationship, spouse's citizenship, and something (not a lot but something) to show you share the same address. Or at least have very specific information regarding these things (date and place of marriage for example, something that shows spouse's citizenship like date and place of birth in Canada if that applies, date and place of oath if naturalized, and again specific information about living in the same residence).
Nice to know this, thanks. You mean IRCC tends to issue PRTD to people like me without any limit other than PR card with a lot more limit?
And, as you mentioned, it's safer if my wife goes with me (accompany) to enter Canada. We actually DOES plan to visit our daughter at UBC in May. But our home in Ontario is going to off rent in April and I have a plan to do some renovation myself. Is this a good reason to go just myself?
Last edited:
Re Multiple-entry (multiple-use) PR Travel Document:
As I noted, we have not seen much anecdotal reporting lately about this, but we know IRCC did begin issuing more of these a few years ago. It is not clear why some got the multiple-use PR TD while others did not. Obviously, you will not know if you get one unless and until you make an application for a PR TD.
How long it is good for, when issued, is similar to multiple-use visas: typically the PR TD will expire when the PR's passport expires or in five years, whichever happens first. That said, there have been isolated reports of multiple-use PR TDs issued for periods shorter than that (expires in less than five years and sooner than when the passport expires).
Re Travel to Canada Accompanying Spouse or Not:
Except for how it goes in a specific instance, that is on a particular occasion when you are arriving at a Canadian PoE, this is more about impression and perception, not about screening criteria, not a substantive factor.
There is a tendency in the forum to focus on particular transactions, and thus the particular situation attendant that transaction. And of course that is the context in which decisions are made. What happens, how it goes, when a PR applies for entry into Canada from abroad (which is an application made by just arriving at the PoE), or applies for a PR TD, or applies for a new PR card, and what will affect that, what will influence how that goes, is of course the main thing. And while there are many variables involved, we can readily identify some patterns. No advanced degrees in government policy necessary to recognize there is a significant difference between showing up at the PoE with a valid PR card versus arriving at a land border crossing PoE and presenting an expired PR card. Nonetheless, that is in general, and how it goes for a specific individual on a particular occasion will depend on other factors.
Other factors include the PR's history. Some of that is about screening criteria and is substantive. Big difference, for example, if the returning PR was last in Canada three plus years ago (even if presenting a valid PR card) versus the PR with a travel history more or less indicating the PR lives in Canada and travels abroad for occasional brief trips. The differences can be less stark, less obvious. Sometimes a PR's frequent international travel history points in one direction, sometimes in another. Often there is a discernible pattern, which can indicate the PR is primarily living or working abroad and visiting Canada, or it can indicate the PR is primarily living in Canada and visiting abroad. Varies from individual to individual, based on the particular individual's actual history.
But whether the PR is even examined at that level of detail varies considerably. What triggers elevated scrutiny is a huge, huge subject, a difficult subject, and even though we can identify many of the factors, we do not know others, and how this or that factor actually influences how it goes is often uncertain. Again, we recognize some patterns, some correlations, but generally cannot precisely map particular factors to definite outcomes.
Which brings this back to the other side of things, and that is the tendency to underestimate, if not overlook, the influence this or that impression, or this or that potential perception, can have. This includes the influence the PR's history can have. This is not necessarily about a direct connection but, again, about impression and perception. The rules are one thing, and they dictate the grounds for formal decision-making. Impressions and perceptions, in contrast, can steer officers in one direction or another, toward being more or less casual, or toward being more vigilant if not strict or even severe.
The long way round to addressing travel to Canada accompanying a citizen spouse versus coming here apart from, not accompanying the spouse.
Here too, there is how it goes in the course of a particular transaction, that is, upon actual arrival at a PoE. As I suggested before, for a couple traveling together, the odds are high border officials will not so much as blink let alone overtly think about verifying the accompanying PR's RO compliance (unless there is some other history or factor triggering elevated scrutiny), let alone dive into questions or details about who-accompanied-whom going abroad. And, there is no reason to apprehend or fear the risk of such questioning even when traveling alone . . . except the threshold for what other history or factor might trigger such an examination is probably lower. But even if you encounter such questioning, being prepared to show marital relationship, spouse's citizenship, and cohabitation abroad, and if asked, being able to otherwise explain your situation, including for example that the primary reason for living in the states is the spouse's employment (assuming this is true -- fudging information is an entirely different scene), should be readily sufficient. As I noted before, your situation does NOT sound any serious who-accompanied-whom alarms. EXCEPT . . .
Except it might . . . if there are other circumstances potentially inviting such questions. Which is where history again comes into the picture, including future history. Arriving at the Canadian border alone once or twice is not likely to raise any questions. A pattern of that, however, sooner or later might. Again, it is very, very difficult to forecast what triggers elevated scrutiny, what makes the difference between encountering a few casual questions versus being closely examined. You do not appear to be at much risk. But of course that is based on only a sketchy outline of minimal facts. These observations are mostly about being prepared for what could happen rather than what is likely to happen, about reducing risks.
Remember: none of the posters here are licensed Canadian attorneys. Attorney's time is too valuable and costly for them to spend it on public forum (unless they do so for marketing purposes, and when they do so they advertise their first name and last name and a firm they work for).
It is also highly unlikely that CBSA employees will register here to give advise immigrants on public forum, telling them how to cross the border while in breach of RO. They would be liable for giving legal advise and, especially if you followed through and got reported, they could then be sued for entrapment, giving wrong advise, etc.
This means ONLY LAYMEN are posting here , especially when it comes to advice on how to cross Canadian border while in breach of RO. Don't be fooled by hundreds of paragraphs some posters write in order to appear smart and deeply aware of the issue. If you read carefully, it's mostly nothing but delusional projections, ramblings and speculations, not founded on practical knowledge of the things they pontificate about.
You ask very specific question: am I OK in the eyes of CBSA if I don't accompany my wife on my way back, because I have plans to renovate my house in April and meet my wife in May to go visit our daughter. To answer such a question, one must know all applicable regulations and their practical implementation in very specific circumstances you describe. Remember, even if what you do is 100% right by the law, no one knows which CBSA agent will be examining you at the border. Some of them are plain stupid, imagine themselves to be superheroes and start enforcing their own rules driven by poor judgment and vigilantism. You have to recognize that it's a toss of dice what kind of CBSA agent will examine you at POE, and no one knows how he will perceive you. At least a licensed immigration attorney could tell you about your odds based on the facts of your case, while relying on years of professional experience dealing with hundreds of clients who may have been in circumstances similar to yours. Do not rely on what you are being told here by random posters, they might be erring a big time (especially those who express simplest thoughts in hundreds of paragraphs). Good luck.
Last edited:
GuyanaGirl
Hero Member
- Jul 4, 2016
- 313
- Visa Office......
- Kitchener
- App. Filed.......
- July, 20th 2016
- Med's Request
- Upfront
That’s what I am saying . US citizens or green card holders dont need a visa nor PR card to board a flight to Canada.
people who need a visa, PRTD, or PR card to re-enter etc won’t get past the check in counter .
US Citizens and US PRs both can enter Canada without visa, but I believe US Citizens are the only ones who are exempt from applying for eTA.
https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=593&top=16