Meeting minimum residency while working for International Organization

[Gini]

Hi all,

I am aware of the minimum residency requirement for PR holders, but I know there is an exception if you work for a Canadian company abroad or something like that. Does anyone know how it would be looked upon if you work for the United Nations or the World Bank for example? Canada is a member of these organizations and employees are considered international civil servants (with diplomatic privileges in the countries where they are posted). Would that be acceptable for renewing PR even if someone doesn't meet the minimum residency requirement? Does anyone have any experience with this?

 

[Almost_Canadian]

This is from the PR renewal guide which is on the cic website.

If outside Canada working for a Canadian business or public service, provide:

• proof that the company has a Canadian head office;
• proof of your full-time job and
• if you will be working for that company when you return to Canada.

Simple question : does the UN or similar organization pass the 'proof that the company has a Canadian head office ' test ?
I think that would answer your question straightaway.

 

[Buletruck]

Don't think it's as straightforward as that if they are considered a Canadian civil servant while employed by the UN. Although one of the considerations would probably be if its term employment as part of a position you obtained in Canada and has a specific duration. But I'm just guessing. I would contact IRCC or better yet your employer contact for Canada and pose the question.

 

[PMM]

Hi

Don't think it's as straightforward as that if they are considered a Canadian civil servant while employed by the UN. Although one of the considerations would probably be if its term employment as part of a position you obtained in Canada and has a specific duration. But I'm just guessing. I would contact IRCC or better yet your employer contact for Canada and pose the question.

1. Working for a International Organization will not preserve your PR status. There have been a couple of Federal Court rulings on it.

 

[dpenabill]

there is an exception if you work for a Canadian company abroad or something like that. Does anyone know how it would be looked upon if you work for the United Nations or the World Bank for example? Canada is a member of these organizations and employees are considered international civil servants (with diplomatic privileges in the countries where they are posted). Would that be acceptable for renewing PR even if someone doesn't meet the minimum residency requirement?

I concur in the response by PMM.

Note, additionally and in particular, that the exception requires the employer to be a Canadian business, or an employer in the federal public administration or the public service of a province. The exception is not for just any public service.

Moreover, it should be remembered that unlike the exception for accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, this exception tends to be strictly and narrowly applied, and even when the employer meets the criteria (which as PMM posted, an International Organization ordinarily does NOT), in practice, given the temporary assignment element, there are very few who will qualify for this exception who do not otherwise meet the PR Residency Obligation anyway.

Simple question : does the UN or similar organization pass the 'proof that the company has a Canadian head office ' test ?
I think that would answer your question straightaway.

If this question has a negative answer, no Canadian head office, that is ordinarily enough to answer the query straight-away: no, the exception will NOT apply. But if the entity (organization or company) does have a Canadian head office, that will NOT provide an answer, since even if it does, there are additional criteria the employer must meet.

And again, that part is just about whether the employer meets the criteria.

The employment itself must also meet certain requirements. At the very least, the PR needs to have been employed by the business or organization in Canada, for a position in Canada, and then be assigned to a temporary position abroad, and the terms of employment need to include a plan for the employee to return to a position in Canada at the conclusion of the temporary assignment. There is more to it than that, but just that tends to exclude a wide, wide range of employment situations.


I would caution about relying on a help centre response for questions like this.

The help centre respresentatives can restate the exception, much like it is stated in the instruction guide for PR Card applications (part about residency obligation). But beyond FAQ responses, call centre representatives are not a reliable source for answering complex questions. Even if they have the knowledge and understanding relative to the particular query, for such questions there are way too many nuances and potentially critical factors which cannot be adequately addressed or taken into account in a telephonic Q&A.

It warrants repeating and emphasizing that even if an entity qualifies, as a employer who meets the criteria, the temporary assignment requirement tends to exclude much if not most employment abroad. Being hired for a position or post abroad, for example, almost definitely will NOT qualify.

 

[scylla]

Hi



1. Working for a International Organization will not preserve your PR status. There have been a couple of Federal Court rulings on it.

Agreed with the above. The answer is no and it has been proven in court.

 

[Gini]

Thanks guys, very helpful...the answer is very clearly NO.

 

[sp2305]

any changes in the recent days to the above , or is it still NO ?

 

[Buletruck]

Still the same.

 

[scylla]

any changes in the recent days to the above , or is it still NO ?

No changes. Still a no.

 

[Oxygen25]

No changes. Still a no.

I think there is an update. Please find a recent case below, what are your thoughts?

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/350797/index.do?q=United+Nation

This is for citizenship application though, dont know what eventually happened though.

 

[Naheulbeuck]

I think there is an update. Please find a recent case below, what are your thoughts?

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/350797/index.do?q=United+Nation

This is for citizenship application though, dont know what eventually happened though.

Yes I couldn't find out what happened either, however it is quite the gamble to rely on this, the judge determined that her work provided exceptional value to the UN and therefore to Canada, and then sent the decision back to the Minister as :

"Despite any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, in his or her discretion"

Therefore the judge did not grant citizenship, it merely said that the decision by a senior decision-maker was not based on an appropriate conclusion, it is still at the discretion of the Minister to grant citizenship.

That is a lot of criteria to meet with no guarantee, therefore based on previous decisions I would strongly advise against relying on this path to maintain PR/get citizenship.

 

[Oxygen25]

Yes I couldn't find out what happened either, however it is quite the gamble to rely on this, the judge determined that her work provided exceptional value to the UN and therefore to Canada, and then sent the decision back to the Minister as :

"Despite any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, in his or her discretion"

Therefore the judge did not grant citizenship, it merely said that the decision by a senior decision-maker was not based on an appropriate conclusion, it is still at the discretion of the Minister to grant citizenship.

That is a lot of criteria to meet with no guarantee, therefore based on previous decisions I would strongly advise against relying on this path to maintain PR/get citizenship.

Completely agree.

My only worry is, there have been more cases of the court not dismissing the reviews, and I believe when this occurs, a change to the citizenship act should be proposed at some point, especially if these people continue to win at the FC. See another one:

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/37848/index.do?q=United+Nation

Common things are: they have good/sufficient ties to Canada (e.g. family members are residents/citizens, filing of taxes every year, investment and residential properties in Canada, annual visits to Canada, and working with institutions established by the UN Charter, with Canada a member.) I actually believe that they eventually got citizenship. I can't say for PR renewal though.

Of course, no one should rely on this to get Citizenship, but if anyone is in it already, they can pick the previous cases to argue theirs at the FC, if they win, then the chance of getting a positive decision is higher.

 

[armoured]

My only worry is, there have been more cases of the court not dismissing the reviews, and I believe when this occurs, a change to the citizenship act should be proposed at some point, especially if these people continue to win at FCC.

Personal view only: it will require an amendment to citizenship and immigration act(s). Write to MPs and Ministers. They are slightly separate issues, of course, the question of residence for maintaining PR and various citizenship provisions.

For info the US provisions are MUCH different with respect to work for international orgs. Basically equates service with intl orgs as residency, equivalent to the way military or US government service is.

 

[dpenabill]

I think there is an update. Please find a recent case below, what are your thoughts?

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/350797/index.do?q=United+Nation

This is for citizenship application though, dont know what eventually happened though.

No, this is NOT an update regarding credit toward either PR RO compliance or the grant citizenship presence requirement.

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/37848/index.do?q=United+Nation

Common things are: they have good/sufficient ties to Canada (e.g. family members are residents/citizens, filing of taxes every year, investment and residential properties in Canada, annual visits to Canada, and working with institutions established by the UN Charter, with Canada a member.) I actually believe that they eventually got citizenship. I can't say for PR renewal though.

Foremost, the more recent case cited (Halepota) is NOT an update applicable to the PR Residency Obligation. In particular, it is NOT at all relevant to calculating credit toward the RO for time working abroad.

Moreover, in regards to grant citizenship applications, it is NOT relevant to calculating credit toward meeting either a residency requirement (as was applicable at the time Halepota made an application for citizenship) or a physical presence requirement (as has been applicable since June 2015). The requirements for a grant of citizenship pursuant to subsection 5(1) in the Citizenship Act played NO ROLE in the Halepota decision.

Moreover, even in regards to an application for grant citizenship pursuant to subsection 5(4) in the Citizenship Act, the Halepota case is almost certainly an outlier, a rather unusual if not rare outcome. (Note, too, the timeline: it involves an application made in 2009 and not decided until June 6, 2017.) The grant of citizenship pursuant to subsection 5(4) in the Citizenship Act is itself highly unusual. Media reports around the time of the decision describe this as "an obscure provision" of law, and a lawyer is quoted as saying that cases like this one are “rarer than hens’ teeth," meaning it is not a case offering anyone else much if any of an argument supporting an application for citizenship, even under subsection 5(4) . . . and . . .

And to be clear, the Halepota case is NOT about calculating residency or presence in Canada. It has NOTHING to do with calculating credits toward meeting the (then applicable) residency requirement for a grant of citizenship, let alone the current actual physical presence requirement. Subsection 5(4) grant citizenship applications are based on grounds ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the requirements for applications made pursuant to subsection 5(1) in the Citizenship Act.

And given numerous major changes in the law since the 2001 case (Benjamin/Badjeck), that decision is NOT relevant for grant citizenship applications let alone PR RO compliance; moreover, even in regards to other cases governed by the older law, pursuant to which a residency test rather than a physical presence test could be applied, multiple Federal Court decisions nonetheless reached a conclusion essentially the opposite of that in the Benjamin/Badjeck case. (The Benjamin/Badjeck decision was about how the so-called "Koo" factors are assessed and applied, which is totally irrelevant for any grant citizenship application made after June 2015.)

"I actually believe that they eventually got citizenship."​

Whether Benjamin Badjeck eventually got citizenship is not relevant to this discussion, since that case itself is not relevant. Moreover, we know, nonetheless, that the reasoning in that case did not prevail in a number of other cases.

I do not know if Bushra Jabeen Halepota eventually got citizenship. Her case was covered by multiple media outlets, none of which I have seen report how things eventually turned out. No report she eventually became a Canadian citizen. At the very least, nonetheless, there are two key aspects which highlight that this case is also, essentially, NOT RELEVANT to the discussion in this topic, as to whether a PR will be credited, for RO compliance purposes, with time abroad employed with an international organization:

-- even if she was granted citizenship, that would NOT be based on credit toward the residency requirement for time employed by the UNHCR, and​

-- even if she was granted citizenship, pursuant to subsection 5(4) in the Citizenship Act, that outcome itself is VERY UNUSUAL if not exceptionally RARE​

They are slightly separate issues, of course, the question of residence for maintaining PR and various citizenship provisions.

There is common ground in the assessment or evaluation of what constitutes "residency" for various purposes, not just immigration or citizenship. Additionally there are some comparable "credits" toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation and the current physical presence requirements for a grant of citizenship (subsection 5(1) Citizenship Act) . . . as both allow for "credits" for time outside Canada.

In particular, for BOTH, there is a credit based on time outside Canada for individuals employed in certain capacities involving Canadian public service. (The IRPA, PR RO credit, is broader than the one for citizenship in that it also allows credit for those employed by a Canadian business.) In particular see subsection 28(2)(a) IRPA, including 28(2)(a)(ii) and 28(2)(a)(iii), at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-274598 , and comparably subsections 5(1.01), 5(1.02) and 5(1.03) in the Citizenship Act at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont

-- for the PR RO, the credit is available to a PR employed "in the federal public administration or the public service of a province"​

-- for credit toward meeting grant citizenship presence requirement, the credit is available to a PR employed "in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person."​

Despite the differences in precise terms, in the respective statutory provisions, relative to credit for time abroad while engaged in public service, there is NO DOUBT, these do not support a credit for time in the employ of an International Organization as such.

Nothing in either Halepota v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1196 https://canlii.ca/t/hwbbq or Benjamin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1301 https://canlii.ca/t/m95 so much as hints otherwise. Leading to

My only worry is, there have been more cases of the court not dismissing the reviews, and I believe when this occurs, a change to the citizenship act should be proposed at some point, especially if these people continue to win at the FC.

I do not fully follow this but it warrants emphasizing there is NO hint that either of these cases support a claim for credit for time abroad in the employ of an International Organization. There is nothing in either of the cases that suggests any need for changes to the Citizenship Act. Again, the rationale underlying the Benjamin/Badjeck decision (how the "Koo" criteria is assessed and applied) is no longer relevant to grant citizenship applications (except any applications made before June 2015 which are still pending), and the rationale underlying the Halepota decision has NOTHING to do with grant citizenship applications made pursuant to subsection 5(1) in the Citizenship Act, NOTHING to do with what qualifies for credit toward the physical presence requirements for a grant of citizenship.


H&C Cases Distinguished:

H&C cases, in contrast, allow for the consideration of just about any factor which arguably could weigh in favour of allowing relief for a failure to satisfy the PR Residency Obligation. That's a huge, huge subject. How a PR's service abroad in the employ of an International Organization might positively influence the H&C case, in particular, is a separate and complex matter.

But make no mistake, this is NOT about getting "credit" toward RO compliance. It warrants a reminder that RO cases effectively involve a two-part analysis. First part is to determine whether the PR complied with the RO. If NOT, then there is the second part, to determine whether there are sufficient H&C reasons for allowing the PR to keep PR status DESPITE the failure to comply with the RO.

Being employed abroad by the most beneficent International Organization will NOT qualify for credit toward RO compliance. It will NOT help in the first part.

And again, there is NO hint that either of the cases cited here suggests otherwise.