Permanent Residency Obligation

[canuck78]

While perhaps for different reasons, like @armoured I do not quite understand this post.

Apart from that, my general sense remains consistent with the main point in what @armoured and I have offered: coming here, and coming to STAY, and doing this fairly soon, should be OK. Should be, not necessarily will be.

There are some risks. The sooner you come, the lower those risks. The longer you wait to come, the bigger the risks.

But that is NOT the same as assuring you that traveling together means there "won't be an issue." Traveling together should lower the PR spouse's risks, and if the trip is fairly soon the risks should be quite low (which appears to be contrary to what @canuck78 says), but that does not mean it is guaranteed it will be OK. Odds are good it will be OK, that there will NOT be an issue. But this is NOT for-sure. And not all of us agree about this.

Moreover, in particular, hopefully you understand that what we say here is not official, not for-sure what will actually happen.

Which brings up the part of your post that most confused me: "Final conclusion is required from the members end."

Whatever members' final conclusion is being referenced, hopefully you understand this forum has NO real say in how things will go, and what members post here is largely information and opinion subject to all the caveats that apply to open venues on the internet. Including, especially, the caveat that except to the extent information is documented by verifiable official and authoritative sources, what is posted here is not even close to definitive.

Which again brings up the direct conflict, for example, between my observations and those posted by @canuck78 in regards to prospective risks when arriving at a Port-of-Entry. Moreover, it appears our observations not only differ in regards to risks attendant short trips outside Canada AFTER returning to and getting WELL-SETTLED in Canada, but also in regards to the risk of a formal Residency Obligation examination upon arrival at the PoE even if you make the trip fairly soon.

For purposes of deciding what YOU do, and WHEN, your decision-making is personal to you, FOR YOU to DECIDE, your call, based on all the information you have considered. All we can do here, all the "members" of this forum can offer, is our best understanding of how the system works, and as evident here, sometimes we have different views about some of these things.

In regards to your report about "having only 600+ days," versus YOUR status (as a PR or citizen) . . . my observations before and those that follow are based on YOU being a Canadian citizen and your PR spouse being the one who has "only 600+ days" . . . which I interpret to be about the number of days left on the calendar she has to meet her RO obligation for the first five years.

Which if that is the scenario:
-- if she has so far only been IN Canada 15 days, and
-- there are approximately 600 days left in her first five years, and
-- if ONLY days actually in Canada are counted
-- THEN she is NOW short, NOW in BREACH

In which event if she arrives at a Port-of-Entry next week, say, and she is examined at that time in regards to complying with the RO, and in that examination she is only given credit for days actually IN Canada so far, no credit for days living with a Canadian citizen spouse, she could be Reported and issued a Departure Order, a decision that terminates her PR status UNLESS it is successfully appealed.

I doubt that is how it will go . . . noting, again, the SOONER you get here, the better the odds it will go OK.

That is again, if you are traveling together, finally making the move to come here to settle, and this happens fairly soon, the odds of that kind of examination are quite likely very low. Rather, the odds most likely lean heavily toward being waived through with no referral to an Immigration Secondary screening, but even if that happens, and you are together, the odds are that even then there will not be a problem(noting, though, both of you may have to answer some questions). In contrast, again, @canuck78 appears to be asserting otherwise. And that is based on relatively the same reason for disagreeing with my other, previous observation that AFTER coming to Canada and being WELL-SETTLED here, short trips abroad should also be OK.

This disagreement is specifically about whether or not your spouse (assuming YOU are a Canadian citizen and the two of you have been living together abroad) will be given credit toward RO compliance for the days the two of you have been living together abroad. This is about the credit a PR can be given for time outside Canada accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse-abroad.

My view is that if you arrive soon there is little need to worry about this. Since I am NO expert, the best I can offer to support that is some further explanation for this view. To do that, I will further address these matters in the topic most focused on the accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse-abroad credit here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...th-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/page-5.

Thus, in particular, I will respond there to the following posts:

Would never encourage PRs who are already out of status to do multiple short trips out of Canada if they aren’t compliant with their RO. PRs status is always at risk if you leave Canada. There is no indication on how long OP will have remained in Canada with their spouse before attempting to leave again. When it comes to counting time accompanying a Canadian citizen towards RO it is important that the PR establish ties and spend time in Canada which hasn’t happened yet. If the couple returns to Canada in the near future I agree that the spouse is unlikely to be reported but with every subsequent trip you risk being reported which is why until you meet RO it is never a good idea to leave Canada until you are compliant with your RO.

 

[BadGamer6]

Reading this thread just gave me headaches… a lot of things just don’t add up in here

 

[dpenabill]

Reading this thread just gave me headaches… a lot of things just don’t add up in here

BLAME ME . . . SORRY . . . kind of what happens when you open a can full of worms, which I did. I have excuses.

In terms of what the OP and the OP's PR spouse should consider (as best we know, and assuming the OP is a Canadian citizen ) in making decisions about what to do, or otherwise how to go about protecting the PR's status, it really is NOT all that complicated. As I initially observed:

If [the OP and PR] travel together and come to Canada relatively soon, her valid PR card should readily suffice.​

As @armoured noted, the sooner the trip to Canada the less risk there is of having issues.​

And while I did not highlight or emphasize it, beyond that it is fair to say that the *safest* approach, after arrival in Canada, is for the PR to stay long enough to meet the PR Residency Obligation based on counting days physically present in Canada before taking any action that could trigger a RO compliance examination. This, I think, is the main thing @canuck78 is asserting, and to this extent I agree, that is that staying long enough, before traveling abroad again for example, to meet the PR RO based on days physically present, is the *safest* approach.

Then I opened that damn can full of worms, bringing up what I characterized as "some more complex aspects" in the OP's situation.

I often wrestle with whether it is a good idea or necessary to dig into the tangents and nuances. I realize that no matter how much I separate the more complex issues from what is both a fairly simple answer and a prudent approach in the situation (which is precisely what @armoured offered), there is a risk the simple answer, and more or less clearly prudent approach, may be distracted if not overrun by the more complicated issues. That calculation itself, whether to go into the weeds, is complex, rife with nuance, and dependent on a wide range of variables including difficult to forecast contingencies.

There were a number of factors which influenced my decision to go digging into the more complicated aspects of the OP's situation. I have excuses. One loomed large: the OP and PR spouse might be advised that RO credit is given to PRs who are living abroad with their Canadian citizen spouse, and so there should be no worries or concerns about the PR spouse keeping status. In contrast, as the subsequent discussion addresses, in the OP's situation actually there is some RISK in relying on that, in relying on RO credit for days abroad accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse, IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO and IF they do not come to Canada relatively soon and settle here.

So, before wandering still further into the weeds, it is probably a good idea to restate with emphasis the more simple, BEST approach for the OP and PR spouse:

-- travel together to Canada, the SOONER the better, and​

-- come to stay, to SETTLE in Canada, and​

-- the *safest* approach, after arrival in Canada, is for the PR to stay long enough to meet the PR Residency Obligation based on counting days physically present in Canada before taking any action that could trigger a RO compliance examination​

If the OP and PR spouse act accordingly, and that formula is not complicated, the odds are very good there will be no status issues for the PR spouse. If they do this, there is NO reason to consider or worry about the rest of the discussion here.

But as it is often discussed in this forum, coming and staying for two full years without some travel abroad can often be difficult for immigrants. Very difficult for some. Near impossible for some.

So notwithstanding the simple and *safest* approach, I qualified that by noting that AFTER (with much emphasis on AFTER) the couple have come to Canada and are FULLY SETTLED in Canada (and again much emphasis on their being FULLY SETTLED), absent an extended time abroad, there should be little or no more than a low or very low risk of RO problems, a low risk that there would be a problem getting credit for days abroad living abroad with the citizen spouse. This, as I understand it, is what @canuck78 disagrees with. The gist of that, as I discern, was expressed here:

"Given that the wife never established herself in Canada it will be quite difficult to show that she was accompanying her husband abroad from 2018 when she got PR."​

And that discussion does get complicated. And it should come with the caveat that for the OP the issue is time sensitive, with the caution there should be little delay, now, in coming to settle here in Canada.

Leading to this . . .

Would never encourage PRs who are already out of status to do multiple short trips out of Canada if they aren’t compliant with their RO. PRs status is always at risk if you leave Canada. There is no indication on how long OP will have remained in Canada with their spouse before attempting to leave again. When it comes to counting time accompanying a Canadian citizen towards RO it is important that the PR establish ties and spend time in Canada which hasn’t happened yet. If the couple returns to Canada in the near future I agree that the spouse is unlikely to be reported but with every subsequent trip you risk being reported which is why until you meet RO it is never a good idea to leave Canada until you are compliant with your RO.

I still plan or at least hope to more fully address the OP's scenario in the context of the accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse RO credit here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...th-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/page-5 .

For here and now, I totally agree that it is NOT a good idea to encourage a PR who is in breach of the RO to exit Canada, whether for a long or short trip, or even a day trip to the States. But there is NO reason to apprehend the PR here is in breach of the RO. (And, for sure, there is NO indication this PR is "out of status.")

I introduced issues related to the accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse RO credit, in this thread, with caveats, for a couple reasons, but mostly to emphasize the risks involved if the couple delays coming to Canada. And, to be clear, I am comfortable with the assessment the risks are quite low or very low if the couple do NOT delay coming and, importantly, actually SETTLING in Canada. The latter is an important conditional factor in why there should be minimal risks involved taking short trips outside Canada AFTER FULLY SETTLING here. (And the nature and role of this factor is one of the issues which demand further elaboration, recognizing it has implications well beyond the scope of this particular example, which again I hope to address further in the other topic.)

For now, for here, and giving full consideration to the cases referenced in the thread about who-accompanied-whom questions, that is those cases suggesting a trend to more strictly approach this credit (albeit ONLY in rather exceptional circumstances), nonetheless the ordinary, routine approach appears to still be focused on showing marital status, spouse's citizenship, and being physically together. There is little indication that either CBSA or IRCC, even in its visa offices, is taking a strict or severe approach toward allowing this credit . . . again acknowledging there are some EXCEPTIONS in what are rather obviously exceptional circumstances. And noting that the OP's situation is not comparable to those exceptional circumstances IF the OP and PR spouse come to Canada relatively soon . . . and especially not at all comparable if they come and SETTLE and after that the PR is not abroad for an extended period of time (that is, if the PR spouse goes abroad, it is for just short trips).

And to be clear, so far as I have seen in official reports of actual cases, and so far as I have seen in the anecdotal reports, there are none reporting PRs relying on the accompanying-a-Canadian-citizen-spouse-abroad RO credit being questioned about having first established physical residence in Canada . . . how this aspect fits into the decision making by Canadian officials is more or less derivative, requiring a complex explanation, not much relevant to the OP and spouse UNLESS they delay coming to Canada, and thus likewise better addressed in the other thread rather than here.