Can I renounce my PR if I don’t have a plan to move to the country now due to COVID-19 travel restriction and limited job opportunities and apply for PR like 3-4 years later when I am ready to move
PR card Expires before the 730 days required
- Thread starter human53
- Start date
Due to pandemic, I have tried in the past 2 months being in Canada and haven’t been able to find a job due to COVID-19 so if I keep working in my current job in another country and travel within the next 2 years, It Will give me 200 days less than 730 days in the 5 years period, so is the pandemic COVID-19 with less job opportunities within Canada considered a valid reason if I get reported on entry
IRCC has not made any mention of exemptions due to Covid. The 2/5 requirement is exceptionally generous to begin with.
"A valid reason?" A valid reason for what?
If you are asking about a valid reason for an "extension" . . .
. . . that was already answered:
To be clear: THERE ARE NO EXTENSIONS.
Relief From Strict Application of Residency Obligation Based on H&C Reasons:
Before making a decision that terminates a PR's status, a Minister's Delegate MUST consider any and ALL explanations offered by the PR, and determine if the PR's situation warrants H&C (Humane and Compassionate) relief. This is, essentially, determining whether the PR *deserves* an opportunity to keep PR status DESPITE the failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. If the Minister's Delegate decides against allowing H&C relief, the PR may appeal and a panel with the IAD (Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board) will review the case and determine (assuming the decision by the Minister's Delegate was "valid in law") anew, based on H&C reasons, whether the PR *deserves* an opportunity to keep PR status DESPITE the failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation.
H&C reasons are neither "valid" nor "not valid," except to the extent they might not be based on true facts (that is, which should be obvious, if a PR claims a reason for remaining abroad so long that is not based on truthful facts, of course that would NOT be a "valid" explanation or reason).
There are posts in this forum suggesting otherwise but those are simply wrong; what is typically meant in those posts is that the "reason" or explanation does not carry much, perhaps no weight, in favour of allowing H&C relief. However, ANY and EVERY reason a PR offers MUST be considered. And how much weight that reason has is for the Minister's Delegate (or, on appeal, the IAD panel) to decide. BIG CAVEAT: same factors can have positive H&C weight in some circumstances, for one PR, and yet for a different PR, in a different situation, same facts can have negative weight. Lot, and lots, and lots of It-Depends elements in most H&C cases. Almost all H&C cases are tricky and difficult. Most tend to range from very difficult to extremely difficult. With, again, lots and lots of It-Depends elements. This gets very complicated. This is discussed in much more depth in other topics.
Impact of Covid-19 (generally):
Foremost, this subject too is already discussed in some depth in other topics.
Secondly, unless IRCC implements a specific policy in regards to RO enforcement and relief for failures to comply with the RO due to Covid-19, the impact of Covid-19 will simply be ONE more factor to take into consideration when a PR has breached the RO and the Minister's Delegate (or, again, IAD panel if there is an appeal) is determining whether the PR should be allowed to keep status DESPITE the breach.
So far there is NO indication IRCC will implement a specific policy in regards to RO enforcement and relief for failures to comply with the RO due to Covid-19. Moreover, it seems unlikely any such specific policy will be implemented. Just as @Buletruck has speculated about the reasons why there are no "extensions," we can also speculate why IRCC is unlikely to implement a specific policy in regards to RO enforcement and relief for failures to comply with the RO due to Covid-19. And yes, the inherent leniency of the RO itself, as is, most likely looms large in this, along with the fact that the current decision-making scheme already allows for relief from strict RO enforcement IF and WHEN the circumstances in the individual PR's case warrant relief and allowing the PR to keep PR status . . . that is, the current H&C decision-making scheme already incorporates adequate consideration for the impact of Covid-19 without adopting a more specific policy.
H&C cases are very, very difficult to forecast, except in the most obvious situations, which tend to be situations in which it is rather apparent the PR does not have much of a H&C case and it is very likely H&C relief will NOT afford the PR an opportunity to keep status. At the other end, even for the stronger H&C cases, it is difficult to confidently forecast the PR will succeed and be allowed to keep status. Again, almost ALL H&C cases are tricky, and most (by a big margin) are at least quite difficult if not very difficult.
See next post for discussion of impact in individual cases.
Impact of Covid-19 (in individual cases):
So far there are NO reported cases, not even anecdotal reports, about how CBSA immigration officers, Minister's Delegates, or other IRCC or IAD officials, are considering the impact of Covid-19 in any individual RO H&C cases.
We KNOW that if and when a PR offers an explanation for not returning to Canada sooner that is in part based on the impact of Covid-19, that is something the official MUST consider. Because the official MUST consider ANY and ALL reasons offered by the PR. But what weight it will be given is almost impossible to forecast; again, there are no actual experiences of this decision-making to help guide us.
Otherwise we know quite a lot about many of the factors that influence the decision-making in RO H&C cases. And no speculation is necessary to recognize the key factors which will continue to have a lot of influence in these cases. For example, extent of the breach is one of the biggest, most influential factors. That said, we just know how these key factors tend to push the Risk-Needle, so to say, still leaving the outcome in particular cases very, very difficult to predict. So, for this example, the bigger the breach, the greater the RISK, first, of being Reported, and secondly, the bigger the RISK that H&C relief will not be given.
For a particular example: a soft-landing PR who returns to Canada after being absent for 1108 days since landing has a very good chance of NOT being reported let alone issued a Departure Order at the PoE, compared to a soft-landing PR who returns to Canada after being absent for 1478 days since landing, who faces a more daunting risk of being reported and issued a Departure Order at the PoE, and losing on appeal.
Which simply means THE SOONER the PR RETURNS to CANADA, the LOWER the RISK of LOSING PR STATUS.
And this will likely still be true, if not very true, for a PR whose delay in coming to Canada to live is in part due to the impact of Covid-19. That is, explaining that Covid-19 caused a delay in making the actual trip to Canada will probably HELP some, but the overall length of the delay, the extent of the breach, will still be a KEY FACTOR in how it goes, DEPENDING on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual PR's case.
Let's be frank about an important aspect of all this: Since a PR does not breach the RO unless and until the PR has been abroad for MORE than THREE YEARS within the relevant time period, the fact it may be reasonably, even persuasively argued that the impact of Covid-19 delayed the PR's return to Canada, SO FAR will fall way short of explaining THREE YEARS absence. At the most, travel restrictions due to Covid-19 can be blamed for no more than a bit more than four months. Add further delay based on the likely continuation of travel restrictions and add even more to allow for increased difficulty of making the move in the wake of Covid-19 . . . that is still going to fall WAY short of explaining THREE years absence.
My sense, my GUESS, is that Canada will be allowing more flexibility for Soft-Landing PRs in the wake of Covid-19 than was otherwise allowed. It warrants noting that actually there were many indicators that soft-landing PRs were typically given a fair amount of leeway over and above the leniency of the RO itself. Already. So there is perhaps not a lot of margin for additional leeway above what many have benefited from before Covid-19.
This GUESS is NOT to suggest a formal policy in this regard. Indeed, a formal policy as to this seems rather unlikely.
I hesitate to drill into particular circumstances, but it is fairly easy to guess that the amount of absence BEFORE travel restrictions were implemented will be a significant factor. For example, the PR who claims she planned to make a return to Canada this year but who had already been abroad over 1000 days before the travel restrictions were implemented, is likely to have more difficulty persuading CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD, that she should be allowed relief from the RO due to the impact of Covid-19 delaying her return to Canada. (And of course the PR who was already in breach at the time the travel restrictions took effect almost certainly faces a steep climb in trying to persuade CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD, relief from the RO should be given due to the impact of Covid-19.)
Similarly, it is fairly easy to guess that the longer it takes for the PR to come to Canada after travel restrictions are lifted, the more difficult it will be to persuade CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD, relief from the RO should be given due to the impact of Covid-19.
Nonetheless, there are MANY other individual factors, particular circumstances, which will have influence in how this goes for any given individual.
BEST (less risk) APPROACH IS EASY: GET TO CANADA BEFORE BREACHING THE RO.
As an aside: for those who have been a PR for more than five years, my sense is that delays returning to Canada due to Covid-19 will have marginal benefit. Depending on particular circumstances, as ALWAYS, of course. But unless it appears the PR was already WELL-SETTLED in Canada and there was a compelling reason to go abroad and remain abroad, apart from the delay returning to Canada due to Covid-19, my sense is these PRs are not likely to be given anywhere near the leeway soft-landing PRs might be allowed. Reasons why should be obvious.
So far there are NO reported cases, not even anecdotal reports, about how CBSA immigration officers, Minister's Delegates, or other IRCC or IAD officials, are considering the impact of Covid-19 in any individual RO H&C cases.
We KNOW that if and when a PR offers an explanation for not returning to Canada sooner that is in part based on the impact of Covid-19, that is something the official MUST consider. Because the official MUST consider ANY and ALL reasons offered by the PR. But what weight it will be given is almost impossible to forecast; again, there are no actual experiences of this decision-making to help guide us.
Otherwise we know quite a lot about many of the factors that influence the decision-making in RO H&C cases. And no speculation is necessary to recognize the key factors which will continue to have a lot of influence in these cases. For example, extent of the breach is one of the biggest, most influential factors. That said, we just know how these key factors tend to push the Risk-Needle, so to say, still leaving the outcome in particular cases very, very difficult to predict. So, for this example, the bigger the breach, the greater the RISK, first, of being Reported, and secondly, the bigger the RISK that H&C relief will not be given.
For a particular example: a soft-landing PR who returns to Canada after being absent for 1108 days since landing has a very good chance of NOT being reported let alone issued a Departure Order at the PoE, compared to a soft-landing PR who returns to Canada after being absent for 1478 days since landing, who faces a more daunting risk of being reported and issued a Departure Order at the PoE, and losing on appeal.
Which simply means THE SOONER the PR RETURNS to CANADA, the LOWER the RISK of LOSING PR STATUS.
And this will likely still be true, if not very true, for a PR whose delay in coming to Canada to live is in part due to the impact of Covid-19. That is, explaining that Covid-19 caused a delay in making the actual trip to Canada will probably HELP some, but the overall length of the delay, the extent of the breach, will still be a KEY FACTOR in how it goes, DEPENDING on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual PR's case.
Let's be frank about an important aspect of all this: Since a PR does not breach the RO unless and until the PR has been abroad for MORE than THREE YEARS within the relevant time period, the fact it may be reasonably, even persuasively argued that the impact of Covid-19 delayed the PR's return to Canada, SO FAR will fall way short of explaining THREE YEARS absence. At the most, travel restrictions due to Covid-19 can be blamed for no more than a bit more than four months. Add further delay based on the likely continuation of travel restrictions and add even more to allow for increased difficulty of making the move in the wake of Covid-19 . . . that is still going to fall WAY short of explaining THREE years absence.
My sense, my GUESS, is that Canada will be allowing more flexibility for Soft-Landing PRs in the wake of Covid-19 than was otherwise allowed. It warrants noting that actually there were many indicators that soft-landing PRs were typically given a fair amount of leeway over and above the leniency of the RO itself. Already. So there is perhaps not a lot of margin for additional leeway above what many have benefited from before Covid-19.
This GUESS is NOT to suggest a formal policy in this regard. Indeed, a formal policy as to this seems rather unlikely.
I hesitate to drill into particular circumstances, but it is fairly easy to guess that the amount of absence BEFORE travel restrictions were implemented will be a significant factor. For example, the PR who claims she planned to make a return to Canada this year but who had already been abroad over 1000 days before the travel restrictions were implemented, is likely to have more difficulty persuading CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD, that she should be allowed relief from the RO due to the impact of Covid-19 delaying her return to Canada. (And of course the PR who was already in breach at the time the travel restrictions took effect almost certainly faces a steep climb in trying to persuade CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD, relief from the RO should be given due to the impact of Covid-19.)
Similarly, it is fairly easy to guess that the longer it takes for the PR to come to Canada after travel restrictions are lifted, the more difficult it will be to persuade CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD, relief from the RO should be given due to the impact of Covid-19.
Nonetheless, there are MANY other individual factors, particular circumstances, which will have influence in how this goes for any given individual.
BEST (less risk) APPROACH IS EASY: GET TO CANADA BEFORE BREACHING THE RO.
As an aside: for those who have been a PR for more than five years, my sense is that delays returning to Canada due to Covid-19 will have marginal benefit. Depending on particular circumstances, as ALWAYS, of course. But unless it appears the PR was already WELL-SETTLED in Canada and there was a compelling reason to go abroad and remain abroad, apart from the delay returning to Canada due to Covid-19, my sense is these PRs are not likely to be given anywhere near the leeway soft-landing PRs might be allowed. Reasons why should be obvious.
Hi Folks,
Quick question. Landed Oct 30, 2016. Stayed only for 7 days until now. PR Card valid until Feb 13, 2022.
1. If I enter anytime now, should it be an issue? My understanding is, I have a valid PR card so it doesn't matter when I enter. Kindly let me know.
2. I do intend to stay for my two year period atleast, so I can renew the residency. Whenever I land next, I won't leave - so I could complete my two year stay and then apply for renewal - this will not be an issue and is correct understanding, yes?
Quick question. Landed Oct 30, 2016. Stayed only for 7 days until now. PR Card valid until Feb 13, 2022.
1. If I enter anytime now, should it be an issue? My understanding is, I have a valid PR card so it doesn't matter when I enter. Kindly let me know.
2. I do intend to stay for my two year period atleast, so I can renew the residency. Whenever I land next, I won't leave - so I could complete my two year stay and then apply for renewal - this will not be an issue and is correct understanding, yes?
HI
2. If you are admitted without being reported, then you have to remain for 2 years to be in compliance, to renew your PR card.
1. Yes, it is quite probable that you could be reported on entry as you haven't meet your RO by almost a year.
2. If you are admitted without being reported, then you have to remain for 2 years to be in compliance, to renew your PR card.
Quite simple from the time you first landed October 30 2016 you needed to be in Canada for a minimum of 2 years from that date through Oct 30 2021.
You have only been in Canada for 7 days so far todate so you have failed the generous residency obligation . Failed by a year expresses fact you needed to have come back by October 2019 in order to have met the 2 years by Oct 2021 so based on initial landing you would fail by a year if you returned this October
If you try to come back to Canada now there is a possibility that you may be reported for failing the residency obligation leading to your PR status being revoked. There is no way to predict the odds of this happening but whatever you should always answer any questions posed by CBSA at the POE about residency/how long you have been away honestly, do not try to cover up your failure but also do not volunteer information to questions not asked.
If you enter without being reported you need to stay put for a minimum of 2 years and avoid any interaction with immigration. So do not try renew PR card and do not try to sponsor anyone until back in compliance
Last edited:
HI. My PR card expired on 16 January 2020. At that moment I and my family had lived in Canada only for 3 months, 2 from November 2019. We have a drive license, SIN, Health card. I can not renew my PR card and have to stay for 730 days in Canada before applying. The principal of the school wants a valid PR card for registration of my daughter. What can I do? Is there any other document that can prove my status?
kabayan
Hero Member
- Apr 28, 2010
- 23
- Visa Office......
- london
- NOC Code......
- 3112
- App. Filed.......
- 06-20-2010
- Doc's Request.
- 10-18-2010; 2nd(September 2014)
- AOR Received.
- 1st 10-18-2010; 2nd(London VO) 06-16-2011
- IELTS Request
- 10-29/30-2010
- File Transfer...
- May 2012
- Med's Request
- October 2014
- Med's Done....
- October 2014
- Interview........
- N/a
- Passport Req..
- 21-Nov-2014 ADVO RCvD on 23-Nov-2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- 02-Dec-2014
- LANDED..........
- Jan 2015
As per my understanding within the 5 year period/validity of your PR card, you have only lived in Canada for 3 months is that correct?
"To keep your permanent resident status, you must have been in Canada for at least 730 days during the last five years. These 730 days don’t need to be continuous. Some of your time abroad may count towards the 730 days."
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/pr-card/who-can-apply.html
If you were able to comply with the residency requirements and it just happened you were outside the country when the PR card expired, you can apply for a PRTD to come back:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/pr-card.html
It seems like @Marcu managed to slip past the border just before their card expired, and is now in Canada, but due to extensive RO non-compliance they can't renew their card for over another year. In the meantime, their lack of a valid one is preventing them from enroling their child in school.
So again I would suggest contacting the school board. Especially in any major city, they should have an office that's used to dealing with international families.