PR Card Renewal Interview Letter

[Manoo]

Hi everyone!
I needed prompt help and suggestion.
I have applied for renewal of my PR Card. My travelling history is as:
1- I left Canada on January 11, 2012 and entered/ came back January 22, 2013.
2- Again, I left Canada on November 19, 2014 and came back March 25, 2016.
As per passport stamps, I duly comply with Residency Obligation.
My CIC Timeline is as:

• We received your application for a permanent resident card on April 4, 2016.

• We sent you correspondence acknowledging receipt of your application(s) on May 2, 2016.

• We started processing your application on May 2, 2016.

• We sent you correspondence on June 20, 2016. If you have not yet provided the information or the requested documents, please do so as soon as possible. Please wait until you receive the correspondence before sending us additional information, as the correspondence will outline all information that is required.( In this letter, I was asked to provide color copies of all my passport and entry/exit record from the country I visited. In reply, I provided color copies of all pages of my passport, whereas, for entry/exit record I very humbly submitted that the country I had visited did not issue such record to individual)

• We sent you correspondence on January 28, 2017. If you have not yet provided the information or the requested documents, please do so as soon as possible. Please wait until you receive the correspondence before sending us additional information, as the correspondence will outline all information that is required.( In this letter, I was asked to provide fresh photographs, which I have submitted)

• We sent you correspondence on May 30, 2017. If you have not yet provided the information or the requested documents, please do so as soon as possible. Please wait until you receive the correspondence before sending us additional information, as the correspondence will outline all information that is required.( In this letter, I was asked to provide copy of all passports, supporting documents establishing physical presence, and also to fill up form IMM5511E)

• We sent you a letter on September 26, 2017. Please consider delays in mail delivery before contacting us. ( In this letter, I was asked to attend Hamilton Office for interview)

On the other hand, I have filed an application for sponsorship of my wife and 2 kids, which has been transferred to London Office. And my wife has received an email from London Office to provide bank's statement, job letter etc of your sponsor i.e me.
Now I have consulted a lawyer, who advised me to withdraw your PR Card application without any delay as you have committed some mistake in PR Card application. And further advised me to continue Sponsor Application. When your Sponsorship Application is successful then re-apply for PR Card.
Now I needed serious advice, please

 

[Manoo]

Please serious advice

 

[Buletruck]

Withdrawing at this point Is highly unlikely. That will be IRCC's choice and it sounds like your PR card is ready. It's likely the interview is just a follow up and you should receive your card at that time.

 

[xMadMaxx]

As you comply with residency obligations, you have no problems. Just be honest and answer the questions (without giving any free information)

Good Luck

 

[Manoo]

On Oct 16, 2017 I attended interview at Hamilton Office. Unfortunately, I could not succeeded in satisfying the officer. She handed over me a copy of letter alongwith report 44(1) which describe that I did not meet Residency obligation. But she also advised me that next I will be again called for another interview with her higher officer. I am still wondering if i will be again called for another interview, then why she made a decision.
Now, anybody having experience of similar situation, I needed serious suggestions.
Today, I went to see a very experienced lawyer, who told me that during interview, there might be gone some wrong, and he further suggested me that there is no need to worry.
He furthermore informed me that since you are present here in Canada since last 1 and half year and by the time of your next meeting, you almost have spent 2 years and they will admonish you and at the end, CIC will give you PR card.
I invite you all to suggest me

 

[Buletruck]

Between April 2011 and January 11, 2012 how long were you in Canada? Doing the quick math with the dates you provided, you have 670-680days in Canada up to the point you applied for renewal. The 5 years prior to that date would be back to April 4, 2011.

I'd be a little worried about the advice your lawyer gave you.....Having received the 44(1) report, you need to appeal the decision right away. You only have 30 days to file the appeal before you loose your PR status. Also, at a minimum, as of October 16, 2017, your days in Canada no longer count towards residency until the appeal (if you decide to go that route) is decided. I am not sure if the days prior to that count, given they have decided you are not in compliance with RO obligation on the date of application. They may not count your current 1 1/2 years in Canada either, but others would need to comment on that. But as it stands, the RO clock is stopped until an appeal is finalized. I'd check with another lawyer (or 2).

 

[dpenabill]

Having received the 44(1) report, you need to appeal the decision right away. You only have 30 days to file the appeal before you loose your PR status.

It appears Manoo was issued a 44(1) Report and NOT a Removal or Departure Order. Thus, no need to appeal. Rather, there should be a follow-up interview with a Minister's Delegate who will decide
(1) whether the Report is valid in law, and if yes, then
(2) whether there are H&C reasons sufficient to allow Manoo to retain PR status.

If both those go against Manoo then a Removal or Departure Order will be issued, which if not timely appealed will result in the loss of PR status (likewise if there is an appeal and the appeal is lost).

Thus it is important, crucial, to be certain only the 44(1) Report was issued and not a Departure Order. The lawyer's observations and description of the event tend to indicate it was only the 44(1) Report and not a Departure Order, but this is so critical to know for sure, Manoo needs to be sure.

Assuming it was the report only, the Minister's Delegate interview can be done by telephone, and Manoo should anticipate this could happen sooner rather than later. And be prepared to not only better document actual dates in Canada but also to make the case that he or she is now settled permanently in Canada, intending to permanently live in Canada, and to explain and document all ties in Canada, especially employment.

Another thing to make sure: what grounds are given for the 44(1) Report. It appears the grounds are a breach of the PR Residency Obligation, but if Manoo claimed and presented evidence of presence for at least 730 days within the preceding five years, and the processing agent found to the contrary, there is a possibility that the grounds include misrepresentation. Important to be sure what the grounds are. If misrepresentation is alleged, the next step would be an admissibility hearing, which is more formal than a PR RO compliance interview/hearing. Here too, the lawyer's observations appear to suggest this is NOT a problem, but this is too important to not be sure.

Also, at a minimum, as of October 16, 2017, your days in Canada no longer count towards residency until the appeal (if you decide to go that route) is decided. I am not sure if the days prior to that count, given they have decided you are not in compliance with RO obligation on the date of application.

Correct, as of the date of the 44(1) Order, time in Canada going forward does NOT count toward compliance with the PR RO. However, it is relevant for purposes of H&C reasons, and even if a Departure Order is issued, continuing to stay in Canada can make a difference before the IAD.

I anticipate that the lawyer mostly got this right. But again there is enough at stake, Manoo probably wants to be sure, and a consultation with another lawyer might be worth the cost.

If the Minister's Delegate decides to not issue a Departure Order, or if a Departure Order is issued and Manoo wins an appeal of it, then this time will count.

The days prior to the date the 44(1) Report was issued should count toward an assessment of compliance as of that day, which is the key. However, IRCC can nonetheless still deny issuing a new PR card based on the failure to meet the PR RO as of the date the application for the PRC was made . . . so a new application would need to be made. I have not seen any reports of IRCC doing this, since it is in large part a waste to make the PR apply again, but where the PR is still short of complying by the time of the interview, that tends to tie IRCC's hands some.

On Oct 16, 2017 I attended interview at Hamilton Office. Unfortunately, I could not succeeded in satisfying the officer. She handed over me a copy of letter alongwith report 44(1) which describe that I did not meet Residency obligation. But she also advised me that next I will be again called for another interview with her higher officer. I am still wondering if i will be again called for another interview, then why she made a decision.
Now, anybody having experience of similar situation, I needed serious suggestions.
Today, I went to see a very experienced lawyer, who told me that during interview, there might be gone some wrong, and he further suggested me that there is no need to worry.
He furthermore informed me that since you are present here in Canada since last 1 and half year and by the time of your next meeting, you almost have spent 2 years and they will admonish you and at the end, CIC will give you PR card.
I invite you all to suggest me

I have no personal experience. However, I have read dozens and dozens of IAD decisions related to PR RO compliance in actual cases.

See my comments above.

I suspect the lawyer gave you as good an opinion as any might, but as I already indicated, given how important this is, you might want to get a second opinion.

As long as you are now settled and staying in Canada, the odds of this going OK are probably good. That said, there is no guarantee and how it will actually go can depend on many other factors, like your overall history, how IRCC personnel have perceived you, particularly as to credibility, and of course the specific details (actual number of days documented in Canada for example; whether currently employed in Canada, short and long terms plans, extent of ties in Canada including whether you have family settled and living in Canada, among many other factors).

The big issue is whether or not a Departure Order (sometimes called "Removal Order") is issued. If that happens, you definitely need to appeal, and a lawyer's assistance in doing that is the best way to go.

 

[Manoo]

Thanks everyone for advises. The officer gave me only report 44(1) only. Nothing else. I also need assistance on regulation No. 62, which is follow as:
Calculation — residency obligation

• 62 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the calculation of days under paragraph 28(2)(a) of the Act in respect of a permanent resident does not include any day after
  
  • (a) a report is prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act on the ground that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation; or
    
    
  • (b) a decision is made outside of Canada that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation.
    
• Marginal note:Exception
  (2) If the permanent resident is subsequently determined to have complied with the residency obligation, subsection (1) does not apply.
• In this regulation, what is meant by "subsequently determined". Secondly, my lawyer told me that when you will be called by Minister Delegates, if by that time you have completed more than 730 days, then that officer will give a admonition. Do you agree or not.
• Thirdly, I have filed another application for sponsoring my wife and kids which is still in process, that application can help me out or not.

 

[Manoo]

Thanks everyone for advises. The officer gave me only report 44(1) only. Nothing else. I also need assistance on regulation No. 62, which is follow as:
Calculation — residency obligation

• 62 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the calculation of days under paragraph 28(2)(a) of the Act in respect of a permanent resident does not include any day after
  
  • (a) a report is prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act on the ground that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation; or
    
    
  • (b) a decision is made outside of Canada that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation.
    
• Marginal note:Exception
  (2) If the permanent resident is subsequently determined to have complied with the residency obligation, subsection (1) does not apply.
• In this regulation, what is meant by "subsequently determined". Secondly, my lawyer told me that when you will be called by Minister Delegates, if by that time you have completed more than 730 days, then that officer will give a admonition. Do you agree or not.
• Thirdly, I have filed another application for sponsoring my wife and kids which is still in process, that application can help me out or not.

 

[dpenabill]

Note: a lawyer's advice is far, far better than anyone here can provide, for multiple reasons and not just because of the lawyer's expertise.

That does not guarantee a lawyer's opinion is totally correct. It is, however, better than any opinion you will find in a forum like this.

Thanks everyone for advises. The officer gave me only report 44(1) only. Nothing else. I also need assistance on regulation No. 62, which is follow as:
Calculation — residency obligation

• 62 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the calculation of days under paragraph 28(2)(a) of the Act in respect of a permanent resident does not include any day after
  • (a) a report is prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act on the ground that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation; or
    
    
  • (b) a decision is made outside of Canada that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation.
• Marginal note:Exception
  (2) If the permanent resident is subsequently determined to have complied with the residency obligation, subsection (1) does not apply.
• In this regulation, what is meant by "subsequently determined". Secondly, my lawyer told me that when you will be called by Minister Delegates, if by that time you have completed more than 730 days, then that officer will give a admonition. Do you agree or not.
• Thirdly, I have filed another application for sponsoring my wife and kids which is still in process, that application can help me out or not.

Re: Regulation 62

Without referring to Regulation 62 by name, I did reference what it means in my previous post:
-- if the Minister's Delegate decides to NOT issue a Departure Order, all your days in Canada will count, including those days after October 16, 2017
-- even if you are issued a Departure Order, if you appeal and win the appeal, then likewise, all our days in Canada will count, including those days after October 16, 2017

Bottom-line: if you are not issued a Departure Order, or even if you are but you appeal and win, you get to keep PR status. And while the 44(1) Report remains on your record it has no formal consequences. You would be good to go, meaning good to stay. And, moreover, qualified to sponsor your family (assuming you also meet the other eligibility requirements).

In the meantime (for now), days after October 16, 2017 do not count. So they do not count when the Minister's Delegate interviews you. If a Departure Order is issued, the days after October 16, 2017 continue to not count. BUT, if you appeal, it would still be important to stay in Canada since that could make a big difference in how the IAD decides the case.


Minister's Delegate:

Secondly, my lawyer told me that when you will be called by Minister Delegates, if by that time you have completed more than 730 days, then that officer will give a admonition. Do you agree or not.

Technically, again, days after October 16, 2017 do not count. I am guessing (emphasis on guessing) that the lawyer was predicting the outcome of the MD's decision rather than the reasons for it. As I noted before, the MD decides two things:
(1) whether the Report is valid in law, and if yes, then
(2) whether there are H&C reasons sufficient to allow you to retain PR status

The valid-in-law decision should be based strictly on whether you were physically present in Canada for at least 730 days between October 16, 2012 and October 15, 2017. If you failed to present sufficient information and evidence to show you were present for that minimum number of days between those dates, the Report should be determined to be valid-in-law. That means you are in breach of the PR RO.

For that part of the decision, days in Canada since October 16, 2017 do not count.

Then the MD has to decide if you, in effect, deserve to keep PR status, despite the Report being valid-in-law.

BUT, in evaluating whether or not, in effect, you deserve to keep PR status (the H&C part), the MD can take into consideration your continued presence in Canada after October 16, 2017. My guess (again, emphasis on guess) is that the lawyer believes you are close enough now and by the time of the MD's interview, your continued presence in Canada will persuade the MD to allow you to keep your PR status. But, it is likely the MD will (as the lawyer suggests) admonish you about complying with the PR RO.

I cannot second-guess the lawyer's opinion about this. It is, however, an opinion. There is no guarantee. How it will actually go, as I said above, will depend a lot on many factors in your situation. How credible you are perceived to be will be a big, big factor in this.


Thirdly, I have filed another application for sponsoring my wife and kids which is still in process, that application can help me out or not.

Not really. Of course it reflects an expressed intent to live in Canada, but not much more. It tends to highlight, even outright emphasize, the extent to which you have been outside Canada in the recent past. At the moment, being under a 44(1) Report, the odds are IRCC will either deny the application (based on your lack of eligibility) or at least suspend processing it until the 44(1) Report case is resolved.

A lot depends on how much you have been outside Canada in the last year and a half. You do not mention how much you have been in or outside Canada since you applied to renew the PRC. That matters. Right now what really matters is how much you have been in Canada between October 16, 2012 and October 15, 2017 and how well you can prove that. Other factors can play a big role. Whether IRCC believes the information you give them can play a big role. So, how much documentation you have to show the truth of the information you give them can play a big role. How much you have been employed in Canada is a huge factor, since employment in Canada tends to show presence in Canada, and lack of employment in Canada tends to suggest at least the possibility you were outside Canada (especially when you have a family to support). All those are facts and circumstances the lawyer should take into account in offering you advice. If the lawyer reviewed the actual facts in your case, the lawyer's advice is as good as you can get. But the facts really matter. And again, what really matters is how much you have been in Canada between October 16, 2012 and October 15, 2017 and how well you can prove that.

That, and if you are close but short, then staying in Canada in the meantime should help, but will not guarantee a favourable outcome.

 

[Manoo]

I am highly thankful for the valuable suggestions. I highly appreciate your efforts.

• Since March 2016, I didn't leave Canada.
• Since March 2016, I am doing job.
• My family at home country is too much sick of me. Furthermore, I have not seen physically my little son as he was born after my departure. Even then, I am not leaving Canada yet.
• I needed a safe way to save my PR status. Even sometimes, I am not satisfied with opinion of my lawyer. Sometimes, I doubted that he is doing so to rip my money. It seems to me that I have entered that way which has no exit except removal order or renunciation of my status. I am getting desperate.
• If you can spare more time on my case, that will be a great favour for me.

 

[dpenabill]

As I have emphasized, what matters the most is how much you have been in Canada between October 16, 2012 and October 16, 2017.

You have reported being in Canada from January 22, 2013 until November 19, 2014. And in Canada from March 25, 2016 until now. That should not only meet the PR Residency Obligation, easily, but qualify you for citizenship.

So, obviously, something is not adding up.

What is not adding up is impossible to discern in the abstract. You and your lawyer are in the best position to figure out what the problem is.

One of the possibilities, and the one that pops up the most often in the published decisions about such cases, is that IRCC does NOT BELIEVE you have actually been in Canada all these days. The burden of proof is on you.

You report: "As per passport stamps, I duly comply with Residency Obligation."

Actually, all your passport stamps appear to show is that you were in Canada on January 22, 2013, and perhaps on November 19, 2014, and again on March 25, 2016. Three days is way, way short of 730 days.

Passport stamps do not prove where an individual was between the stamp dates. Other proof, to show where you actually were during those times, is needed.

But obviously you have other proof of actually being in Canada. That is what matters now. The day you showed up for the interview, for example, shows you were in Canada that day and probably a day or many days prior to that.

Proof of going to work at a job site in Canada between March 2016 and now, the present, can be your best evidence that you have been in Canada since March 2016.

Some proof of your actual presence in Canada in 2013 and 2014 is needed, and if you can show where you were in Canada for at least 200 or so of those days, in addition to showing you have been regularly going to work at a location in Canada since March 2016, that will prove your case.

I cannot know how good your lawyer's advice is. If you have actually been in Canada all the time you say you have, the lawyer would have good reason to be optimistic and advise you NOT TO WORRY. There really might not be any reason to worry.

Just be sure you are able to get the MD's telephone call in the meantime, at least a message so you can return the call. Make sure IRCC has a good address for you.

Gather specific information about where you were living, what you were doing, for 2013 and 2014, and also specific information to show you have been working in Canada since March 2016. If you can do those things, it should go OK.

Ultimately, things are not critical. Not yet. No need to panic. Wait to see whether or not you are issued a Departure Order, and even then do not panic. You appeal. You go through the process.

In the meantime try to gather your information and as much proof to support your case as you can. Again, passport stamps do not prove much.

 

[Manoo]

Again thanks, I don't have words to reward you.
And very straightforward, I have only few things to establish the period from Jan 2013 to Nov 2014. And those documents were not relied by the officer in last interview. Consequently, she prepared a report 44(1). And also informed me that within six weeks, you will receive another letter indicating where and when to pick up my one year validity PR card. Now my concern is that if I don't have much more and credible or concrete evidence to prove my presence in Canada during the period of Jan 2013 to Nov 2014, what I can do at the best to save my status.
But since Mar 2016, I am present in Canada and driving taxi. For this period, I have attended classes for obtaining taxi licence, bank statement, credit statement OHIP record (I am building up).
Is there any safe way to convince MD to consider my this period and I also ready to submit any guarantees, any unconditional apology etc. At any cost, I want to resume my status. I also want to share here during my stay in Canada, in July 2016, my mother passed away and I couldn't attend her funeral etc. I couldn't see her last sight. I sacrificed for my PR card.
I did every effort to make me successful.

** again I am a bit curious to know what is meant by "subsequently determined" in regulation 62(2). And if you don't feel irritated, please explain me. That's a good hope for me. Because it's a ray of hope for me. If MD's interview be considered as subsequently determination, may I am in a position to prove my recent period since March 2016.
And lastly, if I get a one year valid PR card, can I go to see my family after March 2018, when I have accumulated over 730 days of physical presence in Canada with concrete evidence. If this visit has detrimental effects then I will not go till MD interview.
You guys are in fact help in disguise for me. I am too much thankful to you guys.
Regards
Manoo

 

[Buletruck]

@dpenabill:
So, out of curiosity, if the renewal and subsequent review of RO of PR status is based on 5 years prior to the date the application is received by IRCC, how does the time after that date play into the renewal and RO process? My understanding (and I may be incorrect in my understanding) is that the current review is based on the time the OP spent in Canada prior to April 4, 2016. So are the subsequent days after April 4, 2016 taken into consideration by IRCC during the review process, or are they constrained by the policies and procedures laid out for them? In the OP's case, it's been well over a year since his application was submitted to IRCC, so in making a determination, is all the time prior to October 16, 2017 that is considered, or is it the time up to April 2014 (and I do understand that the time since April 2014 is relevant in appeals, just trying to get my head around how it is affecting the OP's situation). I would think that the review would be constrained to the time up to the application date, otherwise you could find yourself outside of the RO requirement in some situations or in a favourable situation depending if the review period is fluid. A PR could find themselves out of compliance if the had attained the 730 early in the 5 years prior to applying if the period continues to be fluid, would they not?

 

[dpenabill]

. . . she prepared a report 44(1). And also informed me that within six weeks, you will receive another letter indicating where and when to pick up my one year validity PR card.

The one year PRC is ordinarily issued to PRs with an appeal pending. I am not familiar with instances in which it is issued otherwise.

As I have tried to illuminate, the specific facts and circumstances of your case are important. This includes what the 44(1) Report says. This includes any other decision made by IRCC regarding any aspect of your case.

One aspect of the procedure in your case that has not been well reported is how decision-making on the PRC application itself works in these situations. This is, if I understand the queries correctly, what Buletruck is asking about.

As I have tried to emphasize, however, it is really important for you to understand exactly what decision or decisions have been made, what the status of your case is. This forum is not a good place to figure that out.

If you have a lawyer actually representing you, this is something for you and your lawyer to go over. I cannot guarantee your lawyer gets it right, but if you have a lawyer that's who you need to rely on.

If you have only gone to the lawyer for a consultation, you can also go to a different lawyer for a consultation. If you are concerned about the advice you have been given, do this, go to another lawyer.

Your situation is both complicated and at a stage where it is important to really know what is happening and what the next steps are, and in particular whether or not you need to do something, that is to take a particular step (like file an appeal or some other action) to protect your status. Your lawyer is in the best position to help you through this.

If you are issued a one-year PR card it will probably be OK to make a SHORT trip abroad. But be sure to go over this with a lawyer first. In the meantime, though, it is important to mostly stay in Canada. However, again, your time in Canada now, since the 44(1) Report was issued, does NOT count . . . and will not count unless you get a favourable decision by the MD or on appeal.

Which brings up this:

If MD's interview be considered as subsequently determination, may I am in a position to prove my recent period since March 2016.
. . . if I get a one year valid PR card, can I go to see my family after March 2018, when I have accumulated over 730 days of physical presence in Canada with concrete evidence.

You are NOT accumulating days toward the 730 days now. Your days in Canada since October 16, 2017 do NOT COUNT. This is one aspect of your case that is clear, staying in Canada until March 2018 will NOT, NOT by itself, mean you have 730 days since March 2016 BECAUSE days after October 16, 2017 do NOT COUNT.

Only if the MD decides your case favourably will these days then count. (If the MD decides against you, you will need to appeal that decision, the Departure or Removal Order, and win the appeal in order to keep PR status.)

So yes, the MD's decision, IF IT IS FAVOURABLE, that would be a subsequent determination and your time in Canada now will count . . . and if that happens sooner rather than later, and in the meantime you get a one-year PR card, you could travel abroad with little fear of losing PR status.

While you are waiting for the MD to make a decision, you are NOT adding days even though you are staying in Canada. (BUT it can still be very important to stay, at least mostly stay, in Canada.)

Mostly you need to go over this stuff with a lawyer.