PR expiring before completion of days

[azzawi69]

Hi
I did my landing in July 2014, left the country, then had my Canadian wife and children join me outside Canada from July 2016 to August 2018.
In August 2018 we all moved back to Canada and I have a permanent job.
My PR card expires in July 2019.
Will it be easy to renew? if not what happens if I need to leave the country after it expires? ( I am a UK citizen). Will I be able to come back in?

 

[21Goose]

Since your wife is a Canadian citizen and lived with you abroad, you don't need to worry. Living with a Canadian spouse aboard counts towards your residency obligations. You can apply right now for a new card.

 

[azzawi69]

Since your wife is a Canadian citizen and lived with you abroad, you don't need to worry. Living with a Canadian spouse aboard counts towards your residency obligations. You can apply right now for a new card.

Thanks for this , but don’t I need to have completed at least 730 days before applying ?

 

[21Goose]

No, because there's an exception for a Permanent Resident (you) accompanying a Canadian citizen (your wife) abroad.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf

7.5 Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada

R61(4) provides that each day a permanent resident is outside Canada accompanying (that is, ordinarily residing with) a Canadian citizen constitutes a day of physical presence in Canada, provided that the Canadian citizen they are accompanying is a spouse or common-law partner or parent.In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose.

In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met.For the purposes ofA28(2)(a)(ii)and (iv),R61(6)defines a “child” as being a child of a parent referred to in those subparagraphs, who has not and has never been a spouse or common-law partner and is less than 22 years of age

 

[21Goose]

You can apply up to nine months before the expiry of your card. Apply sooner rather than later since it can take a few months to get the new card.

 

[azzawi69]

You can apply up to nine months before the expiry of your card. Apply sooner rather than later since it can take a few months to get the new card.

thanks, 21Goose. Very helpful

 

[Bs65]

Hi
I did my landing in July 2014, left the country, then had my Canadian wife and children join me outside Canada from July 2016 to August 2018.
In August 2018 we all moved back to Canada and I have a permanent job.
My PR card expires in July 2019.
Will it be easy to renew? if not what happens if I need to leave the country after it expires? ( I am a UK citizen). Will I be able to come back in?

Just a comment on the last sentence in that if you leave the country you need a valid card to be able to board a plane destined back to Canada. Either a valid card or a PRTD which can take sometime to get outside Canada so best advice is to apply as soon as to renew your card should you have any travel plans coming up planned or unplanned. Without a valid card or PRTD you would need to go through the hassle of entering back through a US/Canada land border.

 

[canuck78]

There is always the case of who is accompanying whom. In this case your wife clearly wasn't the reason for your move so there can always be an issue with counting the days together. Hard to comment whether it will be an issue.

 

[21Goose]

There is always the case of who is accompanying whom. In this case your wife clearly wasn't the reason for your move so there can always be an issue with counting the days together. Hard to comment whether it will be an issue.

Respectfully, I disagree. The operational manual addresses this explicitly:

In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose.

 

[Bs65]

Respectfully, I disagree. The operational manual addresses this explicitly:

In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose.

That is why Canuck said hard to comment whether could be an issue regardless of what the manual recommends. Often the manual/guidelines say one thing and reality can be different so Canuck was simply preparing the OP for any outcome as opposed to guaranteeing anything.

 

[canuck78]

Have been cases where days out of Canada have not been counted im very similar circumstances. The OP spent very little time in Canada after receiving PR and his family moved to accompany him years after.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi
I did my landing in July 2014, left the country, then had my Canadian wife and children join me outside Canada from July 2016 to August 2018.
In August 2018 we all moved back to Canada and I have a permanent job.
My PR card expires in July 2019.
Will it be easy to renew? if not what happens if I need to leave the country after it expires? ( I am a UK citizen). Will I be able to come back in?

It is probably fair to assume, as others apparently have, that by "Canadian" you mean your wife is a Canadian citizen (actually Canadian PRs are also "Canadians" in Canadian law), in which case it is LIKELY you will NOT have a problem getting credit toward the PR Residency Obligation for the time you lived together abroad.

That said, as some have cautioned, there is a RISK IRCC will NOT give credit for the time living together abroad based on distinguishing who-accompanied-whom. Apparently @21Goose is not familiar with official interpretations of the law. My sense is this risk is fairly low but that in part depends in part on your continuing to live and work in Canada (not that is a requirement, but in terms of how it appears).

Additionally, the caution expressed by @Bs65, regarding the need for a PR Travel Document or traveling via the U.S. (so as to cross the border using private transportation), warrants some emphasis.

Respectfully, I disagree. The operational manual addresses this explicitly:

In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose.

There is NO doubt who-accompanied-whom can make a deciding difference when a PR claims credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on time abroad accompanying the PR's Canadian citizen spouse.

CAUTION: The operational manuals are merely "a reference tool to guide" IRCC decision-makers and are "not binding." In particular, the language you quote from ENF 23 has EXPLICITLY NOT been followed in NUMEROUS actual cases, as OFFICIALLY reported in published IAD (Immigration Appeal Division) decisions. (quoted language is specifically in regard to operational manual ENF 23, see Dadash-zadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 46499 (CA IRB); http://canlii.ca/t/hsldq )

In particular, multiple IAD panels have explicitly RULED against PRs, concluding the determination the PR breached the Residency Obligation to be VALID in LAW in cases where credit for time living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse WAS DENIED explicitly because it was determined the PR was NOT accompanying the citizen spouse but, rather, the citizen was accompanying the PR.

Again, there are numerous such official decisions. See, just for example:

Ibrahim v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 60499 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hst3d
Javadian-Sarraf v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 68435 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/ht5t6
Ezeibe v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 29598 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/h3ssj
Khaira v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 95529 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/gksqq
Diouf, 2011 CanLII 59952 see http://canlii.ca/t/fn81r
Khan v Canada, 2015 CanLII 99397 see http://canlii.ca/t/grz8t

There are contrary decisions, such as Mustafa v Canada, 2018 CanLII 47219 see http://canlii.ca/t/hs76z in which ENF 23 is cited as supporting the approach in which who-accompanied-whom is NOT relevant. This decision is cited by other IAD panels agreeing with its approach, and by a number of the above referenced decisions in which its approach is explicitly rejected.

I already linked the Dadash-zadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 46499 (CA IRB), decision, http://canlii.ca/t/hsldq but since it is a rather recent IAD decision, in addition to explicitly declining to follow ENF 23, the conclusions are worth quoting:

In my view, the relevant IAD decisions relied on by the Minister’s representative turn on the meaning to be attributed to the phrase “outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common law partner” as found in subparagraph 28(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, more particularly to the term “accompanying”.

In this appeal, the proof does not reasonably support the conclusion that the appellant moved from Canada to Iran to be where his spouse had gone, nor that he accompanied her from Canada to Iran as a companion or to escort her there.

I conclude that based on the available evidence and considering the plain meaning of the word “accompanying”, it is more likely than not that at all material times during the five-year period under review in this appeal, it was Ms. Hejazi who was outside Canada accompanying the appellant to Iran, rather than the reverse.

Based on the evidence and governing legal principles, I conclude that while residing in Iran during the relevant five-year period under review in this appeal, the appellant was not ‘accompanying’ his Canadian wife within the meaning of subparagraph 28(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The 1,602 days he spent in Iran during that five-year period in the company of his wife cannot be allocated to him for the purposes of assessing his compliance with the residency obligation under section 28 of the Act. As a result, the appeal fails in law.​

I have gone into far more depth about this subject in a topic explicitly about the issue, titled "Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE" . . . see

CAUTION: Who-accompanied-whom can make a difference when a PR claims credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on time abroad accompanying the PR's Canadian citizen spouse.

There are now reasons to emphasize this caution more than it has been in the past.

 

[21Goose]

It is probably fair to assume, as others apparently have, that by "Canadian" you mean your wife is a Canadian citizen (actually Canadian PRs are also "Canadians" in Canadian law), in which case it is LIKELY you will NOT have a problem getting credit toward the PR Residency Obligation for the time you lived together abroad.

That said, as some have cautioned, there is a RISK IRCC will NOT give credit for the time living together abroad based on distinguishing who-accompanied-whom. Apparently @21Goose is not familiar with official interpretations of the law. My sense is this risk is fairly low but that in part depends in part on your continuing to live and work in Canada (not that is a requirement, but in terms of how it appears).

Additionally, the caution expressed by @Bs65, regarding the need for a PR Travel Document or traveling via the U.S. (so as to cross the border using private transportation), warrants some emphasis.




There is NO doubt who-accompanied-whom can make a deciding difference when a PR claims credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on time abroad accompanying the PR's Canadian citizen spouse.

CAUTION: The operational manuals are merely "a reference tool to guide" IRCC decision-makers and are "not binding." In particular, the language you quote from ENF 23 has EXPLICITLY NOT been followed in NUMEROUS actual cases, as OFFICIALLY reported in published IAD (Immigration Appeal Division) decisions. (quoted language is specifically in regard to operational manual ENF 23, see Dadash-zadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 46499 (CA IRB); http://canlii.ca/t/hsldq )

In particular, multiple IAD panels have explicitly RULED against PRs, concluding the determination the PR breached the Residency Obligation to be VALID in LAW in cases where credit for time living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse WAS DENIED explicitly because it was determined the PR was NOT accompanying the citizen spouse but, rather, the citizen was accompanying the PR.

Again, there are numerous such official decisions. See, just for example:

Ibrahim v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 60499 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/hst3d
Javadian-Sarraf v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 68435 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/ht5t6
Ezeibe v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 29598 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/h3ssj
Khaira v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 95529 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/gksqq
Diouf, 2011 CanLII 59952 see http://canlii.ca/t/fn81r
Khan v Canada, 2015 CanLII 99397 see http://canlii.ca/t/grz8t

There are contrary decisions, such as Mustafa v Canada, 2018 CanLII 47219 see http://canlii.ca/t/hs76z in which ENF 23 is cited as supporting the approach in which who-accompanied-whom is NOT relevant. This decision is cited by other IAD panels agreeing with its approach, and by a number of the above referenced decisions in which its approach is explicitly rejected.

I already linked the Dadash-zadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 46499 (CA IRB), decision, http://canlii.ca/t/hsldq but since it is a rather recent IAD decision, in addition to explicitly declining to follow ENF 23, the conclusions are worth quoting:

In my view, the relevant IAD decisions relied on by the Minister’s representative turn on the meaning to be attributed to the phrase “outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common law partner” as found in subparagraph 28(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, more particularly to the term “accompanying”.

In this appeal, the proof does not reasonably support the conclusion that the appellant moved from Canada to Iran to be where his spouse had gone, nor that he accompanied her from Canada to Iran as a companion or to escort her there.

I conclude that based on the available evidence and considering the plain meaning of the word “accompanying”, it is more likely than not that at all material times during the five-year period under review in this appeal, it was Ms. Hejazi who was outside Canada accompanying the appellant to Iran, rather than the reverse.

Based on the evidence and governing legal principles, I conclude that while residing in Iran during the relevant five-year period under review in this appeal, the appellant was not ‘accompanying’ his Canadian wife within the meaning of subparagraph 28(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The 1,602 days he spent in Iran during that five-year period in the company of his wife cannot be allocated to him for the purposes of assessing his compliance with the residency obligation under section 28 of the Act. As a result, the appeal fails in law.​

I have gone into far more depth about this subject in a topic explicitly about the issue, titled "Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE" . . . see

Are you a lawyer? Or an RCIC?

 

[21Goose]

Well anyway, OP, you now have all the information you need. Good luck!

 

[dpenabill]

Are you a lawyer? Or an RCIC?

I am NOT any kind of consultant, registered or otherwise. I am NOT a Canadian lawyer. I have NO professional or occupational experience or background or training in immigration matters, Canadian or otherwise.

As I often emphasize, and as it is clearly stated in my signature, I am NOT an expert and I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice.

That said, obviously, no astute powers of perception necessary to recognize I have what might be generally referred to as a jurist's background (more than four decades of it), albeit none Canadian.

BUT, mostly, I have been closely following PR and citizenship residency/presence related issues for more than a decade (I've been a Canadian for more than a decade now, and a citizen for more than five years). In late 2007 or early 2008 this forum (back when I was merely a visitor here), and a couple other similar forums concurrently, alerted me to an important distinction in my own PR application process, a distinction which clearly saved me a lot of processing time, and probably saved me from some collateral inconvenience if not outright difficulties, for which I was immensely grateful. So for a long while I was doing the pay-it-forward thing (which included addressing other subjects, like family class PR), until it became a hobby . . . but for the last several years now I have focused on just a very few issues, most of which are specifically related to residency or presence, mostly in respect to issues which tend to be more complex and subject to nuances. My observations lean toward the LONG READ as to matters for which there is no easy rule, no definitive or linear answer, often subject to variable outcomes depending on case-specific factors and circumstances.