One can travel any time. The issue is not the ban on travel. The issue is being reported for breach of RO. I am sure you speak from your experience, and your experience is that you can travel freely as long as your PR card is valid. However, not everyone had the same experience. When I was a brand new PR, Canadian border officers were referring me to secondary each time I traveled by land. It was weird and bizarre, to be sent to secondary where I was grilled about my residence and treated as if I was major drug trafficker. I am sure if I was even half an hour in breach of RO, they would have reported me for removal. It's hard to predict how the OP will fare.
PR obligation of 2 years not met
- Thread starter AG3887
- Start date
Stay 2 years and then apply for PR renewal.
Don't renew unless you complete 2 years stay in last 5 years when you apply.
Rest nothing to worry.
I would disagree. Like I said before, many people travel from US to Canada during this pandemic. You can do a search from this forum.
Or perhaps you don't travel....?
I have not traveled internationally since February 2020. Prior to that I frequently traveled internationally every year (except one well over a decade ago, special circumstances). There is just ONE reason why I have not traveled internationally since February 2020: COVID-19. I am, like millions of Canadians, including many of those officials working at our borders, well aware that even though we could have physically traveled internationally during most of the last two years, the pandemic has been a compelling reason to NOT travel. And no special empathy required to recognize that it has been an even more compelling reason for someone to delay moving internationally.
The subject is whether or not a particular PR's explanation for why they did not return to Canada sooner can have a positive influence in being allowed to keep PR status, based on H&C considerations.
It is obvious that for many, probably MOST people, for the last two years Covid-19 and the pandemic have been a strong reason to NOT travel, even domestically within Canada. Let alone make a move to relocate internationally. There is very little doubt that border officials have been more lenient in their enforcement of the RO during the last year or so, and that Covid-19 has been a big factor in this.
If your point, and it seems it is your point, is to say that the OP's explanation for not coming to Canada sooner because of the pandemic will not be given any positive H&C weight, you are wrong.
Explanation:
You may disagree, but actually there is NO DOUBT, for example, as I said and you quote "the bigger factor is still how long you have been outside Canada, and the sooner you get here the better," as is illustrated in many dozens of actual cases reported in official decisions by the IAD and in many more official decisions by the Federal Court.
As I further noted, there are many other relevant factors which can influence how it goes. None of which dictates the outcome, but rather will have varying degrees of influence depending on the particular details, including the extent to which that circumstance objectively impedes a move to Canada, but also the extent to which it subjectively impeded the particular PR's move. The latter does not carry as much weight as an objective impediment, but still has weight, and still MUST BE CONSIDERED.
The most common example of a PR being objectively blocked from travel to Canada, and for which H&C relief is often allowed, is the PR-removed-as-a-minor situation. And this is one of the very few situations in which this explanation for not coming to Canada sooner can have greater weight than the number of days outside Canada in the relevant five years, many PRs in this situation being allowed to return to Canada and keep PR status despite having been in Canada zero days in the preceding five years. But even this circumstance does not dictate, not for-sure, what the outcome will actually be in the individual case. Sometimes the PR-removed-as-a-minor will be denied relief. Important additional factors range from degree of establishment and ties in Canada, to the timing of the effort to return to Canada. The point is that even in this situation it is NOT an all-or-nothing factor.
If your point was that the PR would for sure get relief, or at least is very likely to get relief, if they were objectively blocked from actually traveling to Canada, that would be a fair description. But totally irrelevant here. As I said, that is missing the point.
Moreover, that was obviously not your point. Which begs the question: what is your point? If your point is to say that unless the PR was objectively blocked from actually traveling to Canada, then Covid-19 and the pandemic will not be a H&C factor considered in whether to allow H&C relief, that is WRONG.
So, sure, the OP was not physically blocked from actually traveling to Canada, but the fact that for them "we had a baby and then Pandemic so were not able to travel" is an explanation that makes sense, an explanation that MUST be considered before an officer can issue a Removal Order (there is absolutely no doubt about this), and an explanation that will likely carry some positive weight (how much is nearly impossible to calculate or predict).
The caveat has been repeatedly noted: there is NO guarantee, and the actual number of days outside Canada before returning will almost certainly be the biggest factor determining how it goes. In regards to which, for the OP time is running out. It appears that the OP has already or soon will have been outside Canada for not just three plus years, but four. The better the odds the "sooner" the OP gets here should, perhaps, include more emphasis on SOONER. And even if tomorrow, no guarantee.
Which brings this to --
You too are wrong. Opposite direction. Even though a PR is carrying a valid PR card, if they are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation when they arrive at a Port-of-Entry there is a REAL RISK they will be questioned about RO compliance, determined to be in breach of the RO, subject to a 44(1) Inadmissibility Report, and issued a Departure/Removal Order that constitutes a decision terminating their PR status. There is a right of appeal, so yes they will be allowed to enter Canada, and stay as long as an appeal is pending, and get to stay if they win the appeal. But if they lose the appeal (or do not appeal), they lose PR status and will be subject to deportation.
Make no mistake, that is how it works and there are scores and scores of actual cases in which this has happened.
PRs in breach should not be confused about the extent to which border officials have been lenient, and it appears especially so the last year or so. Good odds do not guarantee for-sure outcomes. Gotta be off to take the Russian Roulette bet even though the odds are very good.
Which brings this to "I bet people can enter before PR Card expiry without being reported . . ." For many, sure, that is probably a fair bet. But, actually it does NOT matter if it is before the PR card expires or after. For a PR at a PoE into Canada, whether their card is still valid or expired is NOT relevant. What matters is whether or not, as of that day, that day there at the PoE, they are in compliance with the RO.
Prior to the fifth year anniversary of the date the PR landed, the date they became a PR, a PR is in breach of the RO if they have been outside Canada more than 1095 days since the date of their landing. PRs in this group appear to be treated fairly leniently at the border but make no mistake, there are scores and scores of actual cases in which such PRs have been Reported and lost the appeal. Scores of such actual cases have been cited and linked in this forum. Many, many scores more, as illustrated in IAD decisions are easily found by simple searches here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/
Despite your long essay (which most people don't have the time to read), you too are wrong, wrong and wrong! During this pandemic, lots of people travel. You don't travel does not mean others cannot travel.
Also, covid cases across Canada is climbing and there is a growing concern of a 6th wave. As for people travel during the pandemic, in this forum, we've seen in the 2021 BC floods, Canadians drove to the US to bring gas back to Canada. At the airport arrivals, you would see many people lining up for random testing or exiting the terminal with their luggages. Seen families with babies too.
The only part that I somewhat agree. That said, if the pandemic is really the reason, then the husband should turn down the job offer and wait until the 6th wave is over.
I will attempt to summarize the main point briefly and what was meant when saying you are wrong. It's not that your statement that 'lots of people travel.' Sure, lots of people travel.
It's whether a specific H&C reason/justification/'cause' of being out of compliance with residency obligation is 'enough.'
The point (I believe) @dpenabill was making is that binary yes/no declarations about "your H&C reason counts" (or doesn't) and therefore the H&C leniency will be approved/denied is not how it works. (I underlined part because while you may not have stated this outright, it seems implied. If you did not mean to imply that, okay).
ALL H&C 'reasons' must be considered by the officials deciding. Considered does NOT mean that they must be accepted as sufficient, or rejected. The officials deciding (whether CBSA, a so-called minister's delegate, IRCC officers in PRTD cases, or by those looking at appeals) must balance them within the case as a whole.
So all reasons "count." They just may count for very little in some cases, or be truly compelling in others (enough to decide an H&C case based on essentially that fact alone).
And the real answer is: we do NOT know how much.
Anyone who has such a case can and should put forth their 'reasons' even if they have some doubt whether their reasons are 'good enough', even if they are told by other people that they are not good enough, even if there is some logical or temporal 'hole' that makes the case less compelling, etc. Because the officer might think differently, or other (unknown ot us) parts of the file are strong and that last little H&C reason (even if week) may be just the thing needed to push it over into a positive decision.
More broadly as this applies to covid: for almost two years (just over if I remember correctly) the Canadian government was ACTIVELY telling absolutely everyone, as loud as possible, to travel as little as possible. That ALONE will be an H&C reason that MUST be taken into consideration - it simply cannot be denied. This does NOT mean that this one reason alone will be sufficient, but it is a factor, and it will be taken into consideration.
This is not to say that a friendly discussion here, including comments that say "you know, that particular H&C case doesn't seem particularly compelling" may not be useful. But if it strays into "you cannot make this case because [eg the dates do not align exactly with imposition of covid travel measures]", it is just wrong.
If all you're stating here is your opinion on covid stuff, sure. Otherwise - what?
In the context of my post above: this statement of yours seems to be based on a belief that "every applicant requesting H&C consideration must have a perfectly consistent pandemic story with all dates aligning exactly." Also, no applicant should ever change their mind during the course of the pandemic about what constitutes an acceptable risk (including those with newborn children).
Sorry, that's nonsense. It's not remotely plausible, it's not remotely enforceable. Please show me where there's any documented reason to believe that.
Amongst other reasons, because the public health authorities, guidance, and rules have not been perfectly consistent either, particularly across different geographies and jurisdictions (even within Canada, and even within many provinces and cities).
If this alone were written as a reason (or argued by IRCC on appeal), it would not be taken seriously. All the applicant would have to say to counter it is make any plausible case that based on information available, this was the first time they felt comfortable moving. I repeat: plausible - not rock-solid medical-scientific judgments; no-one would expect an average PR with kids to be able to do so.
Let alone that in this case it would have to be looked at in context of the PR trying to return earlier to Canada.
Again, the point being: it's NOT a binary yes/no thing.
Fantastic and detailed explanation by dpenabill!
I am in a similar boat as the OP. PR Card issued Dec 2018 valid through Dec 2023. Finally now, my employer is ready to transfer me to Canada. But I am having cold feet on going to Canada without the assurance that I can remain in the country without being deported for not maintaining RO.
My job is such that I have to travel in and out a few times a month. Do you think it is too risky to move under such circumstances knowing that I can be reported anytime?
I have communication with my previous employer requesting a transfer to Canada and them dragging their feet etc. and then covid happened and make it harder to move. But again - nothing that made it impossible for me to get to Canada.
The summary offered by @armoured does indeed state the gist of it.
But, @steaky, I make a concerted effort to understand what is said and respond to that aiming at getting things as right as we can. Including in regards to what you said.
In contrast, for example:
However, the OP was not traveling at least in part because of Covid-19. And that makes sense. A lot of people have not been traveling for the same reason. Me too. It is a reason that will be considered by CBSA officers. Whether it is a good enough reason, that is very difficult to forecast, and how it actually will go will also depend on other factors.
Moreover, I never so much as suggested that the fact that millions of us have genuinely apprehended Covid is a good reason to not travel means that "others cannot travel." That is not what I said. It is not a fair characterization of what I said. And, more importantly, it misses the point: the extent to which Covid-19 has been a factor in why a PR abroad has not relocated to Canada sooner is a factor that must be considered and is a factor which will likely have a positive influence when border officials take H&C factors into consideration.
I will continue trying to be fair in understanding what you say, while hoping you will make an effort to reciprocate.
The effort here is to identify what matters, what factors PRs should take into consideration in making personal decisions, what factors can help their case and what is not likely to help much.
There is very little if any doubt that despite the fact that people CAN travel, that CBSA has been taking the impact of Covid-19 into account and has exercised substantial discretion in more leniently waiving returning PRs (in breach of the RO) into Canada because of the impact of Covid-19. This may not last much longer, but posts about personal experience like that by @prasanth reddy do not come out of thin air. What @prasanth reddy infers about not getting reported is wrong, yes the OP could be Reported upon arrival, but that does not negate or refute the reported experience, which has been a very common one reported by others these last twenty months or so. And which signals at least fair odds that the OP will have a similarly favourable outcome . . . and that in part will be due to allowances for how having a baby and Covid interfered with their plans to come here sooner.
That said, we should be careful to not overstate how this is likely to go, to not underestimate the RISKS. And except for @prasanth reddy I don't think we have.
I know you recognize and understand that the longer the OP goes before coming to Canada the bigger the risk of being Reported and losing PR status. So I will be honest, and frankly say it does not appear this was an honest or sincere comment, that you know full well that waiting longer will put the OP's status in more jeopardy.
If what you really mean is to accuse the OP of lying, that the OP saying Covid was a reason for not moving to Canada sooner is not true, then be straight about it. Let's not play games with this. People are trying to get information to help them make the best decisions they can.
Leading to . . .
I cannot begin to sort through all the angles . . . if you elect to try, assuming you are not reported when you first get here, it might be worth your while to obtain an in-person in-depth consultation with an immigration lawyer, to go over the situation, to review your options.
I will offer some further observations . . . next post . . .
But, @steaky, I make a concerted effort to understand what is said and respond to that aiming at getting things as right as we can. Including in regards to what you said.
In contrast, for example:
That has ZERO to do with what I said. I never so much as suggested that it is not true that lots of people are traveling. Yeah, lots of people are traveling.
However, the OP was not traveling at least in part because of Covid-19. And that makes sense. A lot of people have not been traveling for the same reason. Me too. It is a reason that will be considered by CBSA officers. Whether it is a good enough reason, that is very difficult to forecast, and how it actually will go will also depend on other factors.
Moreover, I never so much as suggested that the fact that millions of us have genuinely apprehended Covid is a good reason to not travel means that "others cannot travel." That is not what I said. It is not a fair characterization of what I said. And, more importantly, it misses the point: the extent to which Covid-19 has been a factor in why a PR abroad has not relocated to Canada sooner is a factor that must be considered and is a factor which will likely have a positive influence when border officials take H&C factors into consideration.
I will continue trying to be fair in understanding what you say, while hoping you will make an effort to reciprocate.
The effort here is to identify what matters, what factors PRs should take into consideration in making personal decisions, what factors can help their case and what is not likely to help much.
There is very little if any doubt that despite the fact that people CAN travel, that CBSA has been taking the impact of Covid-19 into account and has exercised substantial discretion in more leniently waiving returning PRs (in breach of the RO) into Canada because of the impact of Covid-19. This may not last much longer, but posts about personal experience like that by @prasanth reddy do not come out of thin air. What @prasanth reddy infers about not getting reported is wrong, yes the OP could be Reported upon arrival, but that does not negate or refute the reported experience, which has been a very common one reported by others these last twenty months or so. And which signals at least fair odds that the OP will have a similarly favourable outcome . . . and that in part will be due to allowances for how having a baby and Covid interfered with their plans to come here sooner.
That said, we should be careful to not overstate how this is likely to go, to not underestimate the RISKS. And except for @prasanth reddy I don't think we have.
Really? Is that how you approach decision-making in your life when there are competing priorities and contingent risks subject to some uncertainty? Was this intended to be a constructive observation to illustrate or illuminate relevant information that will help someone navigate the path to establishing a life in Canada?
I know you recognize and understand that the longer the OP goes before coming to Canada the bigger the risk of being Reported and losing PR status. So I will be honest, and frankly say it does not appear this was an honest or sincere comment, that you know full well that waiting longer will put the OP's status in more jeopardy.
If what you really mean is to accuse the OP of lying, that the OP saying Covid was a reason for not moving to Canada sooner is not true, then be straight about it. Let's not play games with this. People are trying to get information to help them make the best decisions they can.
Leading to . . .
No one here can reliably calculate what is too risky or not too risky for a PR in your situation. There are, after all, a lot of personal factors to consider.
I cannot begin to sort through all the angles . . . if you elect to try, assuming you are not reported when you first get here, it might be worth your while to obtain an in-person in-depth consultation with an immigration lawyer, to go over the situation, to review your options.
I will offer some further observations . . . next post . . .
As I noted, no one here can reliably calculate what is too risky or not too risky for a PR in your situation. There are, after all, a lot of personal factors to consider. For some, for example, the financial risk is more daunting than for others. It is not just about the odds of things going OK or not OK, it is about what is at stake for you personally. And just calculating the odds is tough, let alone balancing personal priorities. Best this forum can do is point out some of the factors that matter and it is up to you to decide what's the better approach FOR YOU.
Some Particulars:
It is not the date that the PR card was issued that matters. It is not the date the PR card expires that matters. See observations in response to post by @prasanth reddy.
What matters most is counting days. Days in Canada. Days outside Canada.
If the PR card issued in December 2018 was your first PR card and that was shortly after the date landed, the date you became a PR, what matters is how many days you have been outside Canada since then, since the date you landed. If that is more than 1095, you are already in breach of the Residency Obligation. The more above that, the bigger the RISK you will be Reported when you come to Canada. But as I noted, there are other factors that can influence how it goes. NO ONE here can tell you for sure how it will go. In fact, no one here can reliably give any more than a general ballpark estimation, like the one I keep repeating: the more you have been outside Canada, the bigger the risk of being Reported and losing PR status.
So far as the anecdotal reporting goes, it appears that border officials are still being quite lenient, at least with PRs still within the first five years since landing. BUT the scope of that leniency is bound to decrease as the impact of Covid wanes. Anecdotal reporting is always delayed. That is, we are not likely to see reporting that clearly indicates if, when, or how much more strict border officials are getting until well after that has begun to happen. Following these cases in IAD decisions is even more delayed, typically by years not months; many of the cases currently being published are still about pre-pandemic Removal Orders.
Assuming (based on date PR card was issued) you landed and became a PR in late 2018, it appears that currently your numbers are better than the OP's, which generally suggests your odds are better . . . BUT that is if you come SOON.
HOWEVER, you appear to have a bigger concern: not being able to come and STAY.
My job is such that I have to travel in and out a few times a month.
So yeah, that could be a problem, perhaps the problem. Every time you return to Canada is an occasion in which your RO compliance can be questioned. The details can matter. How well established you are in Canada can matter. Just how frequent and (more significantly) how long the trips are would be a big factor. Day trips to the U.S. are one thing. Spending enough time outside Canada it appears you might not actually be fully settling in Canada is likely to be quite a different thing. And yes, in that regard appearances matter. Impressions matter.
So it indeed might not be worth it, especially if you will really need to travel abroad often. It is very hard to say, to so much as guess, how long and how often you might be able to come and go before border officials finally prepare a 44(1) Report. If they let you come and go for some period of time, long enough you have actually established yourself in Canada, that would probably improve the odds they will continue to let you come and go, and also improve the odds that if you are Reported, the second reviewing officer decides to set the Report aside, allowing you to keep PR status for H&C reasons, at least in part related to having established your life in Canada (assuming you have). But again, no one here can offer more than a guess about how that will go.
Each time they let you in without reporting you does NOT guarantee, not at all, how it will go the next time. Returning after a short trip abroad offers a slight advantage since that does not, not in itself, flag any RO issues. And if they let you do this for some time, that can actually paint a picture of the PR being settled in Canada. But sooner or later a border official is bound to notice enough to ask questions, and once you are asked questions about RO compliance in Secondary, that is going to be there in the computer for border officials to see every time you arrive . . . and sooner or later the questioning will be more formal. Which could happen the first time you come, or the second, or the tenth.
One possible path through is if a 44(1) Report is prepared and you persuade the second officer to let you keep PR status for H&C reasons, then you would probably be good to come and go after that . . . as long as the trips are SHORT and it continues to appear you are settled in Canada PERMANENTLY.
And I have undoubtedly speculated more than I should have already . . . just trying to illuminate some of the many variables and contingencies that can affect how it goes . . . but cautioning (1) once you are in breach, yes there is real risk of losing PR status, and (2) we really, really cannot quantify what the probabilities are.
Just in case it gets lost in the longer post. 5 years starts from your landing date not the day PR card was issued. Even if you arrive tomorrow there will be a period of time where you won’t have a valid PR card so travel should certainly be avoided at that point. If you want to sponsor someone not meeting your RO also becomes problematic.
I appreciate the super detailed post from @dpenabill and insight from @canuck78
- I agree that it would be hard to be 100% sure about this.
- I would be moving in with a job - so should be financially well positioned. Just poorly positioned from an immigration perspective. I am less worried about the financial aspects of it - as I have come to terms with taking the financial hit coming from the US to Canada (just the truth in my case - not saying it is true for everyone) and am budgeting ~$20K CAD in legal fees to plead my case.
- My travel will likely be 2-3 days - 2x per month, mostly to the US, sometimes to Europe.
- My PR landing happened in Sep 2018 - so that's when the clock starts. By Sep 2023, i would have clocked at least 14 or so months if I move this summer.
- If I get reported under S.44, hopefully the appeal can buy me time to stay there. After which I might have made up the remaining 10 months or so.
- Worst case -Would there be a way to switch from PR to Temp Work Permit by giving up PR - so I can continue to work and live in Canada? That way, I can get Canadian experience and reapply in CEC hopefully.
One more Q -
- A lawyer I spoke to mentioned that as long as my PR card is valid (Dec 2023), I can travel in and out freely without being denied entry into Canada. Best case, they let me in with warnings. Worst Case - they issue a S.44 notice. Either way, entry into Canada until Dec 2023 or S.44 adjudication (which can take 1-1.5 years if contested) is guaranteed. Is that in line with your understanding?
If it matters for H&C -
- I visited Canada 3-4 times after getting my PR in an effort to get an intra-office transfer. I have travel records for that.
- I played a role in expanding my company's operations in Canada - and Toronto Star even interviewed me and published an article featuring me around why my company loves Toronto. Something to show my efforts to be moving towards Canada.
- I have communications with my employer formally seeking a transfer to Canada - which was on track until Covid struck.
- There were some personal reasons along the way - such as me meeting with an accident, taking care of my dad who met with an accident, unvaccinated toddler during covid etc. I know I am not the only one facing it - but should hopefully give the lawyers something to argue with I guess.
Thanks!
Last edited:
1. Remember that every time you return to Canada after one of these trips you have potential of RO determination being made, with it clear that you wouldn’t be complaint within the first 5 years. Residing in Canada during that period may be in your favor but still potential issue.
2. The time after being reported only counts if you are successful in your appeal.