It is clear, definitively clear, that there is NO credit toward PR Residency Obligation compliance for time abroad in the employ of the UN.
It is not clear that the nature of the work the PR does for the UN will be considered a positive factor in evaluating whether H&C reasons favour allowing a PR to keep status despite a breach of the RO, but in some instances it might be a positive factor or at least mitigate the negative factor of choosing to work abroad.
In particular, despite the absence of citation here to any source confirming the claim that the Federal Court has ruled or said that employment with the UN abroad is not entitled to credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation, there is NO DOUBT that such employment is NOT entitled to credit toward RO compliance. I vaguely recall a Federal Court decision affirming this, that there is NO credit, but my memory is not certain enough to definitively say it was the Federal Court, rather than a ruling by an administrative agency tribunal like those cited and linked above, published IAD decisions.
Moreover, as the IAD panel stated in the decision linked by
@montrealworker, not only does employment abroad with the UN
NOT qualify for credit toward RO compliance, a PR is NOT exempt from the RO based on the UN Charter provision providing UN officials immunity from immigration restrictions.
It is not clear why
@montrealworker says "
here it is" and links an IAD decision which clearly confirms
there is NO credit toward RO compliance for days abroad in the employ of the UN. Perhaps it is due to the favourable outcome for Lohic Alain D’Almeida, who despite the breach of the RO was
allowed to keep PR status for H&C reasons (NOT based on credit for time employed abroad by the UN). See D'Almeida v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 106794,
https://canlii.ca/t/j3bcl or follow link in post by
@montrealworker
Not sure who you are addressing as the "
haters." It appears you may be referring to anyone who disagrees with the rather obviously incorrect proposition that employment with the UN abroad is entitled to credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation.
Trying to be clear about how things actually work does not indicate a "
hater," but on the contrary, this is what many of us do
to help others better navigate their way through the system, which sometimes involves making difficult decisions. PRs need to know what the rules are so they can make better decisions and better protect themselves from potentially negative consequences. Any PR considering employment with the UN needs to know that time abroad in such employment does
NOT count toward meeting the RO. Kind of important.
I understand that some have claimed the Federal Court has "
disagreed" with the proposition that UN employment counts, and further claimed to cite and link sources documenting this, without actually citing any Federal Court ruling to such effect. And, sure, none of their linked references even say the Federal Court has ruled that employment with the UN does not count. That noted, however, in addition to the case you linked, the administrative tribunals they have cited and linked, published decisions by the IAD, are official sources, and even though
only the one you linked definitively denies credit for time abroad in the employ of the UN, and only one of the others somewhat affirmatively states that employment with the UN does not count toward RO compliance, the fact that there is NO credit for time abroad in the employ of the UN effectively underlies all those IAD decisions . . . indeed, the PRs in all four of the decisions cited by others conceded that employment with the UN does not count toward RO compliance. Rather, similar to the IAD panel you reference and link, employment with the UN may be considered in the assessment of H&C factors, in determining if the PR will be given H&C relief and allowed to retain PR status despite the breach of the RO.
It warrants noting that even though considered in the H&C assessment, it appears to not carry much positive weight.
Frankly there should not have been the slightest hint of doubt that employment with the UN would not count. The UN does not come anywhere near close to the definition of a Canadian business or organization for purposes of the exceptions in Section 28(2)(a) IRPA, as defined in the applicable regulation Section 61(1) IRPR. See, respectively,
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274598 (Section 28 IRPA)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-9.html#h-686425 (Section 61 IRPR)
In particular:
- 61(1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Act and of this section, a Canadian business is
- (a) a corporation that is incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province and that has an ongoing operation in Canada;
- (b) an enterprise, other than a corporation described in paragraph (a), that has an ongoing operation in Canada and
- (i) that is capable of generating revenue and is carried on in anticipation of profit, and
- (ii) in which a majority of voting or ownership interests is held by Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or Canadian businesses as defined in this subsection; or
- (c) an organization or enterprise created under the laws of Canada or a province.
By the way, it is NOT true that the UN was "
established in Canada 70 years ago" but, rather, was established at a convention in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. Additionally, also to be clear, the UN is an international organization NOT one created under the laws of Canada or a province of Canada. It is not a Canadian corporation. It is not an enterprise carried on in anticipation of profit. It does not come close to the definition of a Canadian business.
For emphasis: it is important to know what the rules are, how they work, and how they are applied. That's what helps immigrants stay on the keeping-PR side of the equation.
please try to remove hate from your hearts, it doesnt help