To say that you are confused, the first every UN agency was born/created in Canada.. please refresh your knowledge. Canada is a leader when it comes to humanitarian support and human rights.
why haters, cause the person above (says no matter how you spin: this shows how much hate inside)... instead of providing support and compassionate to families trying to live a normal life.
Can you explain how the main goal for creating UN and Canada contribution to it is not a Canadian thing?
No need for the insults. There is no hate agenda in this discussion, really, and no need for it. The object is to figure out how things work, as best we can, so that we can share useful information that will help those who have questions deal with what can be some difficult decision-making.
Even if Canada's contribution to and participation in an international organization is "
a Canadian thing," time abroad in the employment of the UN does not qualify for credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation. This is simple and certain. No credit.
For a PR in the employ of the UN there may be H&C relief nonetheless allowing them to keep PR status.
In particular, how employment with the UN can factor into the assessment of H&C considerations and determining if a PR will be allowed to keep PR status despite failing to comply with the RO, is a different question. There are actual case examples in which PRs who failed to comply with the PR RO, and that failure was largely because of the time they spent outside Canada in the employ of the UN, have been allowed to keep their PR status based on H&C relief. This is not simple and how it will go for any PR in a similar situation is not at all certain.
I have difficulty stating things simply, but here's my best shot:
There is no credit toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation for time abroad in the employ of the UN.
However, PRs who fail to comply with the RO due to time abroad in the employ of the UN might be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C reasons.
It appears, and it is likely, that the latter (the H&C relief) is at least due in part to the nature of the UN and its relationship to Canada, including Canada's role. As discussed by one of at least two IAD panels who have allowed H&C relief to PRs, whose respective failures to comply with the RO were due to employment abroad with the UN, even if the PR has benefitted from privileges afforded Canadians despite not paying Canadian income taxes ("
by virtue of [the PR's]
employment with the United Nations"), "
there is no call to penalize the appellant for benefiting from a privilege that arises from an agreement to which Canada is a signatory."
The other IAD panel allowing H&C relief to a PR whose failure to comply with the RO was due to employment abroad with the UN also observed that even though "
time abroad working for the UN does not count" there may be "
circumstances around the decision to work abroad with the UN that would warrant special relief."
So, again, to be clear, NO RO credit, but UN employment may afford reason for special relief; that is, it may be a factor in allowing a PR to keep PR status despite a RO breach.
HOWEVER . . .
However, for any PR potentially affected (such as those abroad in the employ of the UN or those who are considering an opportunity to work for the UN), it is important to recognize and understand the difference between what counts as credit toward RO compliance versus what is considered in deciding if a PR will keep PR status based on H&C relief. And it is important to recognize and understand just how complicated and uncertain getting H&C relief can be. As
Vaah discovered, despite having recently been issued a new PR card based on H&C relief, that did not preclude border officials from preparing an Inadmissibility Report and issuing a Removal Order;
Vaah had to challenge the Report and Removal Order in an appeal, and his lawyer in the appeal probably did not come cheap. And, it warrants emphasis, a lot of emphasis,
Vaah's success in the appeal depended on the strength of many other factors weighing in favour of H&C relief, the same factors which tipped the scales his way on previous occasions.
It also warrants emphasizing, nonetheless, that
other PRs in the employ of the UN not only did not get credit toward the RO (that being a
cut-and-dried issue: no credit),
but did NOT get H&C relief either. Illustrating the variability and uncertainty of outcomes.
Relying on H&C relief is a gamble. It can be a bigger gamble for some than it is for others. For example, consider the nature of the risk, what it would mean to lose PR status, for someone with PR as a protected person, like
@ali.bangash, who has recently posed a similar query related to credit toward the citizenship physical presence requirement.
Any PR considering employment with the UN that could mean being outside Canada more than 1095 days during any five year period (thus failing to comply with the RO) needs to be aware that the time abroad in the UN's employ does NOT count toward RO compliance. They may nonetheless consider relying on getting H&C relief and not losing PR status, relying on decisions like those for
Vaah and
D'Almeida, but that outcome is not for sure, there is no guarantee, it's a gamble. A particularly good opportunity with the UN may be worth the gamble for some.
For any PR who takes such a gamble, at the least they should recognize their chances of keeping PR status will quite likely depend on maintaining, in fact, their primary residence in Canada, and literally spending as much time in Canada as they can.
