Do think there is a difference when it comes to H&C if you can’t find a job in Canada so you returned to your home country and your extended family. In this case OP went to a 3rd country so that will likely factor into the H&C.
SHORT ANSWER (relatively short):
Yes, of course. If by "difference" you mean has influence. In what way and how much so, that is extremely difficult to forecast. And, as I often emphasize, the nature and extent of any factor's influence likely depends on context and many other factors. Including factors which almost always carry a lot more weight, like the extent of the breach of the Residency Obligation itself.
No, not much anyway, if by "difference" you mean this factor itself is likely to change the outcome. No single factor tends to make that kind of difference, even though, again, certain factors almost always carry a lot more weight, like the extent of the breach of the Residency Obligation itself. (With exceptions; removed as a minor, plus prompt effort to return to Canada after reaching age of majority, still appears to ordinarily override even a very lengthy absence, subject to caveats discussed in depth in another topic.)
If you are asking me to describe what the difference will be, what influence this will have, I avoid going there. What can have influence, and what is likely to have influence, these are relatively easy to identify. How much so? That is far more difficult to forecast.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS:
I sometimes offer observations characterizing the weight some H&C reasons/factors have, BUT at best these are general and broad, and I try to emphasize that such factors are always subject to contextual influences, especially the weight or influence of other H&C related factors.
Other than emphasizing that certain factors carry a lot more weight, again such as the extent of the RO breach itself, I make a concerted effort to AVOID more precisely quantifying the influence of any particular factor, even when much of the context is known, and even when other important details are taken into consideration.
As most reiterate, and I concur, other than obviously very strong H&C cases (of which there are few), the H&C case ranges from very difficult to extremely difficult.
And as I reiterate, rather often, almost all H&C cases can be TRICKY and most are TRICKY.
Thus . . .
"Do think there is a difference when it comes to H&C if you can’t find a job in Canada so you returned to your home country and your extended family. In this case OP went to a 3rd country so that will likely factor into the H&C."
The details have influence. That is for sure. And the law is clear: any reason, any explanation the PR offers for remaining abroad,
MUST be considered.
The difficulty is quantifying the influence. And even whether there is a positive or negative influence can vary depending on other factors. As you and many others have often emphasized,
personal choice decisions tend to hurt not help. And I agree with that in general terms. But I tend to deviate from the conventional wisdom here, which tends to assert this is definitive, that if there is a personal choice (such as choosing to stay abroad for employment) this either has no H&C benefit or is a negative factor. I do not agree with that because I have read more than a few officially published accounts of actual cases where what seems to be very similar factual situations, including those involving some degree of personal choice, can nonetheless have a different influence depending on the context and other factors.
For example: the relatively new immigrant (less than five or six years) versus someone who has been a PR much longer. None of the decisions I have read explicitly state that this or that reason should be weighed differently based on whether the PR is a relatively new immigrant versus someone who has been a PR longer than that. BUT the difference can be readily discerned by reading numerous decisions. Extent of breach still has a bigger impact, but it is readily apparent that new immigrants are allowed more leeway. Anecdotal reporting also reflects this in PoE examinations. And IAD decisions tend to confirm this, at least indirectly. (More than a few cases involve PRs who were, in effect, given multiple chances at a PoE to avoid being Reported, during the year plus a bit before their fifth year anniversary since landing, but eventually were Reported; in contrast this sort of leniency is not seen much for those who have been a PR longer than five years.)
Thus, for more practical examples:
-- reasons for remaining abroad including employment abroad must be considered, and for some this can help, while for many others it can hurt, but extent of breach looms as the much more important factor
-- reasons for remaining abroad including education abroad must be considered, and this can be a fairly strong positive factor BUT that depends on other factors including age, reasons for pursuing that particular education, with other factors like the nature and extent of ties in Canada looming large
Observations Related to When Questions About H&C Factors Are Relevant:
Discussions about H&C considerations can be confusing. The subject is a bit like talking about lung cancer. What is relevant and of import when discussing lung cancer with a smoker who has not been diagnosed with lung cancer is very, very different than what is relevant and of import in a discussion with a patient who has been diagnosed with stage four lung cancer.
Stop smoking. Eat well. Exercise. Stay hydrated. Good advice for the smoker.
Addressing slash, burn, and poison options, is appropriate for the patient diagnosed with stage four lung cancer.
Likewise, H&C considerations are much like the slash, burn, and poison options the cancer patient deals with. No need to go there if there is NO breach of the RO. BUT the main thing is to avoid being in breach of the RO. The main thing is to settle permanently in Canada and avoid going abroad so long as to fall short in complying with the RO. That is, in effect, do not smoke.
No reasonable person chooses to continue smoking based on weighing the probability that surgery (slash), radiation (burn), and chemo (the poison) will cure him of lung cancer. And, depending on how important keeping PR status is to an individual, the reasonable PR will not choose to stay abroad and breach the RO based on weighing the probability that this or that H&C factor will save his PR status.
So, when I address H&C factors I NEVER intend to so much as hint that what is considered should influence a PR to stay abroad and depend on making the H&C case.
Moreover, I do not intend to unrealistically give hope to a PR in breach. Once in breach, there is a real RISK of losing PR status.
But for those who have breached the RO, or who are in situations where they are more or less compelled to stay abroad so long as to be in breach, in effect those who already have cancer, I make an effort to illuminate how the H&C case works and what can help . . . and particularly for PRs still within the first five years or soon after that, to emphasize that their best chance is, foremost, to get to Canada as soon as possible, and then (if asked, if necessary) to briefly and honestly explain their situation, their real reasons for remaining abroad, and why they deserve an opportunity to settle in Canada and keep PR despite it taking so long to make the move.
But just as no stage four lung cancer patient should be given false hope, for the PR in breach of the RO illuminating what must be considered and what can help is not intended to offer any more promise than the slash, burn, and poison options given the lung cancer patient.
