Regional Case Officer also Inspect PR Residency Obligation?

[Maple66]

Dear all,
Need your expertise, advice and sharing!
Thought lost PR status without meeting 2 year residency obligation in 5 years, Got tourist visa approval, then submitted Spousal Sponsorship PR application out of Canada.
After that, entered Canada, applied for Open work permit (OWP) soon, which is not approved yet for a few months. Then found out I am still PR and started working, very critical to whole family as difficult to find jobs.

Regional Case officer for Spousal Sponsorship PR (which was put on hold now) requested me to start PR card renewal application, though I informed them that I have not lived for 2 years yet and my job is critical to family.
. Can I negotiate with Regional Case officer again requesting if I can start PR card renewal after living to 2 years?

. Are they also very strict with residency obligation to order me to act accordingly?
If the insist me renewing PR card, I will lose PR status then OWP takes time, so I will lose my job? what shall I do?

Appreciate your great suggestions

 

[canuck78]

Dear all,
Need your expertise, advice and sharing!
Thought lost PR status without meeting 2 year residency obligation in 5 years, Got tourist visa approval, then submitted Spousal Sponsorship PR application out of Canada.
After that, entered Canada, applied for Open work permit (OWP) soon, which is not approved yet for a few months. Then found out I am still PR and started working, very critical to whole family as difficult to find jobs.

Regional Case officer for Spousal Sponsorship PR (which was put on hold now) requested me to start PR card renewal application, though I informed them that I have not lived for 2 years yet and my job is critical to family.
. Can I negotiate with Regional Case officer again requesting if I can start PR card renewal after living to 2 years?

. Are they also very strict with residency obligation to order me to act accordingly?
If the insist me renewing PR card, I will lose PR status then OWP takes time, so I will lose my job? what shall I do?

Appreciate your great suggestions

Very strange that you were able to obtain a TRV. You can try to negotiate but no guarantees. You are now on IRCC’s radar for non-compliance. When did you get PR and how much time have you spent in Canada? In the last 5 years? Assume they want IRCC to determine whether you can keep PR or not and then they would process the sponsorship.

 

[Maple66]

Very strange that you were able to obtain a TRV. You can try to negotiate but no guarantees. You are now on IRCC’s radar for non-compliance. When did you get PR and how much time have you spent in Canada? In the last 5 years? Assume they want IRCC to determine whether you can keep PR or not and then they would process the sponsorship.

6 years ago got 1st PR card, up to now, still no meet 2 years in last 5 years. the Kay thing is that I do not want to lose my job, which is critical to my family. thanks

 

[Besram]

This looks like a situation where a consultation with a reputable immigration lawyer is warranted.

 

[scylla]

Dear all,
Need your expertise, advice and sharing!
Thought lost PR status without meeting 2 year residency obligation in 5 years, Got tourist visa approval, then submitted Spousal Sponsorship PR application out of Canada.
After that, entered Canada, applied for Open work permit (OWP) soon, which is not approved yet for a few months. Then found out I am still PR and started working, very critical to whole family as difficult to find jobs.

Regional Case officer for Spousal Sponsorship PR (which was put on hold now) requested me to start PR card renewal application, though I informed them that I have not lived for 2 years yet and my job is critical to family.
. Can I negotiate with Regional Case officer again requesting if I can start PR card renewal after living to 2 years?

. Are they also very strict with residency obligation to order me to act accordingly?
If the insist me renewing PR card, I will lose PR status then OWP takes time, so I will lose my job? what shall I do?

Appreciate your great suggestions

Talk to an immigration lawyer.

 

[canuck78]

6 years ago got 1st PR card, up to now, still no meet 2 years in last 5 years. the Kay thing is that I do not want to lose my job, which is critical to my family. thanks

How much time have you spent in Canada? In the past 5 years? Have you ever applied for a PRTD? Agree you need a lawyer. Extremely strange and disturbing that you were able to get the TRV.

 

[armoured]

then submitted Spousal Sponsorship PR application out of Canada.

Are you married to a Canadian PR or citizen?

After that, entered Canada, applied for Open work permit (OWP) soon, which is not approved yet for a few months. Then found out I am still PR and started working, very critical to whole family as difficult to find jobs.

If you are a PR, you are allowed to work - period. Did you ever obtain a social security number when you were in Canada before? That is your social security number - you can use it. (There's a separate topic I won't get into now of whether it has been put on hold - which does NOT affect your right to work).

Regional Case officer for Spousal Sponsorship PR (which was put on hold now) requested me to start PR card renewal application, though I informed them that I have not lived for 2 years yet and my job is critical to family.
. Can I negotiate with Regional Case officer again requesting if I can start PR card renewal after living to 2 years?

. Are they also very strict with residency obligation to order me to act accordingly?
If the insist me renewing PR card, I will lose PR status then OWP takes time, so I will lose my job? what shall I do?

Appreciate your great suggestions

As others have said: you should probably consult with a lawyer.

That said: I don't think the suggestion you submit a PR card renewal application is incorrect. Start preparing it.

 

[Copingwithlife]

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/ETHI/meeting-16/evidence

For the umpteenth time

If a SIN has been inactive for FIVE YEARS or more , it becomes dormant and flagged in the system

A literal flag on the persons master file . I personally don’t care if people don’t do what they need to do to reactivate it . However failure to reactivate can cause issues with benefits and tax filing

If someone hasn’t been in Canada for five years and make it into Canada without complying with their RO, yah, they should have to jump thru hoops to avoid issues
But once again , I’m not like others here , clutching their proverbial pearls on the so called hardships of people that can’t spend two out of five years in this bloody country


“The dormant flag identifies SINs that have not been active for a period of five consecutive years or more—meaning that there was no income-related activity, such as filing taxes, or interaction with government programs during this period. Since then, someone with a dormant flag on their SIN file must provide original proof of identity to have their SIN reactivated, an original birth certificate if born in Canada, or Citizenship and Immigration Canada documents if born outside of the country.
This reactivation is done either in person at a Service Canada centre if they reside in Canada, or by mail if they reside outside of Canada. In addition, to better assist agents in detecting potential identity fraud and theft, the SIN proof-of-identity internal Intranet reference website was developed in 2003. Through this website, agents responsible for the issuance of SINs have access to detailed information on what to look for in identity documents to ensure their authenticity.”

 

[armoured]

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/ETHI/meeting-16/evidence

For the umpteenth time

If a SIN has been inactive for FIVE YEARS or more , it becomes dormant and flagged in the system

A literal flag on the persons master file . I personally don’t care if people don’t do what they need to do to reactivate it . However failure to reactivate can cause issues with benefits and tax filing

If someone hasn’t been in Canada for five years and make it into Canada without complying with their RO, yah, they should have to jump thru hoops to avoid issues
But once again , I’m not like others here , clutching their proverbial pearls on the so called hardships of people that can’t spend two out of five years in this bloody country

Since I presume this is directed at me:
-There's nothing in your link that indicates a dormant SIN means one cannot use their SIN to work.
-There's nothing in there that suggests a requirement that having some 'current' (eg recently issued) PR card is required to reactivate the card.
-The stated purpose of this dormancy program is to protect against identity theft and benefits fraud. A PR who has not had their PR revoked and is using their own SIN to work and pay taxes in no way contradicts this.

Further, though, thanks for the link: it states clearly that "An electronic link with Citizenship and Immigration's database was established, allowing for the verification of identity and status of permanent and temporary residents who arrived in Canada after 1972."

I agree that PRs who have had their status put in dormancy for absence/lack of activity should 'jump through hoops.' Reasonable hoops, of course for paying taxes, and certainly for accessing any type of (related) benefit. But they seem to have access to the information needed, i.e. whether or not the PR is still a PR.

It is not the job of ESD/CRA to enforce compliance with the residency obligation; if they can identify the individual (using eg passport, expired PR cards, COPR, etc), they can check the status of the PR direct in the IRCC database.

Repeat as several times before: if IRCC/CBSA/'the government' wish to get more strict about the residency obligation, they should do so using the mechanisms they have available (i.e. at or before the border).

A PR who is in Canada already, whether in compliance with the RO or not, is in Canada legally - until that status is revoked - and has a right to work. IRCC/ESD/etc cannot withhold that right to work via the backdoor when they have all the tools needed.

As previously discussed: as far as I can tell all of the individuals who've arrived this way have eventually worked it out ('jumped through the hoops', I guess); and to work one only needs your SIN and ESD/CRA can inquire through the employer if they wish to check the identity. This seems to work in all cases I've heard of.

All of which to say: the dormant SIN issue can come up, but there's no need to scare anyone that it's insurmountable. They're not doing anything illegal and proceeding is fully within the rights of the PR - once they're in. If ESD/CRA won't un-dormant it and particularly if it being dormant is in any way an impediment to working, they should push, complain, and because - as above - ESD's own ADM has made it clear that they do in fact have access to the IRCC database to get the information needed to confirm status.

Side note: the situation for those without SINs (for whatever reason) or some whose records are very old (pre-1972) may have considerably more difficulty. I don't know what to do about those, they'll need to speak to lawyers. (Those who never had a SIN should be able to get one somehow, but I've no idea how that would work, their situation is different - 'reasonable' requests for ID and status may indeed be a serious problem - lawyers needed possibly.)

 

[abff08f4813c]

This looks like a situation where a consultation with a reputable immigration lawyer is warranted.

I completely agree with this. OP, I think you might be caught between a rock and a hard place.

6 years ago got 1st PR card, up to now, still no meet 2 years in last 5 years. the Kay thing is that I do not want to lose my job, which is critical to my family. thanks

The thing is, it might not be up to you. I'm not aware of any restrictions preventing the officer handling your spousal application from filling a section 44(1) report. (This would be unusual, but that's because it's unusual for folks who already have PR to make this application.)

Agree you need a lawyer. Extremely strange and disturbing that you were able to get the TRV.

Yeah, this part doesn't make sense to me. Usually when one applies for a TRV, from what I understand, IRCC discovers that the person never formally lost PR and then asks them to either voluntarily renounce the PR for the application to proceed, or else requests that the application be withdrawn - then the PR has to try to enter Canada, possibly without meeting RO and possibly triggering a section 44(1) report (or e.g. a loss of PR after applying for and being denied a PRTD).

Are you married to a Canadian PR or citizen?

If you are a PR, you are allowed to work - period. Did you ever obtain a social security number when you were in Canada before? That is your social security number - you can use it. (There's a separate topic I won't get into now of whether it has been put on hold - which does NOT affect your right to work).

Agreed. If OP never formally lost PR, OP still has the right to work, only after a formal process has concluded in the OP losing PR would the OP be unable to work in Canada.

That said: I don't think the suggestion you submit a PR card renewal application is incorrect. Start preparing it.

No harm in preparing for it. But I do wonder if the OP could get away with it - ignore the spousal app for the next two years (letting it stay on hold - perhaps the officer involved in that app simply won't revisit the matter until some other status update occurs), and then only apply for the renewal once RO is met. Once card is successfully renewed and RO met, then the spousal apps can be withdrawn safely (or else they'll just be denied somehow on account of the OP being PR already). Things to discuss with the lawyer.

It is not the job of ESD/CRA to enforce compliance with the residency obligation

Repeat as several times before: if IRCC/CBSA/'the government' wish to get more strict about the residency obligation, they should do so using the mechanisms they have available (i.e. at or before the border).

A PR who is in Canada already, whether in compliance with the RO or not, is in Canada legally - until that status is revoked - and has a right to work. IRCC/ESD/etc cannot withhold that right to work

Agree completely. The only bit I'd add is that it's not clear to me that OP's SIN would have even been flagged as dormant. Possibly there's a post I missed detailing the OP's timeline a bit more clearly, but it's theoretically possible that OP has say a bit over one year of living in Canada, in the beginning, and just barely avoided hitting the five years on the flag.

As OP was able to find a job, get hired, and is currently working, obviously there weren't any issues with the SIN that couldn't be resolved....

 

[armoured]

The thing is, it might not be up to you. I'm not aware of any restrictions preventing the officer handling your spousal application from filling a section 44(1) report. (This would be unusual, but that's because it's unusual for folks who already have PR to make this application.)
...
No harm in preparing for it. But I do wonder if the OP could get away with it - ignore the spousal app for the next two years (letting it stay on hold - perhaps the officer involved in that app simply won't revisit the matter until some other status update occurs), and then only apply for the renewal once RO is met. Once card is successfully renewed and RO met, then the spousal apps can be withdrawn safely (or else they'll just be denied somehow on account of the OP being PR already). Things to discuss with the lawyer.

To recall, just for clarity, @Maple66 wrote this:

Regional Case officer for Spousal Sponsorship PR (which was put on hold now) requested me to start PR card renewal application, though I informed them that I have not lived for 2 years yet and my job is critical to family.
. Can I negotiate with Regional Case officer again requesting if I can start PR card renewal after living to 2 years?

. Are they also very strict with residency obligation to order me to act accordingly?
If the insist me renewing PR card, I will lose PR status then OWP takes time, so I will lose my job? what shall I do?

Overall I am going from the gut that they are not attempting to play 'gotcha' in this suggestion. I could be wrong - so why I support the suggestion about speaking to a lawyer.

One VERY important point: it appears that @Maple66 is in Canada and his/her Canadian spouse resides in Canada, and that was the PR sponsorship application made (that is, @Maple66 is the applicant.

If so: that PR application cannot and will not be approved. It's an oddity.

[If I'm wrong about my interpretation of the facts as I stated, then what I write below should mostly be ignored as I'm writing only about the situation as I undertand it.

If so, I think there is advantage to applying for the PR card renewal:
-It seems likely the sponsorship app will simply be put on hold given the current circumstances.
-If the sponsorship application is left there, it will eventually have to be refused, which may complicate things.
-A PR card renewal application does provide the opportunity to make one's case for H&C relief. Foremost amongst them is spouse in Canada.
-While that could be denied, I interpret the suggestion to file as an indication (from someone somewhat senior) that there is a possibility (likelihood?) of leniency - because the spouse/sponsor is in Canada.
-Supporting also is that the PR is in Canada and currently holds a job that is 'critical to family.'

Since the one officer suggested the PR application, I feel somewhat positive that this officer expects the PR card to be renewed (and hence the sponsorship unneeded and irrelevant).

 

[dpenabill]

To be filed under middle of the night clarifications . . .

I'm not aware of any restrictions preventing the officer handling your spousal application from filling a section 44(1) report. (This would be unusual, but that's because it's unusual for folks who already have PR to make this application.)

The observation in parentheses warrants emphasis for clarification. It is the situation itself that is unusual, not the least because a TRV was issued to a PR who is being sponsored for PR.

(Note: Others have addressed various aspects of the OP's situation. Even though I concur in see-a-lawyer observations, among other observations, I more emphatically concur in the final observation by @armoured reciting the positives in proceeding with the PR card application: the PR's current presence and employment here, and how this impacts family members living in Canada. In this regard, if the OP proceeds with the PR card application with the assistance or at least pursuant to a lawyer's advice, I defer to the lawyer's guidance; if the OP elects to proceed with the PR card application without getting help from a lawyer, they need to make their H&C case in the application, even if that case is based on little more than the family circumstances.)​

Back to the possibility that inadmissibility proceedings are triggered by a sponsored family PR application . . .

The more typical scenario (albeit perhaps not all that common quantitatively) is where a PR has managed to return to Canada despite being in breach of the RO then makes a family class sponsored PR application for their FN spouse or dependents. In terms of cause and effect it is not unusual at all for officers processing the family class sponsored PR application to prepare a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility based on a breach of the RO. This underlies the conventional wisdom here that PRs in breach of the RO should stay and wait until they are in compliance before making an application to sponsor family members for PR.

This is well enough understood (and as noted, the conventional wisdom in this forum), and it should be easy enough to foresee without being cautioned, that the number affected should be relatively low. That said, we not only see actual cases and anecdotal reporting from more than a few who have made such applications ending up subject to inadmissibility proceedings, some of these have proceeded to make the application despite being cautioned.

Part of why some do this, particularly those who have been cautioned otherwise, is there are more than a few anecdotal reports from other PRs in breach who have successfully proceeded with sponsoring family members (despite being in breach).

This is an illustration of one of the more common traps in forums like this, where there is no shortage of "I did it and it was OK . . . . therefore it is OK" advice, which too often is bad advice.

There are, nonetheless, reasons why some PRs in breach can proceed with sponsorship applications (as the sponsor) without triggering inadmissibility proceedings, including those that overlap with reasons why quite a few PRs in breach are waived through a PoE. Key thing is that determining the PR's eligibility to sponsor does not require a RO compliance assessment, so whether the application triggers an inadmissibility proceeding can depend on how obvious or blatant or otherwise serious the RO breach appears to be on the face of the information submitted. The thing is, the more in breach the sponsoring PR is, the more the nature and extent of information the sponsor must submit will more clearly signal the RO breach, increasing the risk the application triggers inadmissibility proceedings.

 

[armoured]

I more emphatically concur in the final observation by @armoured reciting the positives in proceeding with the PR card application: the PR's current presence and employment here, and how this impacts family members living in Canada.

One small point to add to this: I feel at least somewhat confident in saying that - while not a formal H&C 'reason' - IRCC officers are quite aware that a PR who is married to a Canadian can (and likely will) be sponsored again, and likely approved (eventually). In other words, revoking PR status is extra work that will be followed by even more work, to no useful end (in most cases).

That said, one final comment to the OP @Maple66 , be aware the PR card renewal applications in these circumstances can take longer (much longer) than the posted times; that won't necessarily be a bad sign, just the nature of non-regular PR card apps.

 

[abff08f4813c]

One VERY important point: it appears that @Maple66 is in Canada and his/her Canadian spouse resides in Canada, and that was the PR sponsorship application made (that is, @Maple66 is the applicant.

This was my impression as well.

Overall I am going from the gut that they are not attempting to play 'gotcha' in this suggestion. I could be wrong - so why I support the suggestion about speaking to a lawyer.


I think there is advantage to applying for the PR card renewal:
-It seems likely the sponsorship app will simply be put on hold given the current circumstances.
-If the sponsorship application is left there, it will eventually have to be refused, which may complicate things.
-A PR card renewal application does provide the opportunity to make one's case for H&C relief. Foremost amongst them is spouse in Canada.
-While that could be denied, I interpret the suggestion to file as an indication (from someone somewhat senior) that there is a possibility (likelihood?) of leniency - because the spouse/sponsor is in Canada.
-Supporting also is that the PR is in Canada and currently holds a job that is 'critical to family.'

Since the one officer suggested the PR application, I feel somewhat positive that this officer expects the PR card to be renewed (and hence the sponsorship unneeded and irrelevant).

(Note: Others have addressed various aspects of the OP's situation. Even though I concur in see-a-lawyer observations, among other observations, I more emphatically concur in the final observation by @armoured reciting the positives in proceeding with the PR card application: the PR's current presence and employment here, and how this impacts family members living in Canada. In this regard, if the OP proceeds with the PR card application with the assistance or at least pursuant to a lawyer's advice, I defer to the lawyer's guidance; if the OP elects to proceed with the PR card application without getting help from a lawyer, they need to make their H&C case in the application, even if that case is based on little more than the family circumstances.)​

One small point to add to this: I feel at least somewhat confident in saying that - while not a formal H&C 'reason' - IRCC officers are quite aware that a PR who is married to a Canadian can (and likely will) be sponsored again, and likely approved (eventually). In other words, revoking PR status is extra work that will be followed by even more work, to no useful end (in most cases).

That's an angle that I hadn't considered. But now that it's been pointed out, I find myself in agreement. I thought that this was similar to the CSBA land border cases where the CBSA official declines to file a section 44(1) report but asks the PRs (who are out of RO compliance) to write to IRCC to inform them, only to get the IRCC official to file the said report. But now I can see why this comparison makes less sense - you've changed my mind.

Back to the possibility that inadmissibility proceedings are triggered by a sponsored family PR application . . .

The more typical scenario (albeit perhaps not all that common quantitatively) is where a PR has managed to return to Canada despite being in breach of the RO then makes a family class sponsored PR application for their FN spouse or dependents. In terms of cause and effect it is not unusual at all for officers processing the family class sponsored PR application to prepare a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility based on a breach of the RO. This underlies the conventional wisdom here that PRs in breach of the RO should stay and wait until they are in compliance before making an application to sponsor family members for PR.

Thanks for the confirmation on this point. And overall, this is useful info, very useful!

That said, one final comment to the OP @Maple66 , be aware the PR card renewal applications in these circumstances can take longer (much longer) than the posted times; that won't necessarily be a bad sign, just the nature of non-regular PR card apps.

Good call-out. You're absolutely right - but I suppose perhaps that this isn't really an issue, as OP can still work and everything else while waiting on the extra long renewal. Just something to be aware of and keep in mind (and not to panic over and annoy IRCC by, e.g., sending. repeated webform requests asking why it's taking so long).