Hi there,
We were able get the Report 44(1) dismissed on basis of H&C and immediately asked to apply for 5 year PR. Now the dilemma is that if ones still short say certain days to meet the 730 days, will one invite another scrutiny if we leave for a short trip then returning to Canada?
I found an interesting case through a case law that seems to show that risk seems to be continuing if one doesn't have 730 days...
Although the method for calculating 730 days within a five-year period sounds straightforward, it can become complicated if the permanent resident is found to have breached the residency obligation more than once within a limited time. In one such case the appellant, a minor, had not complied with his residency obligation. The officer however determined that humanitarian and compassionate considerations justified the breach and the appellant was allowed to return to Canada as a permanent resident. A few months later, he left Canada for a brief holiday. When he tried to return to Canada, another officer determined once again that the appellant was not in compliance with the residency obligation. His appeal to the IAD was allowed, but it was on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The residency determination was found to be valid in law as the appellant had not met the 730-day requirement in the five-year period prior to the new determination. The appellant received no special treatment in calculating the period as result of the first officer’s decision.
We were able get the Report 44(1) dismissed on basis of H&C and immediately asked to apply for 5 year PR. Now the dilemma is that if ones still short say certain days to meet the 730 days, will one invite another scrutiny if we leave for a short trip then returning to Canada?
I found an interesting case through a case law that seems to show that risk seems to be continuing if one doesn't have 730 days...
Although the method for calculating 730 days within a five-year period sounds straightforward, it can become complicated if the permanent resident is found to have breached the residency obligation more than once within a limited time. In one such case the appellant, a minor, had not complied with his residency obligation. The officer however determined that humanitarian and compassionate considerations justified the breach and the appellant was allowed to return to Canada as a permanent resident. A few months later, he left Canada for a brief holiday. When he tried to return to Canada, another officer determined once again that the appellant was not in compliance with the residency obligation. His appeal to the IAD was allowed, but it was on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The residency determination was found to be valid in law as the appellant had not met the 730-day requirement in the five-year period prior to the new determination. The appellant received no special treatment in calculating the period as result of the first officer’s decision.