you can apply for your SON PR straight forword when you will be in Canada. there is nothing mentioned you must fullfilled your 2 year obligation to become sponsor of your child.
Residency obligations not met - need to apply pr for son
- Thread starter sat8979
- Start date
They can apply anytime they wish. But if sponsor is in breach of RO, he or she will be stripped of PR status, for the breach of RO. Therefore, one should wait to be compliant with RO before filing for any immigration benefit.
A Permanent Resident living in Canada is eligible to sponsor a family member (subject to a number of specific requirements and limitations, ranging from financial requirements to limitations based on previous undertakings, criminal history, and personal immigration history). However, since part of the process is to verify the validity of the sponsor's status, as having PR status eligible to sponsor a family member, the application can trigger a PR Residency Obligation examination, and if the PR is in breach that can result in the issuance of a Removal Order, which explicitly excludes the PR from eligibility to sponsor . . . and that not only means the sponsored application gets denied, but is a decision terminating PR status, thus putting the PR at risk of losing PR status unless they successfully appeal the Removal Order.
While PRs well settled in Canada are probably at somewhat low risk, since IRCC does not engage in gotcha-games, this is not an abstract risk. We see this happen to some PRs who are in breach of the RO by a big margin, especially those who recently came back to Canada after an absence for three or more years (but were waived into Canada without being Reported for the breach of RO). Since the sponsoring PR must give detailed employment and address history in the application, for the PR who has just recently come to Canada and otherwise was abroad for a long time, their breach of the RO is obvious on the face of the application. Kind of like sending IRCC a notice: ohh, I got back in without being reported but here is some information showing how much I have been outside Canada and am in breach of the RO. For those whose PR status is important, not a risk worth taking. Waiting is the cure. Those with a strong H&C might test it but the best H&C case is still a gamble.
Of course if the PR was issued a Removal Order upon arrival, attendant a 44(1) inadmissibility Report for a RO breach, that explicitly makes them ineligible to sponsor a family member. If they appeal the remain ineligible while the appeal is pending.
That is incorrect and it looks like you may have applied to sponsor your child recently and it looks like you may not be meeting your RO.
Please give any reference, where it is mentioned, you can't apply PR for baby? Both parents are PR holder and have not met PR obligation yet.
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...ation-due-to-covid.760219/page-2#post-9988701
You can apply but it likely won't be processed (at best) or result in a 44(1) report.
This is a common knowledge among Canadian immigrants, it's unusual to request a reference for it. It's like asking a reference to prove that Earth isn't flat.
You can search web for regulations and research this subject. For me it's a useless waste of time to "give reference" for something obvious and widely known.
I did my research & i didn't find anything which you mentioned, So please, don't spread panic statement , which have no base.
May be you should stop trolling and disputing the obvious. If you are PR in breach of RO, go ahead and sponsor anyone you want. Just don't advise others to do that, because you will cause them loss of PR status and a lot of hardship (including forced removal from Canada).
Agree with @jakklondon here; no one has to take recommendations from a discussion board. @dpenabill ’s post linked above is a good explainer of the gamble of interacting with certain processes when not compliant with RO. If you think it is safe to try sponsoring when not in compliance, go for it. Hopefully you aren’t here a few months later trying to find a way to successfully appeal the negative RO determination.
Last edited:
Reference has been posted but based on anecdotal evidence we have seen parents run into problems. Some get by but usually at least one patent is careful to meet their RO. Not to mention it is just logical. Why would you reward someone with the ability to sponsor if they haven’t met the extremely lenient RO?
If you applied for FSW in 2014 you may be quite out of status depending on if you ever relocated to Canads.
@rafe_lovely . . . overall it appears you miss the point, overlooking what really matters. I will explain and cite and link specific sources, but in summary what all the fuss is about is that a PR who is not in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation is "inadmissible," and thus subject to being issued a Removal Order, and a PR subject to a Removal Order is NOT eligible to sponsor a family member, including a dependent child.
The fact that a PR subject to a Removal Order is NOT eligible to sponsor a family member is explicitly and clearly stated in the applicable PDIs, online instructions, and the guide specifically for making sponsorship applications. See, respectively:
It is also clear in the actual law. See section 133 in the IRPR (the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations) here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-19.html#docCont
As a matter of law, a PR who is not in compliance with the RO is inadmissible. This is stated as clearly as clear gets in Section 41 in the IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). See here https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-6.html#docCont where it states in reference to Section 28 (the RO) that in the case of a permanent resident they are inadmissible for failing to comply with the RO.
If a PR is in Canada but NOT in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, IRCC is not going to come looking for them, even though they are inadmissible. So once in Canada (without being "Reported"), the PR in breach of the RO is safe, one might say, as long as they do not do anything to trigger the government to assess their PR status.
BUT if the PR initiates a transaction with IRCC, such as making an application which depends on the individual's PR status, which includes applications to sponsor family members, the PR's status is assessed and that can and often will lead to an examination of the PR's admissibility, including the PR's compliance with the RO. For the PR in breach of the RO that can lead to the preparation of a 44(1) Report and issuance of a Removal Order. That is a decision terminating PR status (subject to appeal). Moreover, a PR subject to a Removal Order is explicitly NOT eligible to sponsor a family member (see citations with links above).
So that's the risk. By making a sponsorship application, a PR who is not in compliance with the RO risks triggering the preparation of a 44(1) Report and being issued a Removal Order, which worse than making the PR ineligible to sponsor the PR's child, is a decision terminating PR status leading to deportation unless the PR appeals and wins the appeal.
And this is not just theory. This is not in the abstract. There are plenty of anecdotal reports of this happening. It is, after all, a straight-forward application of the law, of the rules.
It can be confusing because IRCC does not uniformly or consistently enforce the RO, and while the most leeway and leniency appears to be exercised at the Port-of-Entry, which is how many PRs in breach of the RO manage to return to Canada without being Reported, without losing PR status, there is also some leeway and leniency exercised when PRs make applications like a sponsorship application or an application for a new PR card. So there are anecdotal reports where the PR in RO breach did not encounter a problem. But what one or ten people more-or-less got-away-with does not change what the rules are, and does not offer much assurance, let alone any guarantee, it will go the same for the next person.
SUMMARY: Even if a PR was allowed entry into Canada without being reported for inadmissibility for the RO breach, and thus is IN Canada, an adjudication of their PR status can still be triggered if the PR engages in any transaction with IRCC that depends on the validity of their PR status. That includes an application to sponsor a family member. The first step of that application processing is to assess the sponsor's eligibility, which means verifying the sponsor's PR status. If IRCC sees that the sponsor is in breach of the RO, which it will because the sponsor has to include information (work and address history) which will show the absence from Canada, that can and we know it sometimes does lead to the preparation of a 44(1) Report and issuance of a Removal Order. That is a decision terminating PR status (subject to appeal). A PR subject to a Removal Order is not eligible to sponsor a family member and, moreover, will be deported unless they win an appeal of the Report and Removal Order.
Primary Sources:
IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) is here https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/FullText.html
IRPR (Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations) are here https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/FullText.html
Site where official sources can be searched, the CanLII website, is here https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/
Secondary but Generally Authoritative, Reliable Sources (with some repetition, sorry):
See related IRCC webpages. These are NOT official, not binding, but they are generally reliable (they are the current government's version of policy, procedure, intended to be guidance for IRCC staff but published publicly). This includes PDIs generally, starting here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...al-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence.html or for family class applications in particular, start here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...permanent-residence/non-economic-classes.html
For PDIs for PR for dependent children, start here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...-economic-classes/family-class-dependent.html
There are numerous particular eligibility requirements for sponsors of family class PR applications, clearly listed in the instructions and the guide; see:
For information about the preparation of 44(1) Reports, issuance of Departure or Removal Orders (different names for same thing), and procedures related to the loss of PR status, including for inadmissibility based on a breach of the RO in particular, see the relevant Operational Manuals, which are in pdf form linked here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...ns-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html and see in particular:
The fact that a PR subject to a Removal Order is NOT eligible to sponsor a family member is explicitly and clearly stated in the applicable PDIs, online instructions, and the guide specifically for making sponsorship applications. See, respectively:
It is also clear in the actual law. See section 133 in the IRPR (the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations) here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-19.html#docCont
As a matter of law, a PR who is not in compliance with the RO is inadmissible. This is stated as clearly as clear gets in Section 41 in the IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). See here https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-6.html#docCont where it states in reference to Section 28 (the RO) that in the case of a permanent resident they are inadmissible for failing to comply with the RO.
If a PR is in Canada but NOT in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, IRCC is not going to come looking for them, even though they are inadmissible. So once in Canada (without being "Reported"), the PR in breach of the RO is safe, one might say, as long as they do not do anything to trigger the government to assess their PR status.
BUT if the PR initiates a transaction with IRCC, such as making an application which depends on the individual's PR status, which includes applications to sponsor family members, the PR's status is assessed and that can and often will lead to an examination of the PR's admissibility, including the PR's compliance with the RO. For the PR in breach of the RO that can lead to the preparation of a 44(1) Report and issuance of a Removal Order. That is a decision terminating PR status (subject to appeal). Moreover, a PR subject to a Removal Order is explicitly NOT eligible to sponsor a family member (see citations with links above).
So that's the risk. By making a sponsorship application, a PR who is not in compliance with the RO risks triggering the preparation of a 44(1) Report and being issued a Removal Order, which worse than making the PR ineligible to sponsor the PR's child, is a decision terminating PR status leading to deportation unless the PR appeals and wins the appeal.
And this is not just theory. This is not in the abstract. There are plenty of anecdotal reports of this happening. It is, after all, a straight-forward application of the law, of the rules.
It can be confusing because IRCC does not uniformly or consistently enforce the RO, and while the most leeway and leniency appears to be exercised at the Port-of-Entry, which is how many PRs in breach of the RO manage to return to Canada without being Reported, without losing PR status, there is also some leeway and leniency exercised when PRs make applications like a sponsorship application or an application for a new PR card. So there are anecdotal reports where the PR in RO breach did not encounter a problem. But what one or ten people more-or-less got-away-with does not change what the rules are, and does not offer much assurance, let alone any guarantee, it will go the same for the next person.
SUMMARY: Even if a PR was allowed entry into Canada without being reported for inadmissibility for the RO breach, and thus is IN Canada, an adjudication of their PR status can still be triggered if the PR engages in any transaction with IRCC that depends on the validity of their PR status. That includes an application to sponsor a family member. The first step of that application processing is to assess the sponsor's eligibility, which means verifying the sponsor's PR status. If IRCC sees that the sponsor is in breach of the RO, which it will because the sponsor has to include information (work and address history) which will show the absence from Canada, that can and we know it sometimes does lead to the preparation of a 44(1) Report and issuance of a Removal Order. That is a decision terminating PR status (subject to appeal). A PR subject to a Removal Order is not eligible to sponsor a family member and, moreover, will be deported unless they win an appeal of the Report and Removal Order.
Primary Sources:
IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) is here https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/FullText.html
IRPR (Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations) are here https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/FullText.html
Site where official sources can be searched, the CanLII website, is here https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/
-- portal to search for related published IAD decisions in particular is here https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/ (this is the most extensive source for official reports based on actual cases involving family class sponsorships, generally, and sponsor eligibility in particular)
-- portal to search for related published Federal Court decisions in particular is here https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/
-- portal to search for related published Federal Court of Appeal decisions in particular is here https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/
-- note: Federal Court decisions are generally the best resource for researching interpretations and applications of immigration law, and the FC rulings generally reflect a definitive statement of the law (with exceptions, having to do with what constitutes precedent in Canadian law); there are a lot, lot more IAD decisions, however, so they offer the widest range of actual cases and application of the law, the most "examples;" Federal Court of Appeal decisions are definitive rulings with binding precedent (unless the Supreme Court of Canada rules otherwise), but only a very few cases make it to the FCA, so those decisions do not offer much insight into how things generally work
Secondary but Generally Authoritative, Reliable Sources (with some repetition, sorry):
See related IRCC webpages. These are NOT official, not binding, but they are generally reliable (they are the current government's version of policy, procedure, intended to be guidance for IRCC staff but published publicly). This includes PDIs generally, starting here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...al-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence.html or for family class applications in particular, start here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...permanent-residence/non-economic-classes.html
For PDIs for PR for dependent children, start here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...-economic-classes/family-class-dependent.html
There are numerous particular eligibility requirements for sponsors of family class PR applications, clearly listed in the instructions and the guide; see:
For information about the preparation of 44(1) Reports, issuance of Departure or Removal Orders (different names for same thing), and procedures related to the loss of PR status, including for inadmissibility based on a breach of the RO in particular, see the relevant Operational Manuals, which are in pdf form linked here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...ns-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html and see in particular:
Enforcement (ENF) ENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports
Enforcement (ENF) ENF 23 Loss of Permanent Resident Status
From another topic, but as noted there I did not want to sidetrack discussion of the OP's situation.
As I noted where you posted this, since there is no specific requirement that a PR be in RO compliance to be an eligible sponsor, I am curious what this observation of yours is based on. My impression is otherwise, that actually there has been significant leeway allowed in practice . . . with the caveat, however, for the PR in breach the potential consequences (loss of PR status) weigh heavily against taking the risk.
In particular, so far as I have discerned for a PR in breach of the RO the RISK in making an application to sponsor the application is that the application might trigger a formal examination of the PR's RO compliance, and if that results in a Removal Order it is the Removal Order which would make them ineligible to sponsor.
Thus, not being in RO compliance is no problem for the sponsorship application if it does not trigger a formal examination of RO compliance, and there seems to be a significant amount of anecdotal reporting of PRs successfully sponsoring family members despite initiating the application when they were not in RO compliance.
These observations should not be construed, in any way, to suggest let alone encourage a PR to make the sponsorship application unless they are in RO compliance. But for those cutting-it-close although short, as long as they are IN Canada and settled in Canada and it readily appears they are settled in Canada (contrary to more than a few, impressions, appearances, do matter), the sponsorship application should be OK. Without guarantees.
Part of the problem in assessing probabilities in these kinds of cases is that there are so many variables. There can be a big difference, for example, in how it goes for a PR who makes an application that could potentially trigger a RO compliance examination when they are approaching the day they will be in compliance and in the meantime they are continuing to get additional credit for days in Canada, versus how it might go for a PR who is short and not actually gaining additional credit because days in Canada now are offset by losing credit for days in Canada five years ago. That is just one example among many. But a hundred days short for the PR who will still be a hundred days short months from now, is not at all the same scenario as for a PR who is accumulating new credit as the days pass. Meanwhile what impression their situation makes about the extent to which they are settled in Canada can have a big impact.
The safe approach is to be sure to be in compliance before engaging in any transaction which depends on valid PR status.
I realize how difficult it is to know how IRCC officials are actually approaching these cases, generally, and far more difficult to forecast how things will go for any particular individual. So the safe approach is an important guideline. The only reliable guideline.
But a lot of people are trying to navigate their way on the other side of that safe-approach fence. Been there (in other contexts). So I get the yeah-but what-if maybe playing-the-odds doing-the-best-one-can do gamble.
As I noted where you posted this, since there is no specific requirement that a PR be in RO compliance to be an eligible sponsor, I am curious what this observation of yours is based on. My impression is otherwise, that actually there has been significant leeway allowed in practice . . . with the caveat, however, for the PR in breach the potential consequences (loss of PR status) weigh heavily against taking the risk.
In particular, so far as I have discerned for a PR in breach of the RO the RISK in making an application to sponsor the application is that the application might trigger a formal examination of the PR's RO compliance, and if that results in a Removal Order it is the Removal Order which would make them ineligible to sponsor.
Thus, not being in RO compliance is no problem for the sponsorship application if it does not trigger a formal examination of RO compliance, and there seems to be a significant amount of anecdotal reporting of PRs successfully sponsoring family members despite initiating the application when they were not in RO compliance.
These observations should not be construed, in any way, to suggest let alone encourage a PR to make the sponsorship application unless they are in RO compliance. But for those cutting-it-close although short, as long as they are IN Canada and settled in Canada and it readily appears they are settled in Canada (contrary to more than a few, impressions, appearances, do matter), the sponsorship application should be OK. Without guarantees.
Part of the problem in assessing probabilities in these kinds of cases is that there are so many variables. There can be a big difference, for example, in how it goes for a PR who makes an application that could potentially trigger a RO compliance examination when they are approaching the day they will be in compliance and in the meantime they are continuing to get additional credit for days in Canada, versus how it might go for a PR who is short and not actually gaining additional credit because days in Canada now are offset by losing credit for days in Canada five years ago. That is just one example among many. But a hundred days short for the PR who will still be a hundred days short months from now, is not at all the same scenario as for a PR who is accumulating new credit as the days pass. Meanwhile what impression their situation makes about the extent to which they are settled in Canada can have a big impact.
The safe approach is to be sure to be in compliance before engaging in any transaction which depends on valid PR status.
I realize how difficult it is to know how IRCC officials are actually approaching these cases, generally, and far more difficult to forecast how things will go for any particular individual. So the safe approach is an important guideline. The only reliable guideline.
But a lot of people are trying to navigate their way on the other side of that safe-approach fence. Been there (in other contexts). So I get the yeah-but what-if maybe playing-the-odds doing-the-best-one-can do gamble.