As noted, I interpret this from the other angle with respect to US citizenship - but reasonable people can disagree on this question of timing.
Residency status validity for United Nations employees
- Thread starter rushbd
- Start date
The big issue is that you can’t anticipate how IRCC will interpret things. They do seem less flexible than before.
True. As I stated though, I don't think as big of an issue for a US citizen. Can travel without getting a card renewed, less risk of being reported, etc. Worst case: even if it becomes rational later to renounce PR status (for whatever reasons), can still travel to Canada, even apply for nafta/cusma work permit, etc. (This may be a different situation for non-US folks in similar situation, as more dependent upon having an up to date and valid PR card - although I'd lean to saying possibly ok too, since the accompanying aspect less complicated - in their specific case).
Now I see your point: IF one knows exactly when one/both intend to move and there is some obvious trigger (kids' schooling, end of a longer-term contract, even retirement, etc), then sure: apply one year in advance to be sure.
But with staggered and uncertain contracts and kids as the poster states, I say forget trying to time exactly. (For those with permanent contracts - not as common in UN orgs as people may think - calculus may be different).
Again - I changed my mind because I think the circumstances are different (than generalized / assumed).
*A side note: this 'accompanying' thing seems to come up more often when one or esp both of the couple are effectively returning to their country of origin, for more or less permanent employment. (As noted, sometimes after very little time in Canada).
That is not the case here: this is more akin to a 'true' international deployment for both, in various countries - no hint of just using the PR status for convenience. Again, I lean to saying this likely works in their favour.
But yes: we cannot say how IRCC will treat in future. I still come out where I come out, on balance, things considered, etc.
Think the bigger issue is actually obtaining PR in the first place if no concrete plans to return and not keeping status or traveling to Canada.
Okay, we can agree the other is not a big issue.
I think you're over-estimating - substantially - how difficult it would be to get approved, even with the intent-to-return stuff. I'm not saying ignore it, I'm not saying easy, but manageable. Mostly cases I've seen of outright refusal have been people who've been living abroad for ages, and with few ties in Canada.
They'll have to do some work to show it, but there's also no immediate urgency. Time for them to prepare a file.
Still unclear how long they have been outside of Canada. Think there is a good chance that it has been quite a long time since they lived or worked in Canada. From my experience with many who have worked in a similar space most have typically been out of Canada for quite some time and often moving relatively frequently.
Paradoxically, moving frequently would reinforce the other aspect: they are not settled elsewhere, more likely to get the accompanyhing aspect recognized, and - so far as applying - can easily make the argument that they have not settled elsewhere and wish to return to Canada.
I get it, and I get what you think. I just think you're wrong.
To be clear on this, I think there are a LOT of very different stories and situations behind these "UN employees". So it can depend quite a bit on what's actually going on/impressions we have. (This case obviously very different from the legal aspect of RO that many have brought up, ICAO staff in Montreal a different case, etc).
A lot of cases that have come up here are UN staff (more often local hires, who work in their own country of origin, to simplify) who get PR status but find it hard to move.
Situation of a Canadian citizen with a US spouse on international postings in different countries is, in my opinion, quite different - it hews very close to what was (probably) intended originally for the 'accompanying spouse' clause in the law. Plus the aspect that spouse holds UN passport and they have been coming to Canada quite a bit.
Anyway: normal that people have different views.
*Which at one point really was a conception of spouses of "management staff" posted abroad for fixed terms. IMO.