Unable to meet the 730 days residence requirement due to Covid-19

[cic86]

Canada doesnt expect everyone to take minimum wage jobs, the country offers a path to a better life (as you stated) by offering Permanent Residency based on your skills. And again, being very flexible with Residency Obligations, 2 out of 5 years is very lenient by any standards.

Regarding being able to find a job, it doesnt come as a given with the PR card (unless you get it through the job offer route), so everyone has to find their own way to get a job. And settling down in a new country, getting a footing in the job market, etc., is an uphill battle for sure. However, there are millions of immigrants who have been through this and the process/structure seems to be working, even if not perfect.

Could you tell me how it would hurt Canada to reduce the RO from 3.5 years(I'm using this instead of the 2 years because you need 3 years plus a few months to eliminate the RO) to 6-8 months of continuous stay in say a 2 or 3 year period(you pick the period)? I'm not accounting for situations where a person has to immediately return to their home country due to some emergency which can be accounted for on compassionate grounds.

Just the general use case for now please.

 

[IndianBos]

Could you tell me how it would hurt Canada to reduce the RO from 3.5 years(I'm using this instead of the 2 years because you need 3 years plus a few months to eliminate the RO) to 6 or 8 continous months say in a 2 year period? I'm not accounting for situations where a person has to immediately return to their home country due to some emergency which can be accounted for in compassionate grounds.

Just the general use case for now please.

I would ask what would Canada gain by doing that, it is opposite to their immigration policy. The purpose of Canadian Immigration system is to bring skilled people and grow the economy, and ensure people settle in the country.

I am sure when these decisions were made, all the permutations that you speak of would have been discussed (US Model, Australia model or New Zealand model), the the one chosen made the most sense looking at everything else. It might not make sense for a very small subset of individuals, but then, most govt policies are made like that looking at the larger picture.

 

[Buletruck]

Could you tell me how it would hurt Canada to reduce the RO from 3.5 years(I'm using this instead of the 2 years because you need 3 years plus a few months to eliminate the RO) to 6-8 months of continuous stay in say a 2 or 3 year period(you pick the period)? I'm not accounting for situations where a person has to immediately return to their home country due to some emergency which can be accounted for on compassionate grounds.

Just the general use case for now please.

In return, explain why anyone would apply as a Permanent resident in any country (not just Canada) given it is common knowledge that nearly all have residency obligations, if they don’t plan to settle there “permanently”. Completely defeats the purpose. Don’t believe it’s the governments responsibility to research job prospects or career paths for those choosing to immigrate.

 

[canuck78]

The 2/5 years is good for people who want to take their own time to enter and settle down in Canada after they've landed and picked up their PR cards so this cushion only addresses a part of the issue which is minor compared to the following -

The real challenge starts when you actually land in Canada and try to get a job, settle down, buy a house etc. This is what Canada wants(atleast I hope that's the intention) and this is what the immigrants want too. At this point the 2/5 years or 3 year elimination for the RO becomes a burden when you can't get a field job. By the time you're in your 5th or 6th month, your savings are running empty and you have no recourse other than either returning to your home country or suffering in a minimum wage job which doesn't add any special skills to your resume and employers in your fields don't recognize, infact they may even see this as a negative depending on how long you've been stuck in a minimum wage job.

It's unfortunate that Canada thinks that doing minimum wage jobs for experienced people, some with over 10 years of work experience in unregulated professions and their experience isn't recognised because it's outside Canada, is normal and acceptable.

The whole point of coming to Canada for immigrants specially experienced professionals from developing countries is that they can better their quality of life that a developed country like Canada can offer and most PR holders are experienced professionals so expecting them to take minimum wage jobs because they can't obtain a field job just to meet the RO defeats their original purpose.

Canada has never promised anyone a better quality of life. Many immigrants are under the false impression that moving to Canada will lead to wealth for everyone. When immigrating you would hope that people look at salarids, taxes, cost of living, etc. What I often hear stressed by potential immigrants is free schooling for elementary and secondary school, CCB, ”free healthcare”, etc. There is a reason that CCB exist (high cost of raising children) and healthcare is only partial Medicare and we pay high tax rates. If people have done their research they should have made a decision knowing both the challenges and the benefits of being in Canada.

 

[cic86]

In return, explain why anyone would apply as a Permanent resident in any country (not just Canada) given it is common knowledge that nearly all have residency obligations, if they don’t plan to settle there “permanently”. Completely defeats the purpose. Don’t believe it’s the governments responsibility to research job prospects or career paths for those choosing to immigrate.

Literally the entire immigration system is based on labour market needs, save the asylum seekers. Any feedback to calibrate immigration would come from how immigrants are faring economically ie their jobs. Canada takes in more immigrants than any other developed country in the world by some distance even when it's not originally a land of immigrants and even when the job market isn't as dynamic and robust as say the US. So to say that it's not govt's responsibility about the economic welfare of immigrants ie their jobs is a paradox and is not grounded in reality.

 

[cic86]

I would ask what would Canada gain by doing that, it is opposite to their immigration policy. The purpose of Canadian Immigration system is to bring skilled people and grow the economy, and ensure people settle in the country.

I am sure when these decisions were made, all the permutations that you speak of would have been discussed (US Model, Australia model or New Zealand model), the the one chosen made the most sense looking at everything else. It might not make sense for a very small subset of individuals, but then, most govt policies are made like that looking at the larger picture.

If it's not hurting them then it's worth changing because it would massively benefit immigrants, you know the same people who effectively drive the economy.

If you want to talk about gains then simply more PR holders would be willing to take the leap instead of staying home and contemplating whether they should, some of them entirely abandoning the idea after getting their PR.

Trust me it's not a small subset anymore, maybe it was earlier but that number is steadily growing and in pandemic times it will grow significantly more as hiring plummets so the RO as it stands will only drive immigrants away which will hurt Canada in the long run.

 

[dpenabill]

At the risk of engaging in an unproductive what-the-law-should-be exercise . . .

Literally the entire immigration system is based on labour market needs, save the asylum seekers.

This is simply not true, even though it is an important factor in SOME, just some aspects of Canadian immigration policy (and even then, such as in regards to attracting skilled-labour, other factors loom very large as well). Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding about Canadian immigration policy, let alone practice.

For example, it is apparent you fail to recognize that asylum seekers do not come close to making up a large percentage of non-economic class immigration to Canada, classes of immigration for whom labour-market needs are largely irrelevant. But even in regards to the economic-class of immigration, policy has derived from years of trial-and-error in conjunction with extensive and intensive studies not just in regards to various labour-related elements but social factors as well.

The current immigration policies do, in fact, represent extensive, detailed, careful consideration of the "economic welfare of immigrants," including in particular the jobs many get, including the extent to which there is, invariably, a tendency to under-utilize their skills. This is about problems the government is continually addressing and trying to do better. The current system is the product of a rather long-term, dedicated, and well-studied effort, including input and decision-making by the best minds Canada can throw at the problems.

Narrowly focused, myopic micro-analyics approaches to the hugely complex, macro-scale issues, are, frankly, ludicrous.

. . . . the RO as it stands will only drive immigrants away which will hurt Canada in the long run.

Arguing forecasts is, generally, a fools errand.

That said, as forecasts go, there is so much more involved it is easy to dismiss this one as, well, at best unfounded, but also so narrowly focused it demonstrates how poorly you understand the basics, let alone how narcissistically narrow your focus on issues is. You employ micro-analytics to macro-issues. You miss the point, again and again.

Ordinarily I wander away from such abstract, what-the-law-should-be discussions, and especially so when, as here, the object falls way, way, way outside the range of what are feasible let alone at all potential changes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will address why what you propose is simply NOT IN THE BALLPARK (or even the parking lot outside the ballpark).

In regards to which, make no mistake:

-- there is no (ZERO) prospect of changes in the law regarding the grant of permanent status in Canada that do not, in one form or another, involve residency requirements​

​

-- there is no prospect of changes to the PR Residency Obligation that will be even more liberal, more lenient or flexible, than the current 2/5 RO; in particular​

-- -- in terms of what will accommodate immigrants encountering difficulty settling and working in Canada, the current RO is almost certainly the BEST Canada will offer​

-- -- it could, however, be worse; there were indications that if the Harper government had gotten another majority government, there was a real prospect it would adopt a more strict RO, and during the Harper government it was clear the government implemented more strict enforcement of the RO​

Relationship to Path to Canadian Citizenship:

Here too your observations suffer from myopia aggravated by an overly narrow, micro-analytics approach, apparently with a rather poor grasp of how the system is designed or how the system works.

You have repeatedly conflated the PR Residency Obligation (the 2/5 rule) with the current physical presence requirement in qualifying for a grant of citizenship. You refer, for example, to . . .

. . . the RO from 3.5 years (I'm using this instead of the 2 years because you need 3 years plus a few months to eliminate the RO)

It is a lot, lot more complex than that. The PR RO is what it is. And it is separate and apart from requirements for obtaining a grant of citizenship, even allowing that at least Liberal governments (which is not always the government) approach citizenship requirements considering the impact, the influence, the requirements have on how attractive Canada is for economic-class immigration.

That said, it appears you have overlooked that the current eligibility requirements for citizenship, in regards to required time IN Canada, are perhaps the MOST LENIENT they have ever been in Canada during the modern era, due to changes in law made by the current PM, changes which are probably among the more salient reasons why Trudeau failed to obtain a majority in the last election (a lot of Canadians favour stricter rules). The current 3 years in 5 presence requirement is way more lenient than what the previous Harper government implemented (in addition to requiring a full additional year of presence in Canada, the difference between the current 60% of the time in Canada requirement, versus 66.7% under the previous law, also poses a bigger hurdle than some might appreciate), going in the direction his government thought Canadians preferred, which was to make the path longer and more difficult. Moreover, the law Harper got passed and implemented included, for example, provisions which would automatically make an applicant ineligible for citizenship if the PR was living outside Canada after applying, while the application was still pending. Add Covid-19 to that mix and see just how cemented to staying in Canada that would have made immigrants who seek, as you describe it, to eliminate the RO.

Compared to the current rules, less stringent residency or presence requirements, for a grant of Permanent Canadian status that is not subject to an ongoing Residency Obligation, are NOT going to be EVEN CONSIDERED, not seriously, let alone have any chance of becoming law. Regardless the impact of social and economic circumstances on how many skilled Foreign Nationals are dissuaded from immigrating to Canada.

All of which could have been summarized by saying "you are barking up the wrong tree," except my approach is to explain, to show-the-work underlying my explanation. Nonetheless, to be clear, you are indeed "barking up the wrong tree."

 

[walter_white]

If it's not hurting them then it's worth changing because it would massively benefit immigrants, you know the same people who effectively drive the economy.

If you want to talk about gains then simply more PR holders would be willing to take the leap instead of staying home and contemplating whether they should, some of them entirely abandoning the idea after getting their PR.

Trust me it's not a small subset anymore, maybe it was earlier but that number is steadily growing and in pandemic times it will grow significantly more as hiring plummets so the RO as it stands will only drive immigrants away which will hurt Canada in the long run.

You are making pointless claims all over the place. You say changing residency rules would massively benefit immigrants who drive the economy. Well, the immigrants who drive the economy already reside here and they don’t have to worry about residency obligations. The way they benefit the economy is by generating tax revenue and if the residency obligations are taken away, then what’s the whole point of inviting all those people to be permanent residents? Obtaining PR is analogous to getting a university admit you still have to attend the university, work hard, do assignments pass exams etc to earn that prestigious degree or in other words to eventually obtain Canadian citizenship.

The government does not invite a million skilled immigrants because there are a million vacant jobs let alone in the same field one has work experience in. Some people are lucky to find jobs in the same field easily, but most of them have to earn that through hard work and it takes time. The government grants you permanent residence and you have the freedom to work multiple jobs, start your own company or do your own business and whatsoever. And the PR holders that abandon their PR that you are talking about? Well it’s their choice and their loss. For every one PR holder who does that there are 10 others who is willing to come stay here. It will not hurt the government my friend because they already know it and have factored that in as buffer while deciding how many people gets invited for permanent residency.

Canada’s RO is already lenient compared to other countries and you can be a citizen in 3-4 years. So if you are suggesting that Canada take away even that so people can just come and go as they please, I don’t think it’s fair and government will never do that.

 

[armoured]

The current immigration policies do, in fact, represent extensive, detailed, careful consideration of the "economic welfare of immigrants," including in particular the jobs many get, including the extent to which there is, invariably, a tendency to under-utilize their skills. This is about problems the government is continually addressing and trying to do better. The current system is the product of a rather long-term, dedicated, and well-studied effort, including input and decision-making by the best minds Canada can throw at the problems.

Narrowly focused, myopic micro-analyics approaches to the hugely complex, macro-scale issues, are, frankly, ludicrous.

I don't have much to add but this: it is equally ludicrous to claim (based on micro-analytics or, my preferred term, "anecdata") that the government is not aware and has not studied rather extensively that some immigrants are not successful and leave. (Or equally are successful and leave for perceived 'greener pastures.')

It is simply a known fact that some proportion of immigrants arrive and for various reasons leave/do not remain: work doesn't suit them; they don't like the winter; they just never feel at home; whatever. Government is also perfectly aware that the economic and employment aspects vary a lot over the 'business cycle' and external events, and that 'retention' of immigrants will vary as a result.

These are just known things - some of them government can influence a lot, a little, with different cash support programs during a pandemic, with more funding for education/employment training and the like, 'matching programs', etc. Some of them - like winter - not much government can do.

The poster advocating this seems to think, basically, that the government is not aware that this is going on - bluntly, that the government's just stupid. The government certainly is aware of it. There will always be some 'leakage' of immigrants who do not stay. They look at it carefully and try to strike some balance (while recognising that there are constraints in law, policy, history, provincial relations, etc).

But it is quite clear that government is not just going to change the RO and other 'core' requirements on a frequent basis.

Anyone can advocate whatever they like, of course, but at some point it's about as useful as arguing about what the weather should be - for any actual PRs or prospective immigrants, best to note what the rules are and what's expected, and plan accordingly. (Noting of course that policies do change somewhat over time, but usually slowly)

 

[dpenabill]

Anyone can advocate whatever they like, of course, but at some point it's about as useful as arguing about what the weather should be -

Good one! Apropos.

 

[armoured]

Sorry, minor addition: it should be obvious but apparently not to all.

There's a clear underlying assumption in the government's approach here: that despite all the talk about how difficult it may be and how much a given PR/immigrant says they want to live in Canada, etc., that it is very hard to actually make such judgments. Not to mention value judgments about who 'deserves' to live in Canada (potentially subject to arbitrary and even discriminatory determinations).

But there is one way to determine which immigrants/PRs really want to reside in Canada (and can make a go of it): by looking at how much they actually reside in Canada. (With some additional flexibility to provide for true humanitarian and compassionate situations).

In other words, a simple day count. Want to show how much you want to live in Canada? Actually arrive and live in Canada. Do that, and there are actually very few issues that arise (leaving aside obvious stuff like not committing criminal acts).

There's an added advantage to this approach (the importance of which sometimes outsiders ignore or understate): simplicity of administration. Still not easy, of course, but still much simpler to administrate (and overall much more defensible legally).

Anyone who understates how important such ease of administration is (in terms of costs, staff requirements, etc) and is tempted to think that government is not aware of it - they are gravely mistaken. (Not to mention that we've been there before). That doesn't always mean it's perfectly fair, but at least it has clear rules, allows for clear expectations for most, and shifts the 'complicated cases' (eg H&C) to a separate process. The vast majority of cases are simply a day count.

(Not to mention that in practice at ports of entry - esp for those only slightly out of compliance - it's implemented with a fair amount of leniency, once again letting PRs demonstrate that they really do want to live in Canada by ... actually residing in Canada.)

[Side note: economics and other social sciences have various terms for this - revealed preferences being one. Ask people how much healthy food (or unhealthy food) they plan to buy, and you get very different answers than if you study what they actually do. And not only are the answers different than the reality, but it can be very hard to predict which individuals will do what. Even where it is possible to improve predictions, sometimes it's not practically feasible i.e. very expensive or complicated. I guarantee that government has analysts who've looked at this and look at it frequently, and know the implications.]

 

[armoured]

Good one! Apropos.

I knew a priest who frequently got the question from parishioners, "can't you do something about the weather?" (Probably all priests and ministers get this sprung on them)

He'd invariably respond "I'm in sales, not management."

 

[kusrbo]

So really the limiting factor for you is not travel restrictions, but employment. The travel restriction issue becomes a non-issue if you are permanently relocating to Canada to meet the residency requirement. Generally speaking, IRCC doesn't accept employment as an H&C reason for failing to meet the residency requirement.

You're basically at a cross-roads right now and need to make a personal decision on which path to take. There's no point contacting IRCC now since they won't give you any kind of pass or exception in advance. Your choices are:

1) Remain in Australia until you are ready to try to move to Canada. Assuming you move to Canada after you've been outside of Canada for more than three years, there will be a risk you'll be reported at the border for failing to meet the residency requirement and a risk you may lose PR. If you remain in Australia, you'll need to accept this risk. There's no way to mitigate it.
2) Make Canadian PR your priority and relocate back to Canada before you have been outside of Canada for more than three years. This is the only way you can guarantee that your Canadian PR status will be safe.

Any chance your Australian employer would allow you to work remotely from Canada?

Curious to know more about this statement..
"Assuming you move to Canada after you've been outside of Canada for more than three years, there will be a risk you'll be reported at the border for failing to meet the residency requirement and a risk you may lose PR."

Lets say if I am in a similar situation.. does that mean do they ask me to go back or wouldn't allow to enter Canada?

 

[scylla]

Curious to know more about this statement..
"Assuming you move to Canada after you've been outside of Canada for more than three years, there will be a risk you'll be reported at the border for failing to meet the residency requirement and a risk you may lose PR."

Lets say if I am in a similar situation.. does that mean do they ask me to go back or wouldn't allow to enter Canada?

They will allow you to enter Canada.

If you are reported at the border for failing to meet the residency requirement, you will be allowed to enter Canada but will have to appear at a hearing to argue why you should be allowed to keep your status.

 

[limhockkiong]

All, it's been a few months since I posted my question and I have not come back into the forum. I got what I asked for. Obviously now, the topic has splintered off. Nevertheless, great discussions and I learn a lot.

@kusrbo, last year January (before Covid took over the world), I was questioned by a CBSA officer at the YVR airport when I returned to Canada to WFH. She asked why I had been out of country for such a long time. She warned that they could revoke my residency status and deny my entry if I didn't meet my RO. She advised if I knew I will never meet my RO, I could pro-actively renounce my PR status and come in as a tourist to visit my family to avoid being turned away at the airport. Without understanding PR Expiration date on the PR card does not actually mean the end of my PR status (now I know after learning from the great responses on this thread), I naively told the officer that my PR visa does not expire until 2+ years away then. She did not clarify what PR expiration on my card means but said she could see in the system how many days I would be able to accumulate had I continue to stay in the country without ever leaving again and would know if, even without leaving, I could/could not fulfill the minimum 730 days RO. I explained to her my situation and the state of the oil and gas industry in Canada and globally. Of course, she has a job to do and therefore whatever I said was immaterial. This was all verbal warning at the YVR airport. Nothing happened as I could still fulfill my RO that time, if I continued to stay within Canada. I went on with my final leg of my journey to YYC. At YYC, no questions asked.

I returned Canada late last year during the pandemic after I eventually obtained a permit to leave Australia (after multiple rejected applications). As an Australian PR, I need a permit. I arrived at the YYC airport. No question asked and I went through immigration without any issues other than a number of new Covid protocols. Why was it different to the previous entry at YVR? I can only guess and speculate but I hope this data point helps you.

@ACHANNAP - did you guys manage to fly out of Australia? Did you also manage to get your permit from ABF to be able to leave Australia? Hit me up if you need to discuss offline and how I got my permit.

@aeroknotz , no I did not consult nor confirm with a lawyer. What happened in your case?

@scylla Are you aware of PR's who have been asked to appear in hearings to determine why the Canadian government should allow them to keep their PR status? Keen to know more about this.

Others: As an immigrant, I can relate to what others have said and experienced. It is a choice I have made and so will accept/adjust come what may. Choice aside, often, the reality is that we do not have many viable options no matter how much we like one over the other. There are other factors that no one unified immigration policy can fully resolve or accommodate. And these factors are usually the challenges that most immigrants face and they can be a big swing block to our decision/life planning. E.g. As much as I like Canada, it does not make sense to me to drive Uber when I have a career in Australia, no matter how much I love the Canadian culture, the people, the cold, etc. It might make sense to others, that is fine. Others have also mentioned restarting a career all over again. Going back to school is possible even at 80 years old. Nothing is impossible. However, ultimately, one needs to have actual work to make a living, support the family, contribute to the Canadian economy and not add extra stress to the country.

The immigrant support I have seen/received are mostly out of good intentions to help immigrants succeed. Whether or not they are efficient is a topic for another discussion. There are also immigrants who aren't necessarily assimilating into the community, who take advantage of the social welfare, who immigrated for the wrong reasons etc. I will not comment on these groups as there is nothing I could offer nor can I learn from other than to whine. This is not a response to any immigration policies or laws because these are not my forte and there are others who are better in this space. Nor is this intended to be a philosophical response. I think the pandemic has shown that we all can be more human. Let's all be more empathetic and as an immigrant to another, I will always help where I can. So please reach out, DM me if you have questions you want to take offline. I am sure we can learn from one another.