How to respond to the visa office invitation to supplement your PR TD application:
You are being given an opportunity not seen much in forums such as this. Most reports, by a huge margin, indicate the application for a PR TD is typically denied if the applicant fails to provide sufficient information and documentation to grant the PR TD, and then it is up to the PR to appeal that decision and supplement the proof in the appeal. You are being given an opportunity to supplement what you submitted with additional proof.
How to respond, including whether or not to respond to this, is a bit complicated in your situation. I tend to agree with
scylla's initial response, that perhaps it is time to obtain the assistance of a lawyer. Problem is, obviously, time is of the essence and it is not as if a lawyer's assistance is so readily available.
I also concur in the observations by
Leon. Regarding this, I assume that there is a typo in your post:
WinScot said:
Without this consultancy, the total days physically being in Canada would be 510 days. With this counted, it would be over 720, as required.
I assume you meant "it would be over 730." (A year added to the 510 would make it 875 days total.)
Mostly I concur that you could respond to the request within the time allowed and include, as
Leon suggests, essentially an explanation which amounts to making an H&C argument in large part based on you were making a concerted effort to settle in Canada and that you took the consultant-position in good faith belief that it would mean you were complying with the PR Residency Obligation while at the same time helping you to obtain experience which would assist your efforts to obtain a position in Canada.
BUT, of course, only if and to the extent this is the truth.
510 days actual presence in Canada is not close to compliance, but neither is it all that far short of compliance -- that is, it may be within a range which, with a credible explanation showing you deserve to keep PR status, you might be issued a PR TD on H&C grounds and allowed to keep your PR status.
NO guarantees. Indeed, the opposite. Probably a tough case to make but it appears this is well within the range of possible.
Some more in-depth observations, including some background:
(Offering some editorial observations beyond the scope of the query posed, which, I hope, helps illuminate some of the context for this and other similar situations.)
During Harper's reign as PM, and in particular while Jason Kenney was Minister of CIC (and to some extent also while Chris Alexander and Diane Finley were Ministers during the years of Conservative government), CIC increasingly implemented stricter enforcement of PR related rules, including more thorough and stricter scrutiny of compliance with the Residency Obligation for PRs. As such, between 2008 and 2015, CIC more strictly interpreted and applied the exception to the PR RO requirement which was allowed those PRs who were abroad in the employ of a Canadian business.
This exception is prescribed by statute; in particular Section 28(1)(a)(iii) in the IRPA provides that time counts toward compliance with the PR RO for time the PR is "outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business."
That alone is a rather broad provision. The exception is further governed by Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulation 61(1) to 61(3), clarifying what qualifies as a Canadian business and clarifies, per Regulation 61(3), what "employed on a full-time basis" means. A key term in the regulation is the word
"assigned".
It is the latter which was the focus of a more strict interpretation and application over the course time Finley, Kenney, and Alexander were Ministers of CIC, reflected in scores of IAD decisions and some Federal Court decisions, and eventually in the Operationals Manual ENF-23 (while Alexander was Minister, in January 2015) in which section 6.5 was revised to include additional criteria for PRs to meet the RO while working abroad.
For IRPA section 28 see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-19
For Regulation 61, see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-12.html#h-29
"Assigned" might be seen, in the parlance of lay persons, non-lawyers, and those not otherwise well-informed about how CIC/IRCC approaches things, as a
loaded term. While the IAD and Federal Court decisions are not so direct or descriptive, in practical terms what CIC (and now IRCC) has done is to impose a very strict interpretation of what "assigned" to a position outside Canada means, and it is literally now interpreted to mean the individual is employed for a Canadian business
then assigned, temporarily, to a position abroad, and requiring further evidence it is a temporary assignment in the form of verification the PR was to return to Canada still in the employ of the Canadian business after the assignment is concluded.
To my view, whether or not this is a fair interpretation and application of the statute (Section 28(1)(a)(iii) in IRPA) might be challenged, but it would be difficult to succeed in making this challenge. CIC/IRCC are due a great deal of latitude and discretion in how statutory provisions are interpreted and applied.
The approach with more likelihood of success (but very much depending on the particulars in the individual case, and with NO guarantee of probable success let alone a guarantee of actual success), is the one suggested by
Leon, which again essentially would be to make an alternative H&C argument that you believed your employment qualified for the exception and otherwise documenting the extent to which you have made a diligent effort to fully settle and live in Canada (and thus deserve H&C relief to allow you to keep PR status).
The current government appears to be far more immigrant-friendly, so as long as it appears you really are trying to settle permanently in Canada, there is perhaps a fair chance of succeeding with this argument.
Even if the PR TD application is denied, if you have been in Canada within the previous year you should be able to appeal and during the appeal obtain a special PR TD allowing you to return to Canada while the appeal is pending. If you do this, and stay in Canada pending the appeal, that too would improve your chances of successfully retaining your PR status.
That is a long process. If you are very confident of your qualifications for Express Entry, you might respond as
Leon suggested, make your best H&C case, but if that fails, let it go and once you have formally lost PR status, then pursue PR anew via Express Entry. This would be, probably, a gamble. As
Leon noted, you would effectively be in the position of any other Foreign National applying for Express Entry.
Lack of fair communication:
The reality has been that CIC (and this continues with IRCC) is a very poor communicator.
scylla cites and links the current PR TD application guide which does inform PRs about the more or less strict interpretation of what qualifies as assigned abroad.
This is a somewhat recent change in that guide. I have not followed the guide closely, so I am not sure that this was part of the changes to the guide implemented just this past July, but I suspect that is when information about the exception for employment outside Canada was revised to specifically provide documentation from the employer that "you will continue working for the employer in Canada after your assignment ends."
This is still NOT reflected in the guide for PR card applicants, for example.
For a long, long time, CIC referred to Appendix A in the PR card application guide as the primary source, for PRs, for information about the PR Residency Obligation.
see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5445ETOC.asp#appendixA
In particular, there is still no similar statement, in the
Appendix A: Residency Obligation, indicating that qualifying for the employed abroad credit that qualifying employment depends on the PR continuing to work for the employer in Canada when the assignment abroad is terminated, let alone that obtaining such credit requires submitting proof of this.
I do not know . . . I cannot with certainty say . . . but I have the strong sense that this is one of those areas in which CIC/IRCC deliberately leaves open a wide path of discretion so that Canada can allow those PRs it perceives as deserving to keep PR status to keep PR status, and be more or less strict toward those who are not perceived to deserve retaining PR status.
Obviously,
who deserves to keep PR status is not a formal criteria, and if it was it would be struck down as too vague. But, my sense is that it is almost just as obvious that this is what underlies the approach CIC/IRCC takes in assessing many H&C cases (this is about H&C in the context of PR RO compliance, which is very different from other contexts in which H&C relief may be available).
And in the vein of
who deserves to keep PR status, my further sense is that a big factor is whether or not, or to what extent, the PR has been and is making a concerted effort to actually settle in Canada, to live and work in Canada, and who is likely to actually return to and stay in Canada.
Which does not offer the individual PR much guidance beyond the formality of the PR RO itself, that the PR spend at least 730 days in Canada within any and every five year period of time.
In any event, there is probably still some leeway being allowed some PRs who did indeed reasonably rely on an assignment abroad but which employment does not meet the strict interpretation that has been employed for the last four or more years.
Back to the OP's situation in particular:
As referenced, other factors will loom large in how this goes if the OP responds and submits what amounts to an H&C case based on reasonably relying on credit for the assignment abroad. Total amount of time actually in Canada is a big factor. Any other continuing ties to Canada would be a big factor. How recently the OP was in Canada is a big factor. Probably best to document actual efforts to obtain employment in Canada. Probably best to document future plans to work and live in Canada. And so on.
Thus, how it goes is likely to vary considerably on how much such factors favour the OP versus the extent they reflect minimal ties or commitment to a life in Canada.
Probably not an easy H&C case to make in any event. But probably worth the effort assuming the OP has indeed been making an effort to settle in Canada.
:'( :-X