Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE

[dpenabill]

The why-the-policy tangent has provided some significant insights into questions about when and how the who-accompanied-whom question can be an important issue for PRs relying on credit, toward PR Residency Obligation compliance, for days abroad with a Canadian-citizen-spouse. BUT otherwise that is a political discussion, about what the law and rule should be, rather than an issue about what are a PR's obligations or what are the rules otherwise applicable in questions about preserving PR status.

This forum has long been aware of the rather limited and restrictive approach taken toward allowing the employed-abroad-by-Canadian-business credit, and those coming to the forum with questions related to that are almost always offered cogent, prudent, and important information and cautions. We have been less informative about risks that a who-accompanied-whom question can affect getting credit for time the PR has been living abroad with a Canadian-citizen-spouse. The risk has typically been noted, but not much more than that illuminated. Thus, it is clearly important for us to take advantage of the recent IAD decisions to focus on and learn more about the risks, and in particular to better identify what increases the risks, who is more at risk. So that going forward we can readily, responsively share this information so that those with related questions can make better decisions about preserving their PR status.

I will attempt to remain focused on three key aspects, identifying what facts and circumstances are important and will influence (1) whether the who-accompanied-whom question will be closely considered, and if it is, (2) what that will look like, how that will work, in the context of specific factual situations in actual cases, and most importantly, (3) what will make the difference in whether there is a positive or negative outcome. After all, most of those PRs abroad with their citizen spouse only need to know the answers to these questions, NOT the explanation, NOT the reasoning. They want to know to what extent their PR status is at risk and what they need to do to avoid or at least reduce the risk of losing status.

To my view, the first of these is the most important, the fulcrum issue. Whether or not the PR's application for a PR Travel Document, or response to Residency Obligation compliance questions at a PoE, or application for a new PR card, triggers elevated scrutiny and an examination as to who-accompanied-whom, that is what makes the most difference. The same factors which are likely to trigger the inquiry into who-accompanied-whom will likely have a lot of influence in how that issue is addressed and the decision made. While how so, and what will more or less lead to what result, are important questions in themselves . . . the threshold question, what triggers the inquiry, should suffice to alert those who potentially have a problem (or will given future plans), and thus give them an opportunity to engage in this issue in more depth . . . while otherwise reassuring those who should have NO need to fear this issue.

To be clear, previously it seemed safe to assume there was little or NO prospect of a problem so long as the couple was LIVING together abroad and otherwise there was no reason for Canada to suspect fraud or gaming the system . . . we now know there are additional risk factors.

Thus, for example, I will not be engaging in discussions about how the rules could be changed to better serve Canadian immigration policies. I will focus on what matters in navigating the system as it currently is, as best we can discern.

 

[dpenabill]

THE TEMPORAL NEXUS ISSUE:

As noted, a previous post lead to a discussion about the "temporal nexus," if any, in the respective spouses' travel or move abroad.

Addressing this issue risks wandering so deep into the weeds the discussion will obscure rather than illuminate the practical parameters involved in identifying what facts and circumstances are important and will influence (1) whether the who-accompanied-whom question will be closely considered, and if it is, (2) what that will look like, how that will work, in the context of specific factual situations in actual cases, and most importantly, (3) what will make the difference in whether there is a positive or negative outcome. After all, again, most of those PRs abroad with their citizen spouse only need to know the answers to these questions, NOT the explanation, NOT the reasoning. They want to know to what extent their PR status is at risk and what they need to do to avoid or at least reduce the risk of losing status.

That said, as illustrated by the above discussion about the relationship between policy and the purpose of the Act (the purpose of PR status in particular), and the role the latter plays, there are big picture elements with a broad impact on PR RO compliance cases generally. That is, what we learn from the recent cases about who-accompanied-whom issues sheds some light on how CBSA, IRCC, and the IAD are approaching enforcement of the PR RO generally, and the converse, information better illuminating PR RO enforcement generally sheds some light on this particular issue: when might who-accompanied-whom become a problem.

Which, again, leads to a discussion about what is, sometimes, considered the "temporal nexus" question.

There are NOT many cases explicitly addressing temporal nexus in depth, and fewer actually turning on it, but it is readily apparent it oft times looms large in the background even though it is not referenced in the particular case.

First, it will help to see how a "temporal nexus" applies when it is explicitly referenced:

For example, the decision in the above referenced Caesar case (see Caesar v Canada, 2014 CanLII 99165 http://canlii.ca/t/gnf7w ) is one of the few in which the "temporal nexus" was explicitly addressed and in which it appears to have been a key factor affecting the outcome. The Panel stated:

"There is no temporal nexus between the appellant’s military employment, or of the deaths of family members, that could be construed as the appellant relocating to Trinidad in order to be with his Canadian citizen spouse; there is no nexus in the timing of their returns to Trinidad; nor returns to Canada."​

Similarly in the Khan v Canada, 2015 CanLII 99397 http://canlii.ca/t/grz8t decision, which like Caesar cited the Diouf decision as persuasive, the absence of a temporal nexus in the respective spouse's travel or relocation abroad is cited as a basis for concluding the PR was "NOT" accompanying the PR's Canadian-citizen-spouse abroad:

". . . there is no temporal nexus between the Appellant’s return to Bangladesh in 2006 and the Appellant’s spouse’s cohabitation beginning in August 2010. Therefore the Appellant was not outside Canada “accompanying” a Canadian citizen who is his spouse, as set out in section 28(2)(a)(ii) of IRPA, in the five-year period in question."​

In contrast, in the Auladin v Canada, 2015 CanLII 93049 http://canlii.ca/t/gndk9 decision the IAD Panel in effect deviated from Diouf and concluded . . .

" . . . as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met."​

But the application of this, so as to allow the credit notwithstanding the Minister's argument that the PR did not accompany the citizen-spouse abroad, was in some part dependent on a finding there was a temporal nexus . . .

" . . . the Panel takes the position there is a temporal nexus as the appellant returned to Mauritius shortly after she became a permanent resident, and her Canadian citizen spouse left Canada within a very short time of the appellant joining her in Mauritius. They continued living together all the years the husband was a Canadian citizen employed in Mauritius."​

This Panel cites similar reasoning in a decision where the author of the Diouf decision, Paquette, was the Panel, BUT it was the Minister in that case (which seems to be unpublished, albeit cited) which agreed to what appears to have been a stipulated decision, recognizing a temporal nexus and allowing the credit for accompanying a citizen-spouse.

Nonetheless, notwithstanding a few other decisions (Roberto Balan in 2012, http://canlii.ca/t/gh04j; the Liong decision 2013 http://canlii.ca/t/gj8wt; Khaira http://canlii.ca/t/gksqq; among others) in which temporal nexus is addressed and in some affected the outcome, in most cases there does not appear to be an overt focus on the "temporal nexus," at least not explicitly using the term.

BUT my sense is that the underlying concept, looking at the timing of the respective spouse's travel or relocation, looms large in what triggers the closer examination of who-accompanied-whom. After all, the supporting information and documentation requested when a PR asserts entitlement to credit for accompanying a citizen spouse does NOT include information which illuminates much if anything about who-accompanied-whom or WHY . . . EXCEPT respective residence histories and copies of ALL travel documents which, together, will usually reveal quite a lot about the timing of the respective spouse's travel or relocation. Otherwise, all a visa officer processing a PR TD application sees related to this, for example, is the PR's employment history and the PR's GCMS immigration history.

Generally, usually, it appears there is little or no indication that IRCC or the IAD focuses on which spouse goes first or why, even if one or three or so months separate when they respectively go abroad. In contrast, rather, when there are blatant differences, or otherwise a pattern inconsistent with the couple moving together, or as those few cases suggest, there is clearly an absence of a temporal nexus in their respective travel or moves abroad, CLICK the lights flash: this is not a couple moving abroad together, this is a couple in which one is clearly following or going to the other already abroad, and if it is the citizen-spouse going abroad to the PR, that is NOT the PR accompanying the citizen-spouse.

Which, in conjunction with observations derived from what can be learned in the recent decisions, leads to what, I think, are some fairly safe conclusions in response to the first of the three questions posed above:

" . . . what facts and circumstances are important and will influence (1) whether the who-accompanied-whom question will be closely considered?"​

Thus, the facts and circumstances tending to cause a significant risk include:

-- BIG differences in the timing of the move abroad for the PR and citizen-spouse respectively
-- PR has minimal or no history of having settled in Canada or being established in Canada
-- PR history of being abroad well before the citizen-spouse goes abroad, especially where the PR has not personally been settled in Canada
-- facts or circumstances or pattern of travel revealing significant periods of separation, and especially a pattern indicating one is visiting the other more than the couple is actually living together
-- especially long duration of living abroad where there is little indication of any intention to live in Canada let alone actual history of living together IN Canada​

While they are somewhat different, but will often overlap with one or more of the above, my sense is there is also an elevated risk that who-accompanied-whom will be closely considered when:

-- an officer perceives the possibility a citizen-sponsor abroad at the time of the sponsorship application fudged (misrepresented) a plan to relocate to Canada . . . which obviously looms as a possible if not probable question if in fact the couple do not actually relocate and settle in Canada (for at least a relatively substantial amount of time) after the sponsored spouse obtains PR status
-- one of the PRs in a couple who immigrated to Canada together stays in Canada long enough to obtain citizenship, while the other mostly remains abroad, and the one who becomes a citizen then goes to live abroad with the other spouse​

My sense is that if NONE of the above describe the situation, the risk of a visa office, PoE officer, or IRCC otherwise digging into the who-accompanied-whom question is LOW or VERY LOW as long as the PR otherwise well documents the couple was actually LIVING together abroad (incidentally being together at various times risks NOT getting credit for those days; what matters most is actually LIVING together).

 

[dpenabill]

More regarding the latter two situations or circumstances in which it is apparent there is an elevated risk of the who-accompanied-whom issue causing problems:

As I noted, my sense is there is an elevated risk that who-accompanied-whom will be closely considered when:

-- an officer perceives the possibility a citizen-sponsor abroad at the time of the sponsorship application fudged (misrepresented) a plan to relocate to Canada . . . which obviously looms as a possible if not probable question if in fact the couple do not actually relocate and settle in Canada (for at least a relatively substantial amount of time) after the sponsored spouse obtains PR status

-- one of the PRs in a couple who immigrated to Canada together stays in Canada long enough to obtain citizenship, while the other mostly remains abroad, and the one who becomes a citizen then goes to live abroad with the other spouse​

These last two situations I outlined are circumstances for which I have harboured some concerns for some time, but have not expressed those concerns much. They both seemed like more or less ripe for suspicion since, from the perspective of a Canadian officer, they at least suggest the POSSIBILITY of deliberately gaming the system. The appearance of gaming the system has always been a major risk factor for closer scrutiny and a more technically strict application of the rules, across the board.

I have occasionally (in the past, probably going back well over a year) mentioned one, the situation involving the citizen-spouse sponsoring while abroad but not following through with the purported plan to relocate to Canada, because this has clearly been a fairly common thing and it rather obviously suggests possible fraud . . . even if the situation involved no fraudulent intent at all but for unforeseen reasons plans changed. Life is, after all, full of contingencies and even the most firm plans are subject to revision. But, if incidentally the couple does not relocate to Canada as planned, there is a substantial likelihood a Canadian officer will take a closer look to see if there was fraud.

In contrast, this is, as I recall, the first time I have suggested an increased risk when one of the PRs in a couple who immigrated to Canada together stays in Canada long enough to obtain citizenship, while the other mostly remains abroad, and the one who becomes a citizen then goes to live abroad with the other spouse. The recent decisions suggest IRCC personnel are aware, or perhaps increasingly aware, of this pattern, and indeed there appears to have been quite a lot of this among some who are granted PR. This may be the most salient situation for which my previous observations failed to adequately CAUTION the potential problems arising from the who-accompanied-whom issue.

My guess is that most of those who do this do NOT consider it to be gaming the Canadian immigration system. And, indeed, many times, perhaps usually, this situation derives from changes in circumstances and there was no overt intent to take advantage of the Canadian immigration system.

But consistent with what is now more obvious than ever, that the focus of interpretation, application, and enforcement clearly considers the purpose of PR to be a key if not the key factor, it is likely EXTRA CAUTION is warranted for those in these situations . . . at least to the extent the situation appears to be one in which the couple are not PERMANENTLY settling into LIVING their life IN CANADA.


EDIT to CLARIFY:

I realize I probably invited some confusion when I referred to the third question, the OUTCOME question ("and most importantly, (3) what will make the difference in whether there is a positive or negative outcome") as most important, but then addressed the first, as to what triggers the elevated scrutiny as more important. Different senses of importance.

The what-triggers elevated scrutiny is a threshold question and is relevant to much larger number of PRs, and since it precedes any potentially negative outcome, it is sequentially the more important issue.

But what ultimately matters, what will determine the outcome, what factors could save PR status versus result in the loss of PR status, that is the most important question for those PRs affected.

Sorry for the confusion . . . I have been juggling a lot of information in an effort to better pin this down. When it came to unraveling the complexities in the extent to which credit for time-employed-abroad-by-a-Canadian-business was limited and restricted, that unfolded over a period of time and there were numerous Federal Court decisions (which can generally be relied on for stating the rules) to guide our way. And as a matter of course I usually read every published Fed Court decision involving PR or citizenship, so my personal familiarity with that issue evolved contemporaneous with the Court's decisions. I only research IAD decisions transactionally, for particular issues, and do not attempt to keep up with all new decisions as they are published. So again I am grateful that @Tubsmagee and @zardoz brought attention to several recent (and in those some not so recent) IAD decisions which should illuminate a lot, lot more which will help the forum better respond to questions about this issue . . . but for me personally this has meant catching-up.

 

[bricksonly]

How about a PR is staying with his/her citizen spouse aboard in 2/5 years internally every 3 to 4 month and all the rest time the PR is taking care of senior family members in his/her home country? They are settled down aboard and citizen spouse works to support whole family. Is this a legal way to accompany? What makes a staying "accompanying" other than "visiting"? Say the PR only lives with his/her spouse and child less than half time and it's a regular staying 1 to 2 months every 4 to 5 months.

What's the difference if citizen spouse is not working aboard but in Canada? The pattern of PR's staying doesn't change.

This is a typical satellite way many PRs are doing. If the majority of PR's family are living in Canada, as PR's staying is in Canada, there is nothing to worry about. But if the family moves out of Canada, what will happen?

 

[steaky]

Canadians accompanying their spouses rarely seek out Canadian exports and we barely export produce. Maybe you mean products. Most Canadians who live abroad spend less than other tourists. They likely only come and visit family. If you want to sponsor your spouse and then plan on either gaining citizenship or on leaving right after getting PR, many have no intent to settle in Canada. It is an insurance policy, an education plan for their children's post secondary education, etc. As the world has become more global and the Canadian population becomes more diverse, more and more Canadians chose to live abroad or get married to someone from their home country but no longer settle in Canada in the short term or maybe never. All this to say with things like birth tourism or plans to get PR so your 4 year old can pay domestic university fees due to H&C, the immigration system needs some tweaks to deal with a new world. When there was a war in Lebanon 10ish years ago. Canada had to bring in a ship to take out citizens or PRs who had perhaps never lived in Canada.

At least they are Canadian citizens or PRs. If not, Canada will spend money on other things such as Syrian refugee resettlement, and those themes in the G7 summit in June.

 

[dpenabill]

How about a PR is staying with his/her citizen spouse aboard in 2/5 years internally every 3 to 4 month and all the rest time the PR is taking care of senior family members in his/her home country? They are settled down aboard and citizen spouse works to support whole family. Is this a legal way to accompany? What makes a staying "accompanying" other than "visiting"? Say the PR only lives with his/her spouse and child less than half time and it's a regular staying 1 to 2 months every 4 to 5 months.

What's the difference if citizen spouse is not working aboard but in Canada? The pattern of PR's staying doesn't change.

This is a typical satellite way many PRs are doing. If the majority of PR's family are living in Canada, as PR's staying is in Canada, there is nothing to worry about. But if the family moves out of Canada, what will happen?

Given that I am NOT an expert, and that I am NOT qualified to give advice in personal cases (for many practical reasons in addition to technical, formal reasons), I cannot offer much of an opinion about an individual situation . . . remember, a lot depends on many additional, collateral facts, not the least of which is the PR's credibility and overall history.

Generally, as I will repeat below, among the factors which CAN matter (which may or may not have a big influence in a particular case), the less TOGETHER the PR and citizen-spouse have been (and particularly when the PR is the one abroad more than the citizen-spouse, or has gone abroad significantly before the citizen-spouse), the greater the risk of a negative assessment. Without revisiting the cases tonight, my recollection is that at least a couple of them involved situations similar to what you describe AND credit was denied, while (again, as I VAGUELY recall) in one of the cases with a similar factual scenario the credit was allowed.

Yes, this does appear to be a common scenario. Many times the primary income provider in the family needs to continue working abroad in order to support the family. So several family members stay in Canada MOST of the time, at the least staying in compliance with the PR RO and oft times qualifying for citizenship . . . including the spouse. And, the citizen spouse (often also a PR who has qualified for and obtained Canadian citizenship), goes abroad to be together with the PR abroad for significant periods of the year. And then the PR claims the time abroad together to be added to the PR's actual time in Canada.

The recent cases suggest there is a REAL RISK of running into a problem in this scenario. Especially if the PR never was really PERSONALLY established in Canada (which is common).

My guess is that many, many have been OK following this pattern. BUT again, it appears this could be RISKY going forward. And, indeed, this scenario probably is one which illustrates the importance of this discussion, the importance of recognizing that CAUTION is warranted.

It is relatively easy to see how many in a similar situation can work the particular details this way or that to better improve their odds, to get better odds that elevated scrutiny is NOT triggered in the first place, and to get better odds of avoiding a negative outcome even if there is elevated scrutiny. Including fudging this or that. All I can offer about that is that overall those who play games with IRCC tend to be playing with a loser's odds. Many successfully get by. Many more do not.



More Generally:

I made an effort above to describe the KINDS of situations, the SORT of facts, which are more or less likely to trigger who-accompanied-whom scrutiny. This is NOT about firm guidelines let alone definitive rules. Moreover, there are always other factors, with CREDIBILITY looming very large AS CREDIBILITY ALMOST ALWAYS DOES. But ultimately we are talking about RISKS, the CHANCES, and WHAT INFLUENCES those odds, those chances, what factors into what the RISKS are.

So there is no clear let alone definitive answer for this or that factual scenario, unless the scenario clearly fits into one end or the other of the spectrum. If, for example, the facts make it clear that a PR who has been settled and living in Canada for an extended period of time followed the citizen-spouse abroad, and the citizen-spouse is the one with the primary reason for being abroad, that's as close to a SURE-BET it gets, credit to be allowed.

It is not quite so certain at the other end of the spectrum. As long as the couple is actually living together abroad, it appears the odds of getting credit are favourable even in situations otherwise at the other end of the spectrum. While these scenarios are NOT for-sure lose PR status scenarios, there is the risk of losing PR status. In particular, at the other end of the spectrum (such as the scenarios I have described, especially those involving a PR who has never PERSONALLY ESTABLISHED a live in Canada) there is clearly a significant risk an IRCC decision-maker might focus on who-accompanied-whom, and if it is not clear the PR accompanied the citizen-spouse THEN deny credit for time together abroad . . . but again there appears to be a good chance the time will get the credit too. And similarly on appeal to the IAD, some panels will apply the ENF 23 approach and allow the credit, while others (the "prevailing" approach one Panel suggested) will be to deny the credit if, again, it is NOT established the PR accompanied the citizen-spouse abroad.

It is a little bit like calculating the odds the next card in a deck of cards will be a diamond based on what can be seen in the cards already exposed. We have long known SOME PRs face the risk of a who-accompanied-whom approach to their claim for accompanying-citizen-spouse-abroad credit. What the IAD decisions have provided us, together with the analysis I've offered, which I hope is helpful, is a more detailed sketch of the factors which increase the risk of a who-accompanied-whom approach, in effect revealing a number of cards in the deck and thus increasing the odds of guessing the next card's suit.

This information will NOT provide a definitive answer to how it will work in an actual, individual factual situation; rather, this information --
(1) mostly helps a potentially affected PR identify if and when there might be a significant RISK of a negative who-accompanied-whom determination, so as to help the PR in related situations recognize the risks and make decisions accordingly, depending on the PR's personal priorities of course (such as returning to live in Canada sooner if keeping status is a priority); and
(2) helps potentially affected PRs recognize the leading factors and how they MIGHT (not necessarily will) influence the ultimate outcome, so PRs in related situations can identify if and when they might need to address this issue, and be prepared to present relevant information and proof when there is a need and opportunity to do so.


It would probably be worthwhile pursuing the analysis and research to better illuminate more extensive answers to the second and third questions, which will be of particular interest to those affected PRs for whom the answer to the first question indicates they have a significant RISK based on being in a situation more or less likely to trigger who-accompanied-whom scrutiny. That is, it is probably worth trying to sort out further details about how the analysis might practically work in actual cases (the second question), and more specifically identifying factors which are more likely to actually determine the outcome (the third question). I am NO expert, so as to matters like this the forum can use the input of others who do the homework. I will probably elaborate more on the how-it-works (once triggered) and what-determines-outcome when the who-accompanied-whom question matters, in time, but I have dove deep enough into the weeds for now and will need to revisit the research later.


HERE is the bottom-line:

A PR who has been well-settled relatively long-term in Canada BEFORE going abroad, who goes abroad TOGETHER with his or her Canadian-citizen-spouse, and LIVES TOGETHER abroad with a Canadian-citizen-spouse, and the citizen-spouse is the one who has the primary reason for being abroad, THERE SHOULD BE VERY LITTLE IF ANY RISK of a PROBLEM . . . unless the pattern and period of time living abroad tends to otherwise show LITTLE or NO ongoing tie to a life in Canada.

In contrast, the less well-settled in Canada the PR is, the greater the risk of elevated scrutiny and skeptical decision-making.

The less TOGETHER the PR and citizen-spouse have been (and particularly when the PR is the one abroad more than the citizen-spouse, or has gone abroad significantly before the citizen-spouse), the greater the risk.

When a PR is relying on a technical exception, like the credit for accompanying a Canadian-citizen-spouse, it is prudent to exercise caution in how much reliance there is on getting this credit unless it fits the above described well-settled, obviously accompanying the citizen abroad scenario.

PRs in many, many other scenarios, but LIVING TOGETHER, PROBABLY will NOT have a problem. My sense is that the general rule, the usual approach, still allows the credit for a PR who is LIVING abroad together with the PR's Canadian-citizen-spouse UNLESS there is a rather obvious reason to question or challenge the applicability of the credit. I have outlined what I think, based on this recent research, some facts or circumstances likely to be a reason to question or challenge the applicability of the credit.

 

[steaky]

This is a typical satellite way many PRs are doing. If the majority of PR's family are living in Canada, as PR's staying is in Canada, there is nothing to worry about. But if the family moves out of Canada, what will happen?

If the family lives in certain districts in BC and own their home, they might need to pay additional speculation taxes (regardless they actually speculate or not).

https://www.thor.ca/blog/2018/05/bcs-unclear-speculation-tax-is-creating-legal-concerns-for-unintended-targets/

 

[etoile]

We just returned to Canada (NS) after a stint abroad. My husband had lived in Canada (as a PR) for nearly 5 years previously before we had to return to Switzerland to get healthcare for our eldest child. We spent nearly 3 years in Switzerland and my son had two major orthopaedic surgeries while we were there. We left August 2015 and returned July 2018. We resided together as a family. Everyone is a Canadian citizen except for my husband. While we were abroad his PR card expired, we filed for a multiple entry visa and received it no problem. When we arrived in Canada we presented ourselves as returning residents and had them give us a b-4 form for our goods to follow (coming by container). Immigration looked at his multiple entry visa and had no issue, just reminded him to apply to renew his PR card. So our goods arrive from Switzerland and I have to clear them with CBSA. No issue. I have all the documents necessary to do this. I get the CSBA officer saying my husband just "got under the wire for his residency requirement". Um, what? I said no we were living together as a family in Switzerland, she said "I'm not going to argue immigration rules with you, he almost didn't meet his residency requirement." I'm confused. We're very careful to make sure we stay on the right side of immigration. Is this the kind of situation you are discussing or is this CBSA officer offering incorrect information? Thanks for any clarification you can give me. To be clear my husband has always resided with me (a Canadian citizen) both here in Canada and while living in Switzerland.

Olivia in Halifax

 

[bricksonly]

We just returned to Canada (NS) after a stint abroad. My husband had lived in Canada (as a PR) for nearly 5 years previously before we had to return to Switzerland to get healthcare for our eldest child. We spent nearly 3 years in Switzerland and my son had two major orthopaedic surgeries while we were there. We left August 2015 and returned July 2018. We resided together as a family. Everyone is a Canadian citizen except for my husband. While we were abroad his PR card expired, we filed for a multiple entry visa and received it no problem. When we arrived in Canada we presented ourselves as returning residents and had them give us a b-4 form for our goods to follow (coming by container). Immigration looked at his multiple entry visa and had no issue, just reminded him to apply to renew his PR card. So our goods arrive from Switzerland and I have to clear them with CBSA. No issue. I have all the documents necessary to do this. I get the CSBA officer saying my husband just "got under the wire for his residency requirement". Um, what? I said no we were living together as a family in Switzerland, she said "I'm not going to argue immigration rules with you, he almost didn't meet his residency requirement." I'm confused. We're very careful to make sure we stay on the right side of immigration. Is this the kind of situation you are discussing or is this CBSA officer offering incorrect information? Thanks for any clarification you can give me. To be clear my husband has always resided with me (a Canadian citizen) both here in Canada and while living in Switzerland.

Olivia in Halifax

For CBSA, your record of leaving Canada very close to 3 year absolutely will flag. It's your responsibility to prove that you met RO. I guess the good way to avoid this is to visit Canada every 365 days. Anyone correct me?

 

[etoile]

For CBSA, your record of leaving Canada very close to 3 year absolutely will flag. It's your responsibility to prove that you met RO. I guess the good way to avoid this is to visit Canada every 365 days. Anyone correct me?

We've visited Canada every Christmas for 3 weeks and every summer for 6 weeks for 2015, 2016, and 2017. My husband (The PR) has accompanied me (a Canadian citizen) the entire time we lived in Switzerland. That satisfies the RO, no? Also he lived in in Canada for nearly 5 years as a PR before moving to Switzerland for (nearly) 3 years.

 

[bricksonly]

We've visited Canada every Christmas for 3 weeks and every summer for 6 weeks for 2015, 2016, and 2017. My husband (The PR) has accompanied me (a Canadian citizen) the entire time we lived in Switzerland. That satisfies the RO, no? Also he lived in in Canada for nearly 5 years as a PR before moving to Switzerland for (nearly) 3 years.

I mean a PR with valid PR card should not leave Canada more than 365 days to pass border without being stopped...even if PR actually does not meet RO...

 

[etoile]

I mean a PR with valid PR card should not leave Canada more than 365 days to pass border without being stopped...even if PR actually does not meet RO...

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

 

[bricksonly]

If a PR leaves Canada less than 1 year, when the PR returns, it's not likely system will flag even the PR actually doesn't meet RO. He/she can enter most likely without being asked questions by a CBSA agent. But if a PR leaves Canada very close to 3 years, even he/she actually meet RO, it's very likely he/she will be stopped for a second review by a CBSA agent.

 

[etoile]

If a PR leaves Canada less than 1 year, when the PR returns, it's not likely system will flag even the PR actually doesn't meet RO. He/she can enter most likely without being asked questions by a CBSA agent. But if a PR leaves Canada very close to 3 years, even he/she actually meet RO, it's very likely he/she will be stopped for a second review by a CBSA agent.

He wasn't absent from Canada for three entire years. He was in Canada for three weeks in December 2018. He also resides with me, his Canadian spouse the entire time he was absent from Canada. He has also been living in Canada since July 2018 and was not stopped when we arrived in Canada by immigration inspection or customs.

 

[bricksonly]

He wasn't absent from Canada for three entire years. He was in Canada for three weeks in December 2018. He also resides with me, his Canadian spouse the entire time he was absent from Canada. He has also been living in Canada since July 2018 and was not stopped when we arrived in Canada by immigration inspection or customs.

You are 100% OK. Your husband meets RO even if he doesn't live with you or visit Canada for 9 weeks every year.
The officer's mention of your husband's RO requirement is just to note you be care of RO, not other thing. Maybe he/she will say so to anyone carry a PRTD to enter. A PRTD is not a normal thing for most PR, right? This will has an officer to pay attention to.