. . . I wanted to ask you about a specific situation please: My wife and her daugther (it is not my direct child) were sponsored by me ( I am a Candian Citizen some years ago) and they got the PR in Feb 2023. Last year in Aug 2023 my wife and her daughter who is 19 years old traveled to our home country and I traveled also there to join them in Jan 2024. Since then we are together and I got a work in this city and we plan to stay till next year. We are living together and my wife and her child depend on me economically. Two questions please: Do you think my wife can count the days abroad with me to keep her PR? The child of my wife could also count her days with her mom and me in this city towards keeping her PR ? Thanks a lot for your advice.
I have seen that dependent child are also allowed to stay abroad with her parent Canadian citizen to count their days to PR
https://www.ircc.canada.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=1466&top=10 and dependent child is considered till 22 years old:
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/helpcentre/glossary.html#dependent_child Can it be considered dependent on me even though is my stepdaughter but I actually support her economically and I am responsible of her because of my sponsorship?
RO credit for the stepdaughter:
In regards to the stepdaughter, I do NOT know whether they will be allowed RO credit based on the EXCEPTION to the PR obligation (to be in Canada for at least two years in five) that is given a dependent PR child accompanying a Canadian citizen parent.
My sense is that it would be risky to rely on this exception unless the child was significantly younger. In particular, what jumps out here is the child's age. Might make a big difference, and involve a bigger risk, if the context for examining the PR-child's RO compliance is attendant an application for a PR Travel Document after they are no longer a dependent in fact, and for sure (absent disability) after they reach their 22nd birthday.
Probably no problem so long as they have a valid PR card and return to Canada to stay. During this period they should have good odds of H&C relief allowing them to keep PR status even if they have been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing.
But I cannot offer much in regards to how this will go once they reach their 22nd birthday and need a PR TD to travel to Canada. In that context it is very, very difficult to forecast how long they might have decent odds of H&C relief allowing them to keep PR status.
RO credit for PR spouse accompanying Canadian citizen spouse:
I am no expert. Unless the matter involves a simple, straight-forward application of the rules, I cannot offer an opinion or advice in regards to a "
specific situation." For example, if the specific situation is about days the PR is physically present in Canada, I can
generally say they will get RO credit for those days. BUT even this is not necessarily true in all situations.
So in regards to what you have shared about your situation, I can similarly refer to information consistent with what you already know, and that is that a PR who is
accompanying their spouse outside Canada, and the spouse is a Canadian citizen, they will be allowed RO credit for those days. Generally. Usually. Not for sure always.
So similar to
@canuck78 here, I can say that in the circumstances you describe it is
likely your spouse will be allowed RO credit for days you (the Canadian citizen) and your spouse are living together outside Canada. BUT this is not for sure, not certain, as
@armoured noted in the other topic where you posed a similar query:
1) It is not 100% certain that your spouse will benefit from counting the days abroad. Unfortunately no way to be certain about this in advance.
Some of the uncertainty is due to the question whether the
specific situation, that is in you and your spouse's
specific situation, your spouse (the PR) is accompanying you (the citizen), recognizing there can be more some uncertainty about what "
accompanying" means in some situations.
I do not mean to put undue emphasis on this uncertainty. Generally, if the couple were living together in Canada before
moving/relocating outside Canada, it appears there is no problem, the PR will get RO credit for days the couple is ordinarily residing together outside Canada. This is still likely even if they do not move together at precisely the same time, even if it is the citizen who moves later.
How much later? That is, how much later might there be a question about whether the PR was actually
accompanying the citizen spouse abroad?
There is no definite answer to that question. In regards to actual individual cases, how it goes can and likely will vary depending on the particular situation. This can include the extent to which it appears the PR is acting consistent with the purpose for which they were given PR.
It is worth noting that the actual application of the law, policies, practices, and rules, can and does vary depending on numerous factors which can influence how strictly officials approach a particular individual case. This includes what might be characterized
equity factors, what is fair. This includes consideration of the facts and the law and the equities in the context of the general purpose for granting PR status.
Make no mistake,
the purpose for which individuals are given PR status is to enable them to settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada.
Not settling in Canada permanently is NOT grounds for terminating a PR's status. But to the extent it appears that a PR has not and is not on track to settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada, that can influence how officials interpret and apply and weigh the evidence. That is, officials can be a lot more strict in how they apply the rules to some PRs compared to others.
I do not know how this might influence the way things will go for your spouse. I am not suggesting it will. But when PRs are relying on exceptions to keep their PR status, they should be aware that what can influence how it goes can be influenced by how generous or how strict the decision-making official approaches the case, which in turn can be influenced by what that official thinks is fair, equitable, and consistent with the purpose of the law.
