Hi everyone,
I am applying for PRTD on H&C reasons, because of taking care of ill mother in home country. I just came across the matter of "being employed by a non-Canadian business", highlighted in the below context. This is so important in my case as I have been all employed during my absence from Canada.
So I highly appreciate if you would just let me know if this type of employment would basically have a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE impact on the officer's final decision?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.1 Examples of factors to weigh and consider
The extent of the non-compliance:
How long beyond three years in the last five-year period was the person outside of Canada?
Was the person employed outside Canada by other than a "Canadian business" as described in the Regulations? If so, why and for what length of time?
Was the person outside of Canada for more than three years in the last five-year period because of a medical condition or the medical condition of a close family member?
Could alternative arrangements have been made or was it the applicant’s choice to remain outside Canada?
No one here can reliably forecast how your employment abroad will factor into the H&C assessment.
Assertions to the contrary should be approached cautiously if not skeptically. There are way, way too many other factors which the visa office (or the IAD panel in the event of an appeal) will take into consideration, for anyone here to credibly suggest how the employment factor will influence the decision.
All anyone here can credibly offer is some insight into how various factors can generally influence the outcome in the H&C case.
In general, in most cases it is probably true that employment abroad will NOT help, and in many cases it can be a negative factor,
but in some cases needing to stay employed abroad has been a positive factor. However, in particular, where the PR otherwise has a strong H&C case then the fact the PR was employed while abroad is likely to be a NEUTRAL factor. But even if forum participants were well acquainted with many details in your case, no one here can reliably forecast how your employment abroad will factor into the H&C assessment.
From the scant facts and circumstances you report, it is NOT likely your employment abroad will be a positive factor. It appears fairly likely your employment abroad will be considered a NEUTRAL factor. It could be more likely to be a negative factor, however, if the deciding officer concludes the employment itself was a significant reason WHY you remained abroad. How it will go in your case, nonetheless, depends on many of the surrounding facts and circumstances, it DEPENDS.
All that said, the odds are the H&C reasons for remaining abroad will mostly determine the outcome, and these will be considered in the context of other relevant factors including the extent to which you have established and maintained ties in Canada, and especially in consideration of how much in breach of the PR Residency Obligation you are. In this calculation, the fact of being employed abroad during this time will likely be a relatively NEUTRAL factor.
Thus, no guessing is necessary to emphasize that the particular reasons why you remained abroad will most likely be the most important factor, far more so than the fact you were employed while being abroad. . . . so the key factor which will have the most weight is the overt reason for remaining abroad. In this regard, it warrants cautioning that "
taking care of ill [parent]" alone does not necessarily constitute a strong H&C reason for remaining abroad; the weight of this
*reason* for remaining abroad can depend a great deal on many of the surrounding factors, and the outcome will further depend on weighing other relevant factors which, again, includes the extent to which you have established and maintained ties in Canada, and especially includes consideration of how much in breach of the PR Residency Obligation you are.
Some further observations:
As a matter of policy, the IRCC visa office MUST consider any and every reason a PR gives for why the PR was unable to return to Canada sooner. While there are certain factors and reasons which generally are known to either NOT help much or even be a negative, there is NO FIXED or definitive approach to this or that factor.
For example, and rather obviously, the LONGER the PR has been abroad and thus the MORE the PR is in breach of the PR Residency Obligation, the more negative weight that factor has in any H&C assessment. BUT even for this element in the assessment, there is NO definitive forecast for how much weight it will have compared to other factors. Individuals who have been in breach by just a number of months have lost PR status, loss of PR affirmed on appeal, while others in breach by a number of YEARS have been allowed to retain PR status due to H&C reasons for their absence or the reasons weighing against taking away their PR status.
Reminder: Many H&C reasons explain WHY the PR remained abroad in breach. A PR who was removed from Canada by parent while a minor, for example, is generally considered to have a reason weighing heavily in favour of allowing the PR to retain status so long as the PR makes an effort to return to Canada at the relatively earliest opportunity, that is soon after attaining the age of majority.
Other H&C reasons are based on the negative consequences or hardships that would result from a loss of PR status, such as being deported to a country which poses serious danger to the individual, or where it would impose a serious hardship on dependent children.
Some H&C factors are more difficult to characterize generally. The nature and extent of ties in Canada, for example, can be a big factor. Strong ties in Canada generally weighs heavily in favour of allowing the PR to retain status. BUT the fact that the PR has been able to remain abroad so long, notwithstanding those ties, can be a factor suggesting there would be minimal detriment to the individual if PR status is lost. Having minor children living in Canada, for example, can be a big factor weighing in favour of allowing the PR to keep status, BUT the fact the PR has been living abroad and apart from them shows that the separation is not such a compelling factor.
H&C CASES TEND TO BE COMPLEX AND TRICKY. FORECASTING THE OUTCOME IS FRAUGHT WITH UNCERTAINTY.
Footnote, of sorts, for emphasis: If the employment abroad was THE REASON for being abroad, or a significant part of the reason for being abroad, rather than a collateral factor due to being abroad for other viable H&C reasons, that situation is easier to forecast. The employment abroad is NOT likely to weigh in favour of allowing an H&C exception for the breach of the PR Residency Obligation. While even in this situation there have been IAD decisions considering this a POSITIVE reason, far more go the other way, and the situations in which this was a positive factor involved rather unusual surrounding circumstances.
