My reason was to continue my work placement outside Canada. I got all the needed document from employer and me like booked tickets not less than 3weeks not more than 3months. First time I sent paper, they never replied. Second time we called the call center and asked us to send urgency again. We changed tickets with huge cost and sent online. They said they received it but never said it is accepted or not. The reality they didn't consider the second time.
Obviously I do not know, but I suspect there may be an issue about whether you qualify for the
working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit.
The substantive elements for the credit matter far more than the labels, but labels can have influence. Thus, while generally this or that term is not so important, you refer to a "placement" outside Canada. That suggests having a position abroad for a Canadian organization, which would NOT qualify for the
working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit. In particular, "placement" suggests an indefinite or even permanent position rather than explicitly a
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT, which is one of the crucial elements necessary to qualify for the
working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit.
If this is the issue . . . . as long as you continue to STAY in Canada in the meantime, and the closer you are to meeting the PR Residency Obligation without counting any time abroad in the employ of a Canadian employer, the better chance you have that this will not go in the direction of proceedings to terminate your PR status. In the meantime, the
working-abroad-for-Canadian-employer credit is discussed in-depth in other topics, which you might want to peruse for the purpose of getting a better understanding about qualifying for this credit. NOTE: qualifying for this credit is a LOT more tricky, and difficult, than many PRs realize . . . just being employed by a Canadian business or organization is NOT sufficient to get the credit.
If this is not the issue . . . . I do not know what the issue is underlying your application going into non-routine processing.
This is very strange that you were expecting secondary review for you while you are living here for 2.5 years. Why were you expecting this? I have seen lot of cases where people have just few days extra from the threshold of 730 (recent example of AliSyed who posted on this thread as well with around 750 days of physical presence that’s 2 years and half a month) and they got the renewed PR cards smoothly as per the IRCC / CIC given timelines.
I saw that most people under 3 years were being sent to secondary reviews. But I dont get why my kids' file was, even though they had been living 4 years. This is really frustrating and we dont even know how long they will take.
These are posts from the timeline tracking thread. I am responding in regards to the underlying question about who, when, or why an individual PR's PR card application is referred for non-routine processing, which is more appropriately addressed in this topic.
"I have seen lot of cases where people have just few days extra from the threshold of 730 . . . and they got the renewed PR cards smoothly . . . "
There are, nonetheless, "lots of cases," as in many other cases, where PRs
cutting-it-close are referred to non-routine processing, some to Secondary Review, others referred to the local office for RO compliance determinations. The reports suggest that a PR is
cutting-it-close, in a way that MIGHT (not necessarily will) trigger either a referral to SR or to the local office, is basically being outside Canada more than IN Canada . . . that is, roughly speaking, less than 900 days IN Canada within the previous five years is
cutting-it-close.
But your observation nonetheless is a good reminder that such decisions (whether to refer a PR to SR or other non-routine processing) do NOT entirely or only depend on the number of days. As your observation suggests, as long as IRCC does not question the number of days, just having more than 730 is enough, and indeed precisely 730 days is enough.
As can be seen again and again, there are many cases where the new PR card application sailed through smoothly for PRs with just a couple or few weeks more than 730 days presence, BUT also NO shortage of cases where the new PR card application ended up in non-routine processing despite the PR claiming more than 900 or even a 1000 plus days IN Canada.
There are many factors which undoubtedly have influence in how it goes. One looms much larger than most others, and that is the extent to which it appears (or does not appear) the PR is settled in Canada PERMANENTLY (or at least relatively so). This factor may be second only to whether or not the PR has in fact been IN Canada more than 730 days within the preceding five years.
Another big factor is the PR's general credibility . . . if IRCC has any reason at all to doubt the PR's credibility, that can tip the scales in a big hurry. Even a PR claiming to have never left Canada can end up having to prove presence in Canada if IRCC has reason to suspect misrepresentation.
There are other factors. Many of the relevant factors tend to have influence in the two big ones:
-- factors tending to indicate a PR has NOT settled in Canada and is primarily living or working abroad, or
-- factors tending to indicate the PR is not being truthful
Which MIGHT (and only might, but maybe not) illuminate a little about the situation faced by
@Harryhere101's kids. Children ordinarily (not always but ordinarily) live with their parents. If a parent has been living and working abroad, that is at least a suggestion the children could have been abroad with the parent, and thus, perhaps, more so than declared in their PR card applications. So that is a factual situation which might compel IRCC to make more thorough inquiries in order to verify where the children actually were, and when. That is, a situation which might compel non-routine processing, be that a referral to SR or a referral to the local office.
This is a good illustration about how this or that fact, in itself, does not dictate a particular inference, but what IRCC might conclude depends a great deal on context, on what other, surrounding facts might suggest.
This forum is rife with questions premised on isolated facts, as if this or that particular fact will determine how things go. That is NOT how it works.
Sure, some facts will dictate certain outcomes. If in fact a PR was actually present in Canada for 730 days (let alone 747 or 753 or more) within the preceding five years, that meets the PR RO. End of inquiry.
BUT that is ONLY IF IRCC sees that as an actual fact, and not a questionable assertion. And whether or not IRCC will have questions about this fact depends on an assessment of many other facts and circumstances, and an assessment of the many parts as a whole, and an assessment of the whole taking into consideration the many parts.
NOTE: to be clear, it is obvious that
cutting-it-close tends to increase the risks of non-routine processing, either a SR referral, or local office referral. And the more the PR is
cutting-it-close the bigger the risk of a SR or local office referral.
