This is when you claimed I was making things up.
canuck78 said:
You can’t sponsor a spouse for PR if you don’t live in Canada. Assume the goal it to get PR and then citizenship so he needs to move to Canada he can’t just drive in for a few minutes everyday. If living in Canada then a spouse can’t remain living in the US on their H4. Only option is to try to get a TRV and sponsor inland or return to your home country while your spouse sponsors you from Canada.
You replied:
I think you are pulling this from thin air. There was another poster on this forum who brought a link to CIC and code of regulation, which confirmed his claim that even a brief step on Canadian soil qualified PR for maintenance of residence for PR purposes. That's why I advised OP to speak with attorney. I don't know anything about TRV, and one must know all about it and definition of "residence" according to CIC to be able to give reliable answer to OP.
I don't like pulling things from thin air (or my own imagination), and insisting on its accuracy.
I still think you pull things from thin air, I don't see confirmation of your claims. You categorically state "
You can’t sponsor a spouse for PR if you don’t live in Canada.", which in the context of the rest of your reply means one can't sponsor a spouse for PR, even if they maintain residence in Canada under section 6.4
OP 10 Permanent Residency Status Determination, which states that any part of the day spent in Canada is counted as full day for RO (
Residency Obligation) purposes.
In light of definition of residence for RO (
Residency Obligation) purposes, question remains: what is definition of residing and living in Canada when you sponsor for TRV visa?
IF** it is the same as definition of residence for purposes of calculating days in Canada for RO (
Residency Obligation) purposes, then it should be possible to sponsor someone while maintaining PR status and RO (
Residency Obligation) by briefly visiting Canada. On the other hand, if the Immigration Act specifically defines what
"residence in Canada" for PR sponsorship of TRV means and
distinguishes it from residency requirements for RO (Residency Obligation) purposes, then
depending on what that definition is, he
may or may not be able to sponsor his wife for TRV while maintaining his RO (
Residency Obligation) by brief visits to Canada. As you can see, all depends on definition of one or other term (which, with the way actual laws are written, can mean things that appear counterintuitive or don't make sense to us).
You have made an assertion, but you have not made clear what is the basis for your assertion (you only shared your interpretation of general requirement on residency and what you think the legal requirement for PR to sponsor TRV should be). For that reason I believe you pulled your assertion from thin air.
And, quite frankly, I don't think you are qualified to make a legal argument: you are neither licensed attorney nor you sound like someone who is an expert in Canadian immigration laws.
NOTE that none of what I stated implies that OP CAN sponsor his wife for TRV while jogging back and forth between US and Canada. I don't make brazen assertions one way or another (I humbly admit that I lack enough knowledge to do so, and TRV is not my forte), but you can't just admit your own ignorance in legal matters. Instead, your above posts are emotionally motivated and Ego driven, and as such are about
proving you are right and your opponent is wrong, even if you have no clue what your assertion is based on, or what your opponent actually states. I have no such concerns. All I care about is establishing what is correct and when I lack sufficient knowledge I admit so and advise askers to seek professional legal counsel.
-----------------------------
**I hope you understand definition of the word
IF. If not, look up Merriam-Webster's dictionary online.