+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Appeal on Residency Obligation

piedpiper

Star Member
Jan 14, 2019
67
2
If PRTD is refused, I know there is a provision to go for Appeal.
- What is the success rate of this Appeal?
- Is filing the Appeal thru an Immigration Lawyer better or can it be filed directly by email by the PR?
- What is the cost if an Immigration Lawyer is used?

I also fail to understand,
- Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
- Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
 
Last edited:

Beltex

Star Member
Jan 24, 2017
191
46
Category........
PNP
Visa Office......
London UK
If PRTD is refused, I know there is a provision to go for Appeal.
- What is the success rate of this Appeal?
- Is filing the Appeal thru an Immigration Lawyer better or can it be filed directly by email by the PR?
- What is the cost if an Immigration Lawyer is used?

I also fail to understand,
- Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
- Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
I have heard that the success rate is very low on appeal, especially so if you are out of Canada.

I agree entirely with your sentiments about returning PRs and I think there should be a PR reactivation process. A fair way in my view would be to allow the expired PR to request a PRTD by submitting new medicals and police certificates. This would allow them to enter Canada but would not allow them to collect a PR card until they had completed the required 2 years residence. There would be little risk in doing this and by not allowing an instant PR card it would be self policing, it would also free up the consulates and the appeals courts.
 

primaprime

VIP Member
Apr 6, 2019
3,390
883
If PRTD is refused, I know there is a provision to go for Appeal.
- What is the success rate of this Appeal?
- Is filing the Appeal thru an Immigration Lawyer better or can it be filed directly by email by the PR?
- What is the cost if an Immigration Lawyer is used?

I also fail to understand,
- Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
- Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
Success depends on your ability to make a compelling, documented H&C argument with the help of your lawyer. Legal representation is expensive but it is really not advisable to represent yourself. The odds are generally not good in any individual case; however, it is difficult to make definitive statements about the process since it is ultimately dependent on your circumstances.

For example, if you are outside of Canada, it is often presumed that losing your PR status will not pose an undue hardship, seeing as you are already abroad, but in some cases this factor may be mitigated, such as if it would cause you to be separated from children living in Canada.

Canada prefers people who will settle and live here, as that is the point of the law establishing PR status. As it is, the RO provides the flexibility to remain outside Canada up to 60% of the time, in recognition of the fact that many PRs continue to have ties and obligations to attend to in their home country.

But with the right to live in Canada comes the responsibility to do so, which must be respected. A PR who is abroad without a valid PR card is legally presumed to have lost PR status, so as far as Canada is concerned, if you have chosen to live abroad more than 60% of the time, you are not a PR anymore. Yet the appeals process still exists to allow someone with a compelling H&C case to obtain discretionary relief, notwithstanding their breach of the RO.

Ultimately, a statement of intent cannot overcome the simple fact that you have not made an effort to live in Canada even 40% of the time. If anything, your true intent can be inferred from the circumstances in your case. Therefore, barring sufficient H&C grounds, Canada is right to conclude that if you were so "eager" to take advantage of the generous opportunity to build a life for yourself here, you would have done so when you had a chance.
 
Last edited:

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
52,959
12,758
If PRTD is refused, I know there is a provision to go for Appeal.
- What is the success rate of this Appeal?
- Is filing the Appeal thru an Immigration Lawyer better or can it be filed directly by email by the PR?
- What is the cost if an Immigration Lawyer is used?

I also fail to understand,
- Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
- Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
Canada needs young people and families to offset their ageing population and to work and grow the economy. In your scenario someone could get PR and then return to Canada in their 50/60s which would not benefit Canada. If you have obligations in your home country that can’t be managed from Canada then immigration may not be a good option for you.
 

IndianBos

Hero Member
Oct 8, 2014
303
137
Toronto, Canada
Category........
FSW
Visa Office......
CPC-O
NOC Code......
2174
App. Filed.......
19-Jun-2014
Nomination.....
16-Oct-2014
File Transfer...
11-Dec-2014
Med's Request
24-Apr-2015 (Delayed for adding a child)
Med's Done....
9-May-2015 (Updated 29-May-2015)
Interview........
N/A
Passport Req..
17-Jun-2015 (mailed 29-June-2015)
VISA ISSUED...
11-Jul-2015
LANDED..........
7-Sep-2015
I believe most countries enforce a residency obligation, and canada is quite generous (2 years out of 5) and citizenship in 3 years. I think US residency obligation is you have to live in country for 6 months every year, and citizenship in 5.
Their expectation is that you will live and work in Canada, thus contributing to the tax base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mashulia_26

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
The questions here have been answered well enough.

The bigger question is why these were questions in the first place.

I also fail to understand,
- Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
- Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
I also fail to understand why water flows uphill.

Which is OK. Since it doesn't. Water does not flow uphill. No need to understand why something is this or that when that is NOT what it is.

Thus, even though @primaprime covered most of these queries quite well, it is important to be upfront and clear about the extent to which these queries are not based on actual policy or practice, or about how things actually work.

For example: "Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?" and "Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?"


There is NO such policy and it is obvious that Canada's policies and practices recognize and take into consideration the likelihood PRs will continue to have ties in the home country. Big time actually.

In particular, there is NO formal policy or practice preferring the new PR (so far as we know). And not only does the Residency Obligation allow PRs up to three years to make the move to Canada, fully recognizing the nature and extent of continuing ties in the home country, which many if not most have, it indefinitely allows (for life for PRs who do not become Canadian citizens) PRs to spend up to THREE years abroad in any five year time period in recognition of the likelihood that immigrants will have continuing ties in the home country for, basically, their life. And it warrants emphasizing, PRs are allowed to spend more time abroad NO QUESTIONS asked, NO NEED to plead or prove intent; each and every PR is given autonomy to make choices about how much time to spend outside Canada for up to three years out of every five. Again, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

That is, PRs can choose to live outside Canada MORE than they live IN Canada for just about as long as they want, a year MORE outside Canada than they spend in Canada for any five year time period. For life if they so choose. Even though the purpose of the grant of Permanent Residency is specifically so the individual can settle and live IN Canada permanently.

As for preferences . . . There is some discussion in this forum about somewhat more favourable odds a relatively new immigrant (roughly within the first five years; within the period of time the PR's first PR card remains valid) might have at a PoE. But that is about CBSA screening NOT IRCC. And to the extent others and I are right about this (not everyone agrees the new PR has such better odds), that is mostly about balancing the relevant factors which influence H&C RO cases, with consideration given to
-- allowances for the difficulty of making the move to settle in Canada,​
-- allowances for the nature and extent of continuing ties in the home country, and​
-- the extent of the breach (this is a big one; for example, those arriving within six months past three years have a lot better odds than those arriving with less than six months before their PR card expires)​

This year and next the impact of Covid-19 is something that will of course also be taken into consideration.

- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?

It was around two decades ago that Canada shifted from intent-based criteria to an objective days-in-Canada standard. Discussions about what-the-rules-SHOULD-be get complicated. There is far more to consider than the impact on those affected. But generally the intent-based approach was too unpredictable and too prone to discrimination. The 730 days in Canada obligation allows individual PRs the flexibility to spend up to THREE years abroad without having to answer questions about why, without having to justify the stay abroad, without having to prove intent.

- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?

There is NO need to make the H&C case UNLESS there is a breach of the RO. And if there is a breach of the RO, obviously how big a breach matters; indeed, this can be, usually is, a major factor, if not the biggest factor, in whether or not the PR DESERVES relief for the failure to comply with the RO.

In contrast, however, in the H&C case the PR can present information outside the RO period. Thus, for example, even if a PR has been abroad for more than the last five years, NOT in Canada at all during the RO period, the PR can make the case he or she has ties and roots in Canada going back before the last five years. Thus the way in which the RO factors into the H&C assessment largely FAVOURS the PR.

And of course there are cases where compelling H&C reasons outweigh how long it has been since the PR was last in Canada. For example, see discussion in another thread about a PR parent long living abroad when his Canadian children's mother passed away. The impact on the Canadian children will tend to weigh far more than how long that PR remained abroad.

- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?

They don't. Again, PRs can go abroad to manage affairs in another country for up to three years in five. Any five. For as long as a person is a PR, which can be for life.

- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?

Right now everything is really, really slow in large part due to covid-19.

Otherwise, many PR TD applications are processed in days, not weeks but days.

In normal times there is much variability in how long it takes to make decisions. But decision-making that involves formal, official adjudication tends to take longer, a long while. Try filing a civil lawsuit to recover what you are rightfully owed, and these days that can take years if not many years. And if that is about a person's life-savings, yeah, those years can really change the course of one's life.

Otherwise sure, if the PR is clearly INADMISSIBLE, which any PR who has failed to comply with the PR RO is, under the law, an application seeking relief from what the law requires is not a mere formality, not a decision to be made perfunctorily. Such adjudication tends to take longer than routinely issuing a Travel Document to a PR who is not inadmissible.


Further Observation Regarding Context:

In numerous topics here I have made a concerted effort to help illuminate the nature and scope of what PRs can present to support their case, to show they *deserve* an opportunity to keep PR status, a chance to actually settle and live in Canada, despite failing to comply with the PR RO.

However, I try not to get tangled in forecasting how things will go. The variables are many and complex, and interlaced. Trying to forecast a particular case is prone to over-emphasizing some factors while overlooking others. For big breaches, for PRs who are outside Canada and who have been outside Canada for more than four of the preceding five years, and who do not have a valid PR card (and thus are PRESUMED to NOT have valid PR status), absent a very compelling H&C case based on traditional H&C reasons (best interests of minor children in Canada for example), the odds of successfully getting relief and being allowed to keep PR status tend, so far as we can discern, to be quite low. For many it is nonetheless worth making the effort, including an appeal, to at least attempt to keep their PR status.

But there should be no misunderstanding regarding what this is about. Again, the PR abroad who does not possess a valid PR card is PRESUMED to not have valid PR status, and if the facts clearly show the PR has been outside Canada so long as to be in breach of the RO, that PR is INADMISSIBLE. As a matter of law.

Just as a PR who has engaged in serious criminality, organized criminality, misrepresentation, engaging in terrorism, spying against Canada, and engaging in crimes against humanity. These are all things PRs can do, along with failing to comply with the RO, that render themselves INADMISSIBLE. Thereby resulting in the loss of PR status. Yeah, it is a big deal.

Many here, including me, will offer support and encouragement and information, as best we can, but for a PR who has been abroad for many years more than just three, there is nothing to be gained by sugarcoating things. The PR is INADMISSIBLE and unless there are very compelling H&C reasons the hurdle is high.
 

torontosm

Champion Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,677
261
I also fail to understand,
- Why IRCC prefers a new immigrant instead of a PR who is really eager to comeback & continue living in Canada?
- Why are they making a big issue about Residency Obligation as long as the intent of the PR is clear?
- Why do they even look at RO in H&C cases?
- Why is it not obvious that a PR continues to have ties with his home country until at least he/she becomes a Citizen?
- Why do they think most of the things in the home country can be managed from Canada?
- Why are they taking so much time to make a decision on every thing as if time is not at all precious?
- They don't, but the PR isn't really keen to "comeback" if he can't even spend 2 years out of 5 here, is he?
- Because PR is for people who want to live in Canada, and your intent isn't clear
- Because it's the law
- That's just nonsense. You can have ties to your home country, and can even live there for the majority of the time.
- Again, you are just making things up. Nothing is stopping you from going to your home country while complying with the RO.
- Because these things take time, and the government doesn't march according to your orders.

It sounds like you have an uphill struggle to retain your PR, especially with that entitled attitude.
 

piedpiper

Star Member
Jan 14, 2019
67
2
I have raised the questions to see if there is some scope for improvement in the process. It has to evolve over a period of time based on inputs. Being defensive is of no use.

I should have posted the additional questions separately, because my original questions remain unanswered. I am getting a feeling that there are not many who go for the Appeal at all for whatever reason. It will be difficult for someone to know more about it before taking any action.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
I should have posted the additional questions separately, because my original questions remain unanswered. I am getting a feeling that there are not many who go for the Appeal at all for whatever reason. It will be difficult for someone to know more about it before taking any action.
If PRTD is refused, I know there is a provision to go for Appeal.
- What is the success rate of this Appeal?
- Is filing the Appeal thru an Immigration Lawyer better or can it be filed directly by email by the PR?
- What is the cost if an Immigration Lawyer is used?
As best we can discern from anecdotal reporting, the IAD probably tends to approach PR RO H&C cases more strictly than officers in the Visa Office.

But as @primaprime suggested, how it goes is not a lottery but, rather, about the merits of the individual case.

For example, very, very few cases are successful on appeal based on claims the Visa Office decision was not valid in law. BUT if the PR appealing has a strong case to show he or she met the RO, that the decision was not valid in law, that PR's odds of success should be quite good if not very good.

Whether to employ the services of a lawyer is a very personal decision, largely about what the individual can afford or is willing to invest in the attempt to save PR status. But yes, lawyers tend to be expensive. The strength of the case probably matters in making this decision. And some H&C cases are fairly simple. Others can be complex. Depends on the individual's own particular facts and circumstances.

There are many, many appeals. You can find and read hundreds, or even thousands of such cases if you do a search for "residency obligation" here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/

They range wildly. Most are NOT successful.

They range from cases for which you wonder why they thought they had any chance at all, such as Teh . . . 2020 CanLII 40074 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j8961 in which the PR had not been in Canada a day in the relevant five years, and only once in Canada between 2007 and 2018.

A case which may illuminate how things go is Pillay . . . 2020 CanLII 50523 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j8x6p . . . in this case one PR was denied relief and the other, the son, was allowed relief, and the contrast in reasoning is informative.

Just one more example: Pleskach . . . 2020 CanLII 40060 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j895z

Here is an example of a case challenging the decision as NOT valid in law and which succeeded: Wu . . . 2020 CanLII 68406 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j9q9x (PR claimed and IAD allowed credit for time PR was living with Canadian citizen spouse abroad)

In any event, again there are thousands of cases reported at the Can LII site. Note that lawyers for the PRs, for those who are represented, are listed in the decision header.
 

RocketCity

Star Member
Mar 15, 2013
123
12
Category........
Visa Office......
BIQ Montreal
NOC Code......
U062
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
21-11-2012
Nomination.....
26-02-2014
AOR Received.
09-05-2014
Med's Request
09-05-2014
Med's Done....
19-05-2014
Interview........
26-02-2014
Passport Req..
RPRF Request 02-03-2015, PPR Request 10-03-2015
As best we can discern from anecdotal reporting, the IAD probably tends to approach PR RO H&C cases more strictly than officers in the Visa Office.

But as @primaprime suggested, how it goes is not a lottery but, rather, about the merits of the individual case.

For example, very, very few cases are successful on appeal based on claims the Visa Office decision was not valid in law. BUT if the PR appealing has a strong case to show he or she met the RO, that the decision was not valid in law, that PR's odds of success should be quite good if not very good.

Whether to employ the services of a lawyer is a very personal decision, largely about what the individual can afford or is willing to invest in the attempt to save PR status. But yes, lawyers tend to be expensive. The strength of the case probably matters in making this decision. And some H&C cases are fairly simple. Others can be complex. Depends on the individual's own particular facts and circumstances.

There are many, many appeals. You can find and read hundreds, or even thousands of such cases if you do a search for "residency obligation" here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/

They range wildly. Most are NOT successful.

They range from cases for which you wonder why they thought they had any chance at all, such as Teh . . . 2020 CanLII 40074 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j8961 in which the PR had not been in Canada a day in the relevant five years, and only once in Canada between 2007 and 2018.

A case which may illuminate how things go is Pillay . . . 2020 CanLII 50523 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j8x6p . . . in this case one PR was denied relief and the other, the son, was allowed relief, and the contrast in reasoning is informative.

Just one more example: Pleskach . . . 2020 CanLII 40060 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j895z

Here is an example of a case challenging the decision as NOT valid in law and which succeeded: Wu . . . 2020 CanLII 68406 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j9q9x (PR claimed and IAD allowed credit for time PR was living with Canadian citizen spouse abroad)

In any event, again there are thousands of cases reported at the Can LII site. Note that lawyers for the PRs, for those who are represented, are listed in the decision header.
On the Teh case, I'm surprised that PR was previously granted/reinstated on H&C grounds on the basis of his acceptance to a graduate studies program in Canada.

Side question: Say you are reported upon entry. What is the timeline from being reported to the appeal decision?
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
On the Teh case, I'm surprised that PR was previously granted/reinstated on H&C grounds on the basis of his acceptance to a graduate studies program in Canada.
Clarification: PR status does not get "reinstated." A PR remains a PR until the adjudicated decision terminating PR status is "enforceable." Thus, for example, for the PR who is Reported and issued a Removal Order, and who then appeals, he or she remains a PR for as long as the appeal is pending; a favourable outcome in the appeal does not "reinstate" status but, rather, dismisses or sets aside the decision to terminate status. Similarly for the PR who has a PR Travel Document application denied. That decision is not enforceable for 60 days and if the PR timely appeals, it is not enforceable for as long as the appeal is pending. In both, if the appeal is denied, that means the decision being appealed is then enforceable and as of that date the individual's PR status is terminated, and they become a Foreign National under Canadian immigration laws and regulations.

If the appeal is granted, that does not "reinstate" status; it is simply a decision affirming the individual has valid PR status. It dismisses or sets aside the decision to deny a PR TD or the decision to issue a 44(1) Report.

This has practical effect:

The main effect is that being a PR pending the appeal means the individual will be allowed to enter Canada, stay in Canada, work in Canada, and so on, pending the appeal.

For those who are abroad and denied a PR TD, the problem is getting to Canada. If they were in Canada within the previous year, they will usually be issued (upon application) a special Travel Document allowing them to come to Canada. Otherwise, if they can travel via the U.S., they can return to Canada through a land border crossing PoE. However they manage, if the PR with an appeal pending can get to the Canadian border, to a PoE, the PR will be allowed into Canada.

BUT pending the appeal the PR does NOT get credit for time in Canada: those days do NOT count toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation. So, even if the appeal takes two years plus and the PR has been IN Canada for two years by the time of the IAD hearing, the RO compliance calculation does NOT count those days in Canada pending the appeal.

If the appeal is granted, meaning the PR gets a decision allowing the PR to keep PR status, THEN those days in Canada will count in any future RO compliance calculation (as long as they are within the relevant five years).

Note: Even though days IN Canada pending the appeal do not count toward RO compliance, they can be considered a positive factor in the H&C analysis . . . recognizing, however, that how this typically affects balancing H&C factors is that NOT being in Canada pending the appeal more often weighs rather negatively (with some contrary examples given the complexity of possible scenarios and reasons for the continued absence from Canada).

Regarding Teh Case and the earlier Favourable H&C Decision Based on Acceptance to a Graduate Program in Canada:

The brief reference in Teh to the earlier H&C relief allowing Teh to continue being a PR in 2013 is conclusory, referring to one factor (enrollment in a graduate program) as the dominant factor. Not much should be extrapolated from this. There were obviously other factors which influenced how that went, including how much he had been in Canada within the previous five years at that time. The latter being a big factor, but here unknown (referring to the H&C decision made in 2013), among other unknown factors.

But at the least it illustrates one more example of instances in which PRs are often allowed broad leeway and given opportunities to keep status so they can settle and live in Canada permanently. Despite the PR's failure to comply with the rules.



Side question: Say you are reported upon entry. What is the timeline from being reported to the appeal decision?
Timeline information varies greatly in the most normal, stable of times. These are not normal or stable times.

Compare the number of IAD decisions this year to last year. No comparison. Obviously there is a backlog of cases continuing to build.

For timelines in normal times, for PoE 44(1) Report and Removal Order appeals, again go to https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/ and do a search for "residency obligation" and add "public safety." This limits the results to mostly (but not entirely) PoE Report & Removal Order cases, in which you can usually find the date the PR was issued the Report and Removal Order at the PoE and the date of the IAD hearing and the date of the decision. That's the timeline for that case.

I have not attempted to extrapolate timeline averages from these cases. At a glance, my impression is that before the impact of covid-19 the appeal timeline had decreased to less than a year for many if not most cases. In the past, in contrast, it was common to see cases taking from 18 to 24 months. Going forward, for at least awhile, it seems obviously the timeline will go longer again.

The timeline has practical effect. As already noted, even though the PR does not get credit toward RO compliance for days in Canada after being Reported, there can be a big difference in how things go in evaluating the H&C factors, for the PR who stays in Canada pending the appeal versus the PR who is abroad most of this period. So the longer the appeal takes, the longer the PR is IN Canada, the more than can help.

Caveat: staying in Canada pending the appeal generally does not carry a lot of positive weight. It matters more for close-call cases. But this mostly means that staying in Canada only helps a little bit, whereas being outside Canada pending the appeal can hurt the H&C case. To put it another way, staying is slightly better than neutral but leaving tends to be a negative factor.
 

piedpiper

Star Member
Jan 14, 2019
67
2
As best we can discern from anecdotal reporting, the IAD probably tends to approach PR RO H&C cases more strictly than officers in the Visa Office.

But as @primaprime suggested, how it goes is not a lottery but, rather, about the merits of the individual case.

For example, very, very few cases are successful on appeal based on claims the Visa Office decision was not valid in law. BUT if the PR appealing has a strong case to show he or she met the RO, that the decision was not valid in law, that PR's odds of success should be quite good if not very good.

Whether to employ the services of a lawyer is a very personal decision, largely about what the individual can afford or is willing to invest in the attempt to save PR status. But yes, lawyers tend to be expensive. The strength of the case probably matters in making this decision. And some H&C cases are fairly simple. Others can be complex. Depends on the individual's own particular facts and circumstances.

There are many, many appeals. You can find and read hundreds, or even thousands of such cases if you do a search for "residency obligation" here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/

They range wildly. Most are NOT successful.

They range from cases for which you wonder why they thought they had any chance at all, such as Teh . . . 2020 CanLII 40074 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j8961 in which the PR had not been in Canada a day in the relevant five years, and only once in Canada between 2007 and 2018.

A case which may illuminate how things go is Pillay . . . 2020 CanLII 50523 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j8x6p . . . in this case one PR was denied relief and the other, the son, was allowed relief, and the contrast in reasoning is informative.

Just one more example: Pleskach . . . 2020 CanLII 40060 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j895z

Here is an example of a case challenging the decision as NOT valid in law and which succeeded: Wu . . . 2020 CanLII 68406 (CA IRB), http://canlii.ca/t/j9q9x (PR claimed and IAD allowed credit for time PR was living with Canadian citizen spouse abroad)

In any event, again there are thousands of cases reported at the Can LII site. Note that lawyers for the PRs, for those who are represented, are listed in the decision header.
Thanks for the links given. I will certainly try to read as many of them as possible.
 

piedpiper

Star Member
Jan 14, 2019
67
2
For those who are abroad and denied a PR TD, the problem is getting to Canada. If they were in Canada within the previous year, they will usually be issued (upon application) a special Travel Document allowing them to come to Canada. Otherwise, if they can travel via the U.S., they can return to Canada through a land border crossing PoE. However they manage, if the PR with an appeal pending can get to the Canadian border, to a PoE, the PR will be allowed into Canada.
- Does this mean land border crossing is one of the options of getting back to Canada?
- Can this be done as soon as an Appeal is filed?
- Can a PR go on a tourist/business visa to US & crossover to Canada?
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
- Does this mean land border crossing is one of the options of getting back to Canada?
- Can this be done as soon as an Appeal is filed?
- Can a PR go on a tourist/business visa to US & crossover to Canada?
As long as you are a PR, you are entitled to "enter" Canada. So, if you can travel to a Canadian PoE, you can enter Canada and stay. No need to wait for a decision on the PR TD. If the PR TD application is denied you can do this before filing the appeal, for up to 60 days, or after filing the appeal.

If you have not been in Canada for more than a year, it is NOT likely you would be issued a special PR TD to come to Canada pending the appeal. Which means you will not be allowed to board an airline flight coming to Canada since you do not have either a valid PR card or a PR TD.

That is, there is a difference between being allowed into Canada versus the available means of travel to Canada. In particular, for most people that means the only way to get to Canada is to travel to the U.S. and then in the U.S. travel to a land border crossing into Canada.

I do not know or pay much attention to who or how or when non-Americans can travel to the U.S. (it is *hole country I avoid as much as possible, which is not easy because I have family and friends there). But if a PR abroad can travel to the U.S., that is one of the ways a PR can get back to Canada, and once the PR reaches a PoE into Canada the PR will be allowed to enter Canada.
 

piedpiper

Star Member
Jan 14, 2019
67
2
I do not know or pay much attention to who or how or when non-Americans can travel to the U.S. (it is *hole country I avoid as much as possible, which is not easy because I have family and friends there). But if a PR abroad can travel to the U.S., that is one of the ways a PR can get back to Canada, and once the PR reaches a PoE into Canada the PR will be allowed to enter Canada.
- What documents are checked at PoE?
- Is there a chance of not being allowed to enter Canada at PoE? Why?
- What will happen after not being allowed? Will IRCC be informed about the person?