Applying for Child's PR While Parents Are in Breach of Residency Obligations

[maktw]

Hi all,

I need some guidance regarding my situation.

Background: My wife and I received our PR in October 2022. We completed our soft landing and received our PR cards around that time. Since then, we have been living and working in the US and very recently moved permanently to Canada (early November 2026).

My wife and I had some medical issues that delayed our plans to move to Canada permanently. While we were in the US, our daughter was born and is a US citizen.

We are well aware that we are currently in breach of our Permanent Residency Obligations. We also do not have any plans for international travel and do not intend to renew our PR cards until we have met the 730-day residency requirement.

We entered Canada through the Peace Bridge land border crossing. The immigration officer allowed us to enter after considering our medical history and the fact that we already had jobs lined up in Canada. The officer explicitly mentioned that they would not be issuing a report and that I should explain my circumstances when applying for PR card renewal.

For our daughter, a visitor record was issued with a one-year validity.

Questions:
What would be the best approach for our daughter's PR application, considering our current situation?

1. Apply now: Start our daughter's PR application while we are still in the process of completing our 730-day residency obligation.
2. Apply after meeting the residency obligation: Wait until both my wife and I have completed 730 days in Canada, then apply for our daughter's PR.
3. Apply alongside our PR card renewals: Wait until we have completed 730 days and submit our daughter's PR application at the same time as our PR card renewal applications.

Are all three options viable? Are there any potential risks or advantages to choosing one over the others, particularly given that we are currently in breach of our residency obligations?

I would appreciate any guidance or insights from people who have been in a similar situation.

 

[canuck78]

Hi all,

I need some guidance regarding my situation.

Background: My wife and I received our PR in October 2022. We completed our soft landing and received our PR cards around that time. Since then, we have been living and working in the US and very recently moved permanently to Canada (early November 2026).

My wife and I had some medical issues that delayed our plans to move to Canada permanently. While we were in the US, our daughter was born and is a US citizen.

We are well aware that we are currently in breach of our Permanent Residency Obligations. We also do not have any plans for international travel and do not intend to renew our PR cards until we have met the 730-day residency requirement.

We entered Canada through the Peace Bridge land border crossing. The immigration officer allowed us to enter after considering our medical history and the fact that we already had jobs lined up in Canada. The officer explicitly mentioned that they would not be issuing a report and that I should explain my circumstances when applying for PR card renewal.

For our daughter, a visitor record was issued with a one-year validity.

Questions:
What would be the best approach for our daughter's PR application, considering our current situation?

1. Apply now: Start our daughter's PR application while we are still in the process of completing our 730-day residency obligation.
2. Apply after meeting the residency obligation: Wait until both my wife and I have completed 730 days in Canada, then apply for our daughter's PR.
3. Apply alongside our PR card renewals: Wait until we have completed 730 days and submit our daughter's PR application at the same time as our PR card renewal applications.

Are all three options viable? Are there any potential risks or advantages to choosing one over the others, particularly given that we are currently in breach of our residency obligations?

I would appreciate any guidance or insights from people who have been in a similar situation.

Personal opinion since I am not your lawyer. Wait until you have met your PR ROs before having any interaction with IRCC. As long as you have met your RO with a bit of a buffer when you apply for PR for you child shouldn’t matter.

 

[dpenabill]

.

Hi all,

I need some guidance regarding my situation.

Background: My wife and I received our PR in October 2022. We completed our soft landing and received our PR cards around that time. Since then, we have been living and working in the US and very recently moved permanently to Canada (early November 2026).

My wife and I had some medical issues that delayed our plans to move to Canada permanently. While we were in the US, our daughter was born and is a US citizen.

We are well aware that we are currently in breach of our Permanent Residency Obligations. We also do not have any plans for international travel and do not intend to renew our PR cards until we have met the 730-day residency requirement.

We entered Canada through the Peace Bridge land border crossing. The immigration officer allowed us to enter after considering our medical history and the fact that we already had jobs lined up in Canada. The officer explicitly mentioned that they would not be issuing a report and that I should explain my circumstances when applying for PR card renewal.

For our daughter, a visitor record was issued with a one-year validity.

Questions:
What would be the best approach for our daughter's PR application, considering our current situation?

1. Apply now: Start our daughter's PR application while we are still in the process of completing our 730-day residency obligation.
2. Apply after meeting the residency obligation: Wait until both my wife and I have completed 730 days in Canada, then apply for our daughter's PR.
3. Apply alongside our PR card renewals: Wait until we have completed 730 days and submit our daughter's PR application at the same time as our PR card renewal applications.

Are all three options viable? Are there any potential risks or advantages to choosing one over the others, particularly given that we are currently in breach of our residency obligations?

I would appreciate any guidance or insights from people who have been in a similar situation.

Your well-composed query is very much appreciated.

As @canuck78 observed, waiting until you are in compliance with the RO to engage in any further transaction with IRCC (or CBSA) is the safest approach. But that will lead to your child overstaying. (That might be no big deal, but technically no one can legally suggest doing that; in regards to overstays, Canada is nowhere near as draconian as the U.S.)

Meanwhile, since your child has a VR valid for one year, there is no rush to make the family class sponsorship application for their PR.

Main question is how long to wait . . . and, in particular, whether to make the sponsorship application and a concurrent application to extend the VR before the current VR expires, even though that could potentially trigger the preparation of a 44(1) Report and inadmissibility proceedings. Frankly, despite some risk, that is probably a reasonable and relatively safe approach. That said, there is no need to decide now. Wait until a few weeks prior to the date the child's VR will expire and revisit this. It is not likely things will change to the extent it warrants approaching this differently, putting off pursuing PR status for the child (until a parent can sponsor the child with no risk of a RO compliance problem), but there is no need to decide now. Wait to see how things at IRCC are going next summer, early fall, before deciding how to proceed.

Note: actual risks will vary depending on particular details. The strength of the H&C case for keeping PR status despite the RO breach, for example, can make a big difference. In this regard, the H&C case gets stronger the longer you are here and the longer it is before an immigration official is processing an application which could trigger a RO compliance examination (which a sponsorship application can). Of course the reasons for the delay in moving here are a big factor in this. But other circumstances can be influential as well. For example, if you no longer have status to live in the U.S., and the child only has permanent status to live in the U.S., obviously that would add considerable H&C weight that would favour allowing the parent to keep PR status and sponsor the child for status in Canada.

There is little or no reason to coordinate applications for new PR cards, by the parents, and an application for the child's PR.

Worst case scenario . . . waiting to apply October 2027 or so:

Only one parent needs to apply to sponsor the child. So, that parent losing PR status is the worst case scenario, which could happen if the sponsorship application triggers RO enforcement proceedings (there is plenty of information that must be included in the application which will give IRCC notice there is a RO breach). That, at least under current practices, appears to be not likely but there is some risk. But even if does happen, after the other parent has stayed long enough to get into compliance with the RO, they can then apply to sponsor both the child and the parent who lost PR status.

In particular, if you wait until next October or so to make the sponsorship application, that worst case scenario is unlikely, probably very unlikely. Meanwhile, again if you wait until October 2027, given the timeline it would take for IRCC to review the sponsorship application, identify the sponsor's RO breach, prepare a 44(1) Report, refer the matter to an officer acting in the role of a Minister's Delegate, and if a Removal/Departure Order is issued, then for the IAD to hear and decide an appeal, by then the non-sponsoring parent should easily have stayed long enough to be in RO compliance and they should be fully eligible to sponsor both the child and the parent who lost their PR status.

So, even in the worst case scenario, not all would be lost.

Meanwhile, as noted, the risk of that worst case scenario is fairly low. Even if you only wait just long enough to fully establish your residence in Canada, including employment, the odds of the sponsorship application even triggering the preparation of a 44(1) Report is probably fairly low. And even if there was a Report prepared, the odds of H&C relief should be fairly good, whether that is what the MD rules or, if it came to it, the IAD in an appeal.

Nonetheless, again, the particular probabilities, the odds, will vary depending on particular factors, and the safest approach is to wait until a parent can make the sponsorhip application without being in breach of the RO.


Some further observations:

It is especially helpful that you clearly described the PoE interaction. Despite that, it is not entirely clear whether what the officer said meant that no 44(1) Report was prepared or whether it meant that no Removal/Departure Order would be "issued." If a report was prepared but then based on H&C considerations (the medical stuff looming large) no Removal/Departure Order was issued, it would be safe to apply much sooner.

Technically, if a CBSA immigration officer conducting a PoE examination determines the PR is not in compliance with the RO, their job is to prepare the 44(1) Report and then refer the matter to another officer to decide whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status for H&C reasons. That would involve screening by three officers:

-- the PIL officer making the referral to Secondary,​

-- the immigration officer in Secondary concluding there is a RO breach and preparing a Report, and​

-- a separate immigration officer (acting as a MD) then reviewing the Report and deciding whether to issue a Removal/Departure Order or to set the Report aside for H&C reasons​

If you knew for sure that is what happened during your PoE experience, that the officer who "mentioned" there would be no Report was acting as a MD, and formally adjudicating you should be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C reasons, that would make it significantly safer to apply to sponsor the child sooner, and safe to apply for new PR cards as well.

But again, since your child has a VR valid for one year, there is no rush to make a family class sponsorship application for their PR.

 

[maktw]

.


Your well-composed query is very much appreciated.

As @canuck78 observed, waiting until you are in compliance with the RO to engage in any further transaction with IRCC (or CBSA) is the safest approach. But that will lead to your child overstaying. (That might be no big deal, but technically no one can legally suggest doing that; in regards to overstays, Canada is nowhere near as draconian as the U.S.)

Meanwhile, since your child has a VR valid for one year, there is no rush to make the family class sponsorship application for their PR.

Main question is how long to wait . . . and, in particular, whether to make the sponsorship application and a concurrent application to extend the VR before the current VR expires, even though that could potentially trigger the preparation of a 44(1) Report and inadmissibility proceedings. Frankly, despite some risk, that is probably a reasonable and relatively safe approach. That said, there is no need to decide now. Wait until a few weeks prior to the date the child's VR will expire and revisit this. It is not likely things will change to the extent it warrants approaching this differently, putting off pursuing PR status for the child (until a parent can sponsor the child with no risk of a RO compliance problem), but there is no need to decide now. Wait to see how things at IRCC are going next summer, early fall, before deciding how to proceed.

Note: actual risks will vary depending on particular details. The strength of the H&C case for keeping PR status despite the RO breach, for example, can make a big difference. In this regard, the H&C case gets stronger the longer you are here and the longer it is before an immigration official is processing an application which could trigger a RO compliance examination (which a sponsorship application can). Of course the reasons for the delay in moving here are a big factor in this. But other circumstances can be influential as well. For example, if you no longer have status to live in the U.S., and the child only has permanent status to live in the U.S., obviously that would add considerable H&C weight that would favour allowing the parent to keep PR status and sponsor the child for status in Canada.

There is little or no reason to coordinate applications for new PR cards, by the parents, and an application for the child's PR.

Worst case scenario . . . waiting to apply October 2027 or so:

Only one parent needs to apply to sponsor the child. So, that parent losing PR status is the worst case scenario, which could happen if the sponsorship application triggers RO enforcement proceedings (there is plenty of information that must be included in the application which will give IRCC notice there is a RO breach). That, at least under current practices, appears to be not likely but there is some risk. But even if does happen, after the other parent has stayed long enough to get into compliance with the RO, they can then apply to sponsor both the child and the parent who lost PR status.

In particular, if you wait until next October or so to make the sponsorship application, that worst case scenario is unlikely, probably very unlikely. Meanwhile, again if you wait until October 2027, given the timeline it would take for IRCC to review the sponsorship application, identify the sponsor's RO breach, prepare a 44(1) Report, refer the matter to an officer acting in the role of a Minister's Delegate, and if a Removal/Departure Order is issued, then for the IAD to hear and decide an appeal, by then the non-sponsoring parent should easily have stayed long enough to be in RO compliance and they should be fully eligible to sponsor both the child and the parent who lost their PR status.

So, even in the worst case scenario, not all would be lost.

Meanwhile, as noted, the risk of that worst case scenario is fairly low. Even if you only wait just long enough to fully establish your residence in Canada, including employment, the odds of the sponsorship application even triggering the preparation of a 44(1) Report is probably fairly low. And even if there was a Report prepared, the odds of H&C relief should be fairly good, whether that is what the MD rules or, if it came to it, the IAD in an appeal.

Nonetheless, again, the particular probabilities, the odds, will vary depending on particular factors, and the safest approach is to wait until a parent can make the sponsorhip application without being in breach of the RO.


Some further observations:

It is especially helpful that you clearly described the PoE interaction. Despite that, it is not entirely clear whether what the officer said meant that no 44(1) Report was prepared or whether it meant that no Removal/Departure Order would be "issued." If a report was prepared but then based on H&C considerations (the medical stuff looming large) no Removal/Departure Order was issued, it would be safe to apply much sooner.

Technically, if a CBSA immigration officer conducting a PoE examination determines the PR is not in compliance with the RO, their job is to prepare the 44(1) Report and then refer the matter to another officer to decide whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status for H&C reasons. That would involve screening by three officers:

-- the PIL officer making the referral to Secondary,​

-- the immigration officer in Secondary concluding there is a RO breach and preparing a Report, and​

-- a separate immigration officer (acting as a MD) then reviewing the Report and deciding whether to issue a Removal/Departure Order or to set the Report aside for H&C reasons​

If you knew for sure that is what happened during your PoE experience, that the officer who "mentioned" there would be no Report was acting as a MD, and formally adjudicating you should be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C reasons, that would make it significantly safer to apply to sponsor the child sooner, and safe to apply for new PR cards as well.

But again, since your child has a VR valid for one year, there is no rush to make a family class sponsorship application for their PR.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I am not familiar with the PIL, MD, etc. terminologies, but I can confirm that we did go through secondary screening in the main building after providing preliminary information about our case at the land border.
After reviewing and discussing our situation, the immigration officer allowed us to enter without issuing any report (at least, that's what the officer told us). The officer also consulted with a few other officers seated behind him before making the decision.