Can I count the days spent with my Canadian husband overseas towards my P.R residency requirement just BEFORE our uncontested divorce that occurred overseas recently?
I have been a Canadian P.R who spent some years in Canada and some abroad. Now I'd need to apply for my lost PR card for which I require more days in counting for residency obligation because I was outside Canada for more than 1095 days.
I 'd like to add "togethered days" with the Canadian spouse since we stayed overseas for quite long.
But we divorced recently.
Can I count those "togethered days" until the last day we divorced?
I am NOT an expert.
But for a long time I have been following some wrinkles and exceptions in cases dependent on getting credit, toward compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, for time the PR is "accompanying" a Canadian-citizen-spouse abroad. So I can offer some observations about this subject.
Generally what matters most is that the PR and citizen-spouse were LIVING TOGETHER. That is, the days living together abroad will be counted as days present in Canada. USUALLY.
We have known for a long time that there are some EXCEPTIONS.
Thanks to
@zardoz and
@Tubsmagee the forum was recently alerted to some IAD decisions which, particularly in conjunction with some further research spurred by this, REVEALS CAUSE FOR MORE CAUTION, reason to consider and be aware of the EXCEPTIONS . . . noting, however, it gets complicated.
For a PR who was well-settled in Canada and then later moved abroad with the PR's citizen-spouse (regardless of the reason; regardless why they moved abroad), it is most likely that the time the couple lived together abroad will be credited so long as the PR submits proof of the marital-relationship, spouse's citizenship, dates cohabiting, full five years residence history for BOTH, and also for BOTH, a copy of ALL passports and travel documents to date.
With some exceptions. Some "NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS" as some IAD Panels have stated. Which, again, we have long known about but regarding which some recent decisions have illuminated MORE CAUTION is warranted.
Here's the reason there is
good news for you in particular:
I recently got my PR Travel document just BEFORE the divorce. I will travel soon to Canada . . . .
You have cleared the biggest hurdle: applying for and being issued the PR TD.
Nearly all (and perhaps all, I have not been careful to make sure it is all) the cases in which the EXCEPTIONS loomed large and were a problem have involved the denial of a PR Travel Document application. There is one very recent anecdotal report in this forum regarding PoE officers who, apparently, declined to allow this credit, but the circumstances in that case are peculiar to that individual's specific situation, and since you already have a PR Travel Document the odds are very high there will not be a PR RO compliance examination upon arrival at the PoE . . . at least if you do not delay the trip until just before it expires.
A slight rub: how it goes from here can, and in some respects is likely to depend on you arriving in Canada AND SETTLING in Canada; that is, on coming and
STAYING.
How soon after arriving in Canada it will be wise to make the application for a new PR card DEPENDS on the details in your situation, and your overall immigration history. If there is NO reason for IRCC to doubt you ACCOMPANIED your citizen-spouse abroad, after you had been settled and living in Canada for some time, and again so long as you are
settled and staying after you arrive in Canada, probably OK to apply for the PR card soon. Otherwise, you may want to consider some of what we have learned about situations in which, it appears, IRCC is questioning and, in some cases, denying credit for time abroad the PR was living with the PR's Canadian-citizen-spouse.
For example, see discussions revolving around the following:
CAUTION: Who-accompanied-whom can make a difference when a PR claims credit toward the PR Residency Obligation based on time abroad accompanying the PR's Canadian citizen spouse.
There are now reasons to emphasize this caution more than it has been in the past.
WHICH LEADS ME TO MAKE A CONFESSION.
And underscores the importance of emphasizing that I am NOT an expert.
It appears I have underestimated and understated the extent to which the who-accompanied-whom question has evolved and become a more salient issue for PRs living abroad long-term with a Canadian-citizen-spouse.
Substantively I continue to think that my previous observations and general outline, revisited in quotes in the first post in this topic, are still essentially valid and still generally describe the kinds of situations which impose a risk that who-accompanied-whom might be considered rather than the USUAL approach, to NOT consider who-followed-whom or who is the one who has the primary purpose for being abroad.
I followed those remarks with the cautionary observation that this is now subject to a stronger caution relative to certain "NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS." This, it appears upon digging further into the recent decisions and their antecedents, is what I have probably sorely understated. While the difference is largely a matter of emphasis, there is a real, practical impact: PRs living abroad indefinitely or long-term probably should be exercising MORE CAUTION and considering this issue more carefully in their priority decision making, especially if keeping PR status is a high priority.
NOTE: the fact that the couple was NO longer in a marital relationship was a significant factor in a couple of the decisions referenced in those discussions. A subsequent termination of the relationship should NOT negate eligibility for the credit, but it was obviously considered a factor in determining whether the PR actually
ACCOMPANIED the citizen-spouse or was otherwise simply together with the citizen-spouse.
