More than most want to know or need to know:
As applicants only submit their own passport, they actually stay in the country the same with their citizen spouse's, that will be fine. They won't be that mean to ask you any details of your accompanying. So, if your spouse is out for years visiting her family, it's OK only if you don't give this info to IRCC. But, indeed, living is living. It's very normal that one of you will leave for a short period to work, study, visit. It's just part of LIFE. Even though you are not together shortly, I still believe it's accompanying. And, for visiting spouse, it's absolutely accompany. They need to see each other, and IRCC dare declare this is not what they want?
Credit For Time Abroad Accompanying Canadian Citizen Spouse (for PR card renewal or PR TD):
Regarding in particular: "
As applicants only submit their own passport, they actually stay in the country the same with their citizen spouse's, that will be fine. They won't be that mean to ask you any details of your accompanying."
When making an application for either a new PR card or for a PR Travel Document, the PR who wants credit for time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse must affirmatively include additional information and documents to support the claim for this credit. In addition to information detailing dates actually accompanying the spouse, the PR must include:
-- copy of Canadian citizen passport or passports (along with PR's own passport or passports)
-- proof of living together
-- proof of genuine qualified relationship (marriage certificate for example)
-- proof of Canadian citizen's Canadian citizenship
Otherwise, a determination as to compliance with the PR Residency Obligation will be limited to time physically spent present in Canada.
PoE Examinations:
When examined at a PIL at a PoE (whether this is by a PIL officer or going through kiosk), whether the PR is referred for a Secondary examination depends on many factors. PRs with a valid PR card are typically and routinely waived through without further examination
UNLESS there is something which triggers questions. These factors, and there are many, have been discussed in depth in many other discussions. Some of these factors make it tempting for some returning PRs to conceal how much time they have been abroad. Misrepresentations of this sort are common. Risks associated with doing this, however, have increased dramatically in the last six to eight years. My observations about navigating these matters assumes NO misrepresentations, by omission or otherwise, which is what I believe works BEST MOST OFTEN (acknowledging more than a few slip by, while recognizing that more than a few do not and suffer worse for it).
The risk of a Secondary referral is less for a PR who is traveling with his or her Canadian citizen spouse when the PIL examination is an in-person transaction, and the risk of being reported generally is less for a PR who is traveling with his or her Canadian citizen spouse in the event of further examination, whether that is an in-person follow-up after using kiosk on entry (which is not necessarily a "Secondary" examination) or is further immigration examination in Secondary.
IN GENERAL, How Things Go, whether at a PoE, for a PR card application, or a PR TD application, varies depending on many factors and how it goes for one PR only indicates how it MIGHT go for another, NOT necessarily how it will likely go, NEVER how it will go for sure, NO MATTER HOW SIMILAR the PR's situations are. Again, there are scores of discussions in this forum addressing the multitude of variables and possible outcomes, as well as potential wrinkles and bumps along the way.
Significance of Marriage to Canadian citizen generally:
On the other hand, make no mistake, being married to a Canadian citizen does not itself get a pass on otherwise being required to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. Many, many PRs married to a Canadian citizen have lost their PR status due to a failure to comply with the PR RO. There are many IAD decisions going against the PR with a family living in Canada, including minor dependent children born in Canada, where the PR did not spent sufficient time physically in Canada to meet the PR RO. And yes, this is something which happens a lot in real life, many PRs unable to find a good enough job in Canada and thus compelled to stay abroad for extended periods of time to earn a sufficient living for them and their family. Not only will IRCC often NOT give much H&C weight to the impact on the family in Canada, including dependent children, if the PR parent loses PR status, this scenario actually weighs against the PR because:
-- history of extended absences tends to show the negative impact on the family will not result in that much of a hardship
-- extent of hardship is also mitigated or offset by the fact that the Canadian citizen spouse can sponsor the PR again IF and WHEN the PR is actually prepared to return to Canada to stay
The actual cases get complicated given the many wrinkles, the many variables in real life scenarios.
Loss of PR status and being sponsored again by Canadian citizen spouse:
Obviously the marital relationship must be genuine for the Canadian citizen spouse to successfully sponsor the former-PR again. Even though the forum has seen very few reports about this process, so we have not seen much about the extent to which IRCC might scrutinize the genuineness of the marital relationship in these cases, the viability of this recourse quite likely depends on some evidence to show the relationship continues, some evidence of ongoing contact, visitations, support going one direction or the other, and so on.
Beyond that, in the few cases of this sort which have been reported in the forum, many appear tempted to do the subsequent sponsorship process too soon. It will be of little or no avail to go through the sponsorship process again if the PR must continue to stay and work abroad for such periods of time the PR RO will again be breached and PR status is again at risk for being lost. BEST to WAIT to do the sponsorship ONLY WHEN the spouse is actually prepared to return to Canada to stay.
OTHERWISE / ALTERNATIVES:
First, I have no more than a few observations to make about the policies underlying the way these rules work. Other than the continuing trend toward more enforcement, stricter enforcement, and more tools for identifying PRs in breach of the PR RO:
the PR RO itself, and the accompanying-Canadian-citizen-spouse (or parent) credit, has been consistent for at least nearly two decades. There has been virtually NO hint this aspect of the rules for PRs is likely to change any time in the near future. The only observations about policies related to this I find worth discussing are those about what the policies are so as to help illuminate better how the rules are interpreted and applied.
Otherwise, there are other aspects and even alternatives relevant to these matters. For PRs in breach of the PR RO, for example, as I have already alluded, many attempt to return to Canada in hopes of not getting reported at the PoE, and as I have above referenced, more than a few are tempted to make some misrepresentations at the PoE to facilitate this. My only comment about this is that doing this is RISKY and given changes in the law while Harper was PM the consequences are now potentially more severe, AND generally I honestly believe that NOT making misrepresentations is what works BEST, MOST OFTEN.
For the PR staying (and, say, working) abroad, and in a situation effectively compelling this to continue into the future, who is the spouse of a Canadian citizen, or the spouse of a Canadian PR living in Canada who can and will become a Canadian citizen, the PR could avoid engaging in a transaction with either IRCC or CBSA which would trigger a PR RO compliance determination, thus avoid losing PR status, and wait until there is a time the Canadian citizen spouse can join the PR abroad and live together two plus years . . . and THEN, the PR apply for a PR TD or return to Canada and apply for a PR card. This might NOT work, and perhaps should NOT work. There are cases which suggest this is a situation in which IRCC might or even should consider who accompanied whom. These cases are FEW in number. In most cases, living together abroad is what matters and suffices. So it seems there is a good chance it would work.
I mention the latter to illustrate there are indeed various ways to approach the situation in which a PR abroad can use the credit for an accompanying citizen spouse to preserve status. This should not be understood to suggest let alone support this particular approach, or any others that a PR might consider. The key policy underlying Canadian PR rules is that the primary purpose of granting PR status is so the PR can settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada. And that is what I would encourage PRs to do, to come to Canada to stay as soon as reasonably practical. And that is the best way to keep PR status. Unless and until one becomes a citizen.
