Days calculation problem

[bricksonly]

As right now the application form only let me to input days out of Canada and it by default thinks I was out for a simple one: to and back, and it kindly calculates by grand leaving day and entering day as in Canada. Nice.

But it's not that nice if my itinerary is not as simple as its thoughts.

If I leave Canada from Jan 1st and back on 15th, nice, I input it and get a 13 days out;
But If I leave from Jan 1st, then on 3rd I went to my home aboard and live with my citizen spouse for 7 days, which belong to condition B and should be counted as in Canada, then leave for another location on 8th and come back to Canada on 15th, things turns not that good.

Trip one: from 1st to 3rd, it calculates as 1 day;
Trip two: from 3rd to 8th, it calculates as 5days....but it should be 7 days including 3rd and 8th;
Trip three: from 8th to 15th, it calculates as 6 days, looks good because both 8th and 15th could be counted as in Canada.

1+5+6=12, but I actually leave Canada for 13 days and during the trip, 7 days should be counted as in Canada, makes it totally different (I will get 12 days out and 5 days OK).

It could be OK if I did it not that much. But for me, lot of this kind travel, and my days are very close to the limit, make me almost cannot fulfill my RO.

How can I fix this problem?

By the way, if you travel from NA to Asia, you leave and land on another day; or if you leave from Asia you could get the day before to land NA (if you leave HongKong early in the very morning on 3rd, say 1:00AM, you arrive in Vancouver on 2nd, not joking. In this case, which date I should use to do calculation?

 

[bricksonly]

Four year ago, I did it by attaching a schedule which let me figure it out perfectly by a note and I can add up right days, without any issue, IRCC said nothing about it and issued my PR in a short time. But I have 100 more days then but now only several days more...

I could have to attach a schedule the same as the old one, and a letter to mention the the way to calculate. I found the right now calculation actually shorten my days out....just like the one I show above....really headache

 

[dpenabill]

But If I leave from Jan 1st, then on 3rd I went to my home aboard and live with my citizen spouse for 7 days, which belong to condition B and should be counted as in Canada, then leave for another location on 8th and come back to Canada on 15th, things turns not that good.

There is no provision giving credit toward the RO based on days a PR spends with their Canadian citizen abroad, only days the PR is "accompanying" the citizen spouse abroad. The impact this might have in particular circumstances can vary. Some officials and IAD panels interpret this to mean traveling together, while others mostly focus on evidence the couple is ordinarily residing together, but in some cases officials have looked more closely at whether the PR is in fact the one accompanying the citizen.

Generally, for most and as a practical matter, any and all days the couple are ordinarily residing together abroad will get credit toward RO compliance. Thus, for example, if during the month of January the PR is ordinarily residing with their Canadian citizen spouse abroad, it does not matter if the PR is traveling elsewhere, apart from the PR's spouse, the days abroad get credit.

Usually.

Usually, but potentially subject to questions about whether the PR is actually "accompanying" the spouse abroad. Which, in the few cases this happens, the very few we know much about, things can get complicated.

So, in the situation you describe regarding January, generally ALL the days outside Canada in January fall under "B" and get credited, or NONE do. Depends on whether the couple are in fact "ordinarily residing" together AND, potentially, on whether the PR is the one "accompanying" the citizen spouse abroad. (It does not appear that IRCC examines the latter closely UNLESS there is something about the PR's history or situation triggering elevated concerns and suspicions.)

How you populate the travel history part of the application (question 5.5) is up to you, up to you to give a honest accounting, as best you can sort out what is an accurate description and accounting. And of course the information should be consistent with other information the PR provides, including current residential address and address history, noting that if the PR is relying on "B" credit, the PR will need to submit the spouse's address history, evidence of cohabitation establishing where and what period of time the couple are ordinarily residing together, and so on.

Note: yeah, things can get complicated, and tricky, for PRs who are not permanently settled in Canada. The RO structure is intended to allow individuals the flexibility to deal with temporary real life situations compelling the PR to spend time outside Canada while nonetheless supporting the purpose for granting PR, which is so the individual can and will live and settle in Canada permanently. So, yeah, it can get complicated and tricky and be a headache for the PR who is trying to keep PR status without having yet fully settled permanently in Canada. Kind of the way it is intended to work.

 

[bricksonly]

I know the rule for accompanying. But my question is how to calculate, how to give dates...the day outside Canada is not right, if I just put it one by one continously. Basically I seldom go back to Canada, my travel is from the our home to another country and back and forth. it shortens my days with my family greatly by reduce the entering day and leaving day.

 

[dpenabill]

I know the rule for accompanying. But my question is how to calculate, how to give dates...the day outside Canada is not right, if I just put it one by one continously. Basically I seldom go back to Canada, my travel is from the our home to another country and back and forth. it shortens my days with my family greatly by reduce the entering day and leaving day.

It probably appears that I am making a relatively simple query more complicated than necessary.

Let's be clear: the simple approach is to honestly provide the information requested in the form and let IRCC judge what that means.

The form requires the PR to declare the date of exit from Canada and the next date of entry into Canada. That is not complicated.

The form does not ask a PR to declare how many days the PR spends with family (abroad or otherwise). That is not a question asked in the form. Not information IRCC is asking for.

The form asks the PR to declare the locations where the PR stayed while abroad (city, country), without asking for dates or duration of stays in particular locations while abroad. So if the PR spends significant periods of time in different locations during a particular absence, all the PR does is list those locations.

If the reason for an absence is to accompany a citizen spouse, the PR can check "B" in the drop down box. If the reason for the absence is other than that described as A, B, or C, the PR checks "Other" and describes the reason. (I'd expect it to be OK to briefly state multiple reasons, as applicable.)

Can you honestly report the reason for the absence is to accompany your Canadian citizen spouse? If yes, no problem. If not, it is what it is, which means it is not time abroad accompanying a citizen spouse.

Let's be clear: if when you exit Canada you are not accompanying your spouse, accompanying your spouse is not the reason for leaving, not the reason for the absence.

To accompany does not necessarily mean the PR and spouse are physically traveling together each and every time they exit or enter Canada. So the fact that you are not both on the same flight, or not traveling together in the same vehicle, does not preclude declaring the reason for the absence is accompanying a citizen spouse, so long as (of course, obviously) accompanying your spouse is nonetheless the true reason for the absence.

You appear to be looking for a way to declare partial credit for some part of an absence based on days spent with family abroad. That's not how the form works. And that should be no surprise given that the form is not designed to facilitate PRs living abroad. Generally PRs living abroad accompanying a citizen spouse are expected to obtain a PR Travel Document as needed and wait until they have finally settled in Canada permanently to make an application for a PR card.

To be clear, I understand what you want. And why. And if I was in your shoes, I would probably figure out how to navigate this toward that end. But that would require making some personal judgment calls, and perhaps being a little creative. That has risks and demands a heightened level of care in exercising personal discretion. That's going down a road individual PRs can only drive for themselves (or rely on the assistance of a duly authorized representative).

Indeed, you appear to have gone round this way once already. And perhaps you realize having done so, there's a fair prospect the level of scrutiny might be up an notch or so the next time round. As I noted, and PRs not yet fully settled in Canada would be wise to take measure of this, the system is organized to facilitate living and settling in Canada permanently, so yeah, it gets more complicated, even tricky, for those PRs who have not fully settled in Canada, and it can be, to some extent, more difficult. And the exceptions, after all, are exceptions. (And credit for days accompanying citizen spouse abroad is an EXCEPTION.)

Bottom-line: The application form, and instructions, dictate what information IRCC is asking for. It really is not complicated. But yeah, it does not accommodate putting a square peg in a round hole. It does not accommodate partial exceptions. If the PR believes other information is relevant, the PR can provide supplemental information. In contrast, however, you are trying to obtain a PR card even though you are not currently settled and living in Canada permanently, contrary to what IRCC clearly prefers. A little finesse might work. But, mixing metaphors, there's no script, so you're basically cooking without a recipe (something some of us do a lot, hoping the results are, so to say, edible, and credible; but something best to be rather cautious about doing when dealing with immigration matters).

 

[bricksonly]

It probably appears that I am making a relatively simple query more complicated than necessary.

Let's be clear: the simple approach is to honestly provide the information requested in the form and let IRCC judge what that means.

The form requires the PR to declare the date of exit from Canada and the next date of entry into Canada. That is not complicated.

The form does not ask a PR to declare how many days the PR spends with family (abroad or otherwise). That is not a question asked in the form. Not information IRCC is asking for.

The form asks the PR to declare the locations where the PR stayed while abroad (city, country), without asking for dates or duration of stays in particular locations while abroad. So if the PR spends significant periods of time in different locations during a particular absence, all the PR does is list those locations.

If the reason for an absence is to accompany a citizen spouse, the PR can check "B" in the drop down box. If the reason for the absence is other than that described as A, B, or C, the PR checks "Other" and describes the reason. (I'd expect it to be OK to briefly state multiple reasons, as applicable.)

Can you honestly report the reason for the absence is to accompany your Canadian citizen spouse? If yes, no problem. If not, it is what it is, which means it is not time abroad accompanying a citizen spouse.

Let's be clear: if when you exit Canada you are not accompanying your spouse, accompanying your spouse is not the reason for leaving, not the reason for the absence.

To accompany does not necessarily mean the PR and spouse are physically traveling together each and every time they exit or enter Canada. So the fact that you are not both on the same flight, or not traveling together in the same vehicle, does not preclude declaring the reason for the absence is accompanying a citizen spouse, so long as (of course, obviously) accompanying your spouse is nonetheless the true reason for the absence.

You appear to be looking for a way to declare partial credit for some part of an absence based on days spent with family abroad. That's not how the form works. And that should be no surprise given that the form is not designed to facilitate PRs living abroad. Generally PRs living abroad accompanying a citizen spouse are expected to obtain a PR Travel Document as needed and wait until they have finally settled in Canada permanently to make an application for a PR card.

To be clear, I understand what you want. And why. And if I was in your shoes, I would probably figure out how to navigate this toward that end. But that would require making some personal judgment calls, and perhaps being a little creative. That has risks and demands a heightened level of care in exercising personal discretion. That's going down a road individual PRs can only drive for themselves (or rely on the assistance of a duly authorized representative).

Indeed, you appear to have gone round this way once already. And perhaps you realize having done so, there's a fair prospect the level of scrutiny might be up an notch or so the next time round. As I noted, and PRs not yet fully settled in Canada would be wise to take measure of this, the system is organized to facilitate living and settling in Canada permanently, so yeah, it gets more complicated, even tricky, for those PRs who have not fully settled in Canada, and it can be, to some extent, more difficult. And the exceptions, after all, are exceptions. (And credit for days accompanying citizen spouse abroad is an EXCEPTION.)

Bottom-line: The application form, and instructions, dictate what information IRCC is asking for. It really is not complicated. But yeah, it does not accommodate putting a square peg in a round hole. It does not accommodate partial exceptions. If the PR believes other information is relevant, the PR can provide supplemental information. In contrast, however, you are trying to obtain a PR card even though you are not currently settled and living in Canada permanently, contrary to what IRCC clearly prefers. A little finesse might work. But, mixing metaphors, there's no script, so you're basically cooking without a recipe (something some of us do a lot, hoping the results are, so to say, edible, and credible; but something best to be rather cautious about doing when dealing with immigration matters).

So, I only give the date I left and entered Canada, right? And I can give my stay aboard a reason, as my will, say situation B, but let IRCC to consider it, right? It does make sense.

However, the instruction does mention if my purpose of being aboard different, give different time frame, one by one.

Do you mean if I believe my accompanying with my citizen spouse, I can declaim all the time outside Canada? Give most evidence of the common living, say bills, insurance, with both name at one address? My case is, I generally leave for my homeland to take care of seniors several times per year, with my spouse's understanding because I take car of her parents too. The time I spend in my homeland is much longer than with my spouse. So, to be honest, I figure maybe the day I PHYSICALLY stay with my spouse could be counted as ACCOMPANYING. I calculated it, plus the day I PHYSICALLY being in Canada, is about several days more than 730 for past five years.

May I have your advice on this situation?

 

[scylla]

So, I only give the date I left and entered Canada, right? And I can give my stay aboard a reason, as my will, say situation B, but let IRCC to consider it, right? It does make sense.

However, the instruction does mention if my purpose of being aboard different, give different time frame, one by one.

Do you mean if I believe my accompanying with my citizen spouse, I can declaim all the time outside Canada? Give most evidence of the common living, say bills, insurance, with both name at one address? My case is, I generally leave for my homeland to take care of seniors several times per year, with my spouse's understanding because I take car of her parents too. The time I spend in my homeland is much longer than with my spouse. So, to be honest, I figure maybe the day I PHYSICALLY stay with my spouse could be counted as ACCOMPANYING. I calculated it, plus the day I PHYSICALLY being in Canada, is about several days more than 730 for past five years.

May I have your advice on this situation?

I think what the post above was pointing out is that physically spending time with your spouse is not the same by definition as accompanying in IRCC's books. They may let you count this time or they may not. You can certainly count the time spent physically in Canada. The time outside of Canada with your spouse is a question mark.

 

[dpenabill]

So, I only give the date I left and entered Canada, right? And I can give my stay aboard a reason, as my will, say situation B, but let IRCC to consider it, right? It does make sense.

However, the instruction does mention if my purpose of being aboard different, give different time frame, one by one.

Do you mean if I believe my accompanying with my citizen spouse, I can declaim all the time outside Canada? Give most evidence of the common living, say bills, insurance, with both name at one address? My case is, I generally leave for my homeland to take care of seniors several times per year, with my spouse's understanding because I take car of her parents too. The time I spend in my homeland is much longer than with my spouse. So, to be honest, I figure maybe the day I PHYSICALLY stay with my spouse could be counted as ACCOMPANYING. I calculated it, plus the day I PHYSICALLY being in Canada, is about several days more than 730 for past five years.

May I have your advice on this situation?

I cannot give advice. I try to stay close to sharing information.

If you need advice, and you very well might, see a lawyer.

If you are relying on counting days you spend with your spouse outside Canada to meet the minimum RO, just to reach 730 days in the last five years, I don't know the best way for you to approach this. If you are with your spouse for fewer days than you are apart, I really don't know.

I do know that it is far less serious to lose PR status for a breach of the RO than it would be to lose it because of misrepresentation. Moreover, if you lost PR status because of the RO, a Canadian citizen spouse should be able to sponsor you with minimal problems, but of course that should wait until you and your spouse are actually prepared to move into Canada to stay. In contrast, if you lose PR status for misrepresentation, that would make you inadmissible and not eligible to be sponsored for PR (I forget how many years this would affect you).

I cannot say what the facts are in your situation, not as to making an honest declaration of addresses, and not as to whether your time abroad is "accompanying" your spouse.

One of the problems is how lenient IRCC often is, which can lull some into not recognizing how far over the line they have gone until they run into serious problems.

The main thing to avoid is being deceptive or misleading, to avoid making any misrepresentations.

A key indicator might be how things have been going at the Port-of-Entry when you return to Canada. If you have been getting questioned about RO compliance, when you arrive here, and especially if there has been any warnings or admonitions about RO compliance, that would signal an elevated risk of running into issues. Indeed, if you have experienced this much, I will offer some advice: see a lawyer.

But overall you've been trying to navigate how to keep PR status without settling in Canada. The longer this goes, the trickier it tends to get. Yeah, might be best to see a lawyer.

 

[bricksonly]

I think what the post above was pointing out is that physically spending time with your spouse is not the same by definition as accompanying in IRCC's books. They may let you count this time or they may not. You can certainly count the time spent physically in Canada. The time outside of Canada with your spouse is a question mark.

Thanks a lot. Do you think if I put more evidence showing ACCOMPANYING will work, even though we actually not living together?

 

[scylla]

Thanks a lot. Do you think if I put more evidence showing ACCOMPANYING will work, even though we actually not living together?

I don't know. I'm not IRCC.

Accompanying generally means you are outside of Canada primarily due to your spouse (e.g. your spouse's employment). So IMO if you want a strong accompanying case, that's what you need to show.

I think the evidnece you're talking about is evidence of visiting and spending time with your spouse. I'm not sure that's the same as accompanying.

But I'm not IRCC. Will be up to them and it may work out.