Entering as a PR after 3+ years abroad

[AkkiV]

Hi everyone, hope you all are keeping safe. I got my PR in 2017 (did a short landing). I was planning to move to Canada this year but had to abandon the plan due to the COVID situation. I am trying to enter again but have just a few months remaining based on my residency requirement and it is likely that have less than 730 days remaining to spend in Canada when I try to enter. What will happen if I try to enter...Will I be stopped from entering? If say I enter with say just 500 days remaining, what happens next....will I be able to extend/renew my PR card later? Please share any relevant information you may have. Thanks!

 

[primaprime]

At the border, you will be allowed to enter Canada but will likely be reported for non-compliance with your RO and given a removal order, which you must appeal against within 30 days to keep your PR status. You will have to get a lawyer and argue why you should be allowed to keep your status, despite failing to meet your RO, based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. COVID isn't an H&C ground as it didn't stop you from living in Canada in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Or, if you somehow make it past the border without being reported, you can remain in Canada for two full years, even after your PR card expires, and apply to renew it once you're back into compliance. See my guide to the residency obligation (link in signature) for more details.

 

[IndianBos]

While what will happen at border completely depends on the border agent you meet, I was in a similar situation in 2018.
I became a PR on 7-Sep-2015 and finally moved from US to Canada on 28-Sep-2018. I was a few days short on the residency obligation, was sent to secondary at the land border for some additional questions but finally was let go with a warning, asking me to stay for 2 years straight. I was not reported for PR revocation. However, I was just 20 days short. 550 days may be stretching it, the less number of days you are short, the better your chances.
I already had a full time in Canada while I was moving.

 

[canuck78]

Hi everyone, hope you all are keeping safe. I got my PR in 2017 (did a short landing). I was planning to move to Canada this year but had to abandon the plan due to the COVID situation. I am trying to enter again but have just a few months remaining based on my residency requirement and it is likely that have less than 730 days remaining to spend in Canada when I try to enter. What will happen if I try to enter...Will I be stopped from entering? If say I enter with say just 500 days remaining, what happens next....will I be able to extend/renew my PR card later? Please share any relevant information you may have. Thanks!

Given that you had 3 years to move to Canada so covid didn’t prevent you from moving to Canada. When did you land in 2017?

 

[dpenabill]

Hi everyone, hope you all are keeping safe. I got my PR in 2017 (did a short landing). I was planning to move to Canada this year but had to abandon the plan due to the COVID situation. I am trying to enter again but have just a few months remaining based on my residency requirement and it is likely that have less than 730 days remaining to spend in Canada when I try to enter. What will happen if I try to enter...Will I be stopped from entering? If say I enter with say just 500 days remaining, what happens next....will I be able to extend/renew my PR card later? Please share any relevant information you may have. Thanks!

As others have observed, you will be allowed to enter Canada.

The issue is whether or not you are Reported for a breach of the Residency Obligation, and if Reported then issued a Removal Order.

A lot, by a lot, DEPENDS on just how long you have been outside Canada since you became a PR.

If on the date you arrive here, at a Canadian PoE, you have been outside Canada for MORE than 1096 days (taking into account leap years) since your date of landing, you are in breach of the Residency Obligation. If this is the case, you are at RISK, your status is at risk.

I do not think anyone here can reliably say, one way or the other, how this will go.

That said, as the experience reported by @IndianBos illustrates, being short by a little (meaning not having been abroad a lot more than 1096 days) tends to have favourable odds . . . at least for those within their first five years.

I do not agree with much of the observations offered by @primaprime . . .

At the border, you will be allowed to enter Canada but will likely be reported for non-compliance with your RO and given a removal order, which you must appeal against within 30 days to keep your PR status. You will have to get a lawyer and argue why you should be allowed to keep your status, despite failing to meet your RO, based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. COVID isn't an H&C ground as it didn't stop you from living in Canada in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

While I am no expert, I am very confident that border officers, and any other Canadian officials, will take into consideration the Covid-19 situation when assessing H&C factors. Very much so.

In particular, there is certainly a RISK of being reported. If you are reported, you will be given an opportunity to explain your situation, including any "H&C" reasons, BEFORE a Removal Order is issued. And of course this year's situation, Covid-19 and related circumstances, will be a consideration, which for some may be a big factor, but for others not so much (those in breach before the global pandemic started, for example, will have a more difficult time getting much leniency based on the impact of Covid-19; but again, the overall extent of the breach, in comparison to any and all reasons for remaining abroad, loom large).

Again, it warrants emphasis, how long you have been outside Canada since landing is one of the key factors, if not the most important factor. So the sooner you arrive in Canada, the better your odds.

Or, if you somehow make it past the border without being reported, you can remain in Canada for two full years, even after your PR card expires, and apply to renew it once you're back into compliance.

This part of the observations offered by @primaprime is accurate and important. The sooner you arrive the better odds you have of being allowed to enter without being Reported or issued a Removal Order. But if you do this, you will need to STAY for two years in order to get back into compliance with the RO. Any travel abroad will be RISKY. Any application to IRCC before you have stayed long enough to be in compliance with the RO could be risky.

 

[primaprime]

I do not agree with much of the observations offered by @primaprime . . .

While I am no expert, I am very confident that border officers, and any other Canadian officials, will take into consideration the Covid-19 situation when assessing H&C factors. Very much so.

In particular, there is certainly a RISK of being reported. If you are reported, you will be given an opportunity to explain your situation, including any "H&C" reasons, BEFORE a Removal Order is issued. And of course this year's situation, Covid-19 and related circumstances, will be a consideration, which for some may be a big factor, but for others not so much (those in breach before the global pandemic started, for example, will have a more difficult time getting much leniency based on the impact of Covid-19; but again, the overall extent of the breach, in comparison to any and all reasons for remaining abroad, loom large).

Again, it warrants emphasis, how long you have been outside Canada since landing is one of the key factors, if not the most important factor. So the sooner you arrive in Canada, the better your odds.

I agree that COVID could contribute to an H&C assessment for someone who is minimally in breach, and could genuinely argue their stay abroad was inadvertently extended due to the travel restrictions.

But as you note, "those in breach before the global pandemic started, for example, will have a more difficult time getting much leniency based on the impact of Covid-19." While OP was not "in breach" between 2017 and 2020 in a strictly legal sense, they still were not living in Canada prior to the pandemic, which is what I was getting at with my observation that COVID would not be an H&C reason in their case, as it did not prevent their return to Canada for the better part of the three years they were abroad.

And as you often note, the purpose of a grant of PR status is to enable to person to actually settle and build a life in Canada. So their establishment in and ties to Canada are likely minimal, which will be a significant negative factor in any H&C assessment.

 

[canuck78]

Hi everyone, hope you all are keeping safe. I got my PR in 2017 (did a short landing). I was planning to move to Canada this year but had to abandon the plan due to the COVID situation. I am trying to enter again but have just a few months remaining based on my residency requirement and it is likely that have less than 730 days remaining to spend in Canada when I try to enter. What will happen if I try to enter...Will I be stopped from entering? If say I enter with say just 500 days remaining, what happens next....will I be able to extend/renew my PR card later? Please share any relevant information you may have. Thanks!

Would add that you won’t be able to sponsor anyone without being compliant with yourPR so if you’ve gotten married or had a child that can have a major impact.

 

[dpenabill]

I agree that COVID could contribute to an H&C assessment for someone who is minimally in breach, and could genuinely argue their stay abroad was inadvertently extended due to the travel restrictions.

But as you note, "those in breach before the global pandemic started, for example, will have a more difficult time getting much leniency based on the impact of Covid-19." While OP was not "in breach" between 2017 and 2020 in a strictly legal sense, they still were not living in Canada prior to the pandemic, which is what I was getting at with my observation that COVID would not be an H&C reason in their case, as it did not prevent their return to Canada for the better part of the three years they were abroad.

And as you often note, the purpose of a grant of PR status is to enable to person to actually settle and build a life in Canada. So their establishment in and ties to Canada are likely minimal, which will be a significant negative factor in any H&C assessment.

It is obvious you have been making a concerted effort to recognize and provide good information, so I do not want to criticize you harshly or discourage your effort (indeed, I applaud and want to encourage you). And I am NO expert, so in many if not most respects my observations should be taken for what they are worth on their face, considered in conjunction with other sources and views.

Moreover, in regards to a topic in which a particular query is posed, in regards to a particular situation, such as is the case here, I try to minimize polemic tangents that are prone to divert or distract, tangents likely to confuse the OP more than help.

So I did not go into much detail regarding what in particular I disagreed with in the first paragraph of your observations, let alone why. I simply noted my disagreement and stated what is likely to most influence how it goes.

In contrast, as I noted, your second paragraph (in the post I was referencing and quoting) was an important one deserving emphasis, and so of course I entirely agreed with that.

Moreover, my previous observations did not go into a lot of detail about how these things go at the PoE. These details have been discussed at-length and in-depth many dozens of times in scores of other topics here.

Trying to sort out the influence of particular factors, and even more so particular aspects of this or that factor, gets very complicated and tends to be highly speculative. This is a big, big part of the reason that in general I am reluctant to comment on the probability of making a successful H&C case. There are many variables. Many, many variables. There is almost no limit to what factors can be considered. How this or that factor influences things can vary a lot, including the same factor having a virtually opposite influence for one individual compared to another, depending on context and how that factor relates to other factors. It can and often does get complicated.

I recently elaborated about this here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/chances-of-appeal-success-when-prtd-rejected.704337/#post-8885367

This brings the discussion back to why I simply disagreed with the first paragraph in the quoted post, which was:

"At the border, you will be allowed to enter Canada but will likely be reported for non-compliance with your RO and given a removal order, which you must appeal against within 30 days to keep your PR status. You will have to get a lawyer and argue why you should be allowed to keep your status, despite failing to meet your RO, based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. COVID isn't an H&C ground as it didn't stop you from living in Canada in 2017, 2018, and 2019. "​

Let me start with the last part: "COVID isn't an H&C ground as it didn't stop you from living in Canada in 2017, 2018, and 2019."

In contrast, I am confident that Covid-19 will be taken into consideration in any PR RO H&C evaluation for PRs arriving here in the next many months or year or so. Of course it is fair to note that Covid-19 did not stop a PR from coming to or staying in Canada prior to 2020. And this will likely have influence in how much this factor will help a PR. As you remind us, I have stated that "those in breach before the global pandemic started, for example, will have a more difficult time getting much leniency based on the impact of Covid-19." To be clear about that statement, however, it does not suggest, let alone assert, that even for a PR who was in breach BEFORE the start of this pandemic, that the impact of covid-19 is not a ground for H&C relief; rather, it will be considered, in context, and its weight will depend on how it relates to the PR's situation considering many other aspects of the PR's situation . . . even if it is not likely the pandemic itself will be sufficient to obtain H&C relief.

Moreover, the odds are high that it is wrong to say any personal circumstance "isn't an H&C ground." What is grounds for H&C relief in a PR RO breach case is rarely a [yes] or [no], [on] or [off] issue. It is almost always a matter of how much positive or negative weight the particular circumstance has in considering ALL aspects of the PR's situation. In some cases, it warrants noting, some factors are given both a positive weight and a negative weight. Explicitly, and described as such by IAD panels. (Ties in Canada based on having a spouse and/or minor children living in Canada can be both a positive and a negative factor, since it is a tie weighing favourably but that can be offset because it also shows that the PR, and the spouse and/or children, have managed, respectively, showing that in the course of the PR's life they all manage with the PR being abroad for such long periods of time. Employment choices can similarly have notoriously variable influence; in contrast to many forum participants saying that choosing to work abroad is not a H&C reason, there are times such choices HELP make the H&C case, and noting again I generally disagree with on/off characterizations in the RO H&C analysis.)

Trying to analyze the actual influence of given factors, let alone the net effect and outcome, is generally too speculative to be useful. The best that can be said in this regard is little more than pointing in the more likely direction . . . perhaps saying that this or that circumstance is likely to help, or hurt, help a lot, or hurt a lot. Trying to be any more specific than that is too speculative to be useful. Forecasting the outcome ("likely be reported" for example), except in the most obvious cases, especially tends to be an exercise in unfruitful speculation.

The Pandemic In Particular:

Consider the impact of the pandemic and how it will influence a particular PR's H&C case: this will almost certainly will be very individual case specific. In this regard, I do NOT KNOW but I would anticipate that PRs still within the first five years of their landing are likely to be given more leeway, more leniency, based on the impact of the pandemic, than those who have been PRs for more than five years.

The following warrants further clarification:

"While OP was not "in breach" between 2017 and 2020 in a strictly legal sense, they still were not living in Canada prior to the pandemic, which is what I was getting at with my observation that COVID would not be an H&C reason in their case, as it did not prevent their return to Canada for the better part of the three years they were abroad."​

In contrast, my strong impression is that any NEW PR (PR within the first five years) who was NOT already in breach of the RO at the beginning of this year, has good odds of being allowed a chance to keep PR status as long as the PR arrives here, in Canada, within the next . . . the By-When part gets much harder to forecast. And of course varies as well, given how long the PR was abroad before this year.

I do think it can make a big difference (emphasis on what can or might happen, not what "will" happen) whether the PR was technically in breach of the RO at the beginning of this year. It is not likely new PRs will get an automatic extension of the time within which they need to come to Canada to settle, BUT fairly likely their situations will be approached comparable to, in effect, being given a commensurate amount of leeway. Nearly the equivalent of an extension. DEPENDING on other factors. (Thus, for example, and in particular, how soon the PR gets here can be a big factor . . . or at least how soon after the pandemic conditions abate.)

The latter is extrapolation, not reporting known decisions. But that is what makes sense in consideration of the way CBSA and IRCC, and the IAD, have historically approached factors causing PRs to remain abroad.

OVERALL, FOR the OP:

What will matter most is still, simply, how soon the OP actually comes to Canada to stay. The sooner, the better the OP's chances of (1) simply being waived through at the PIL (Primary Inspection Line), no examination as to RO compliance let alone getting Reported, but also (2) if referred to Secondary at the PoE, the sooner the OP gets here the better the OP's odds of being given a warning about the RO but not Reported, and (3) even if Reported, the sooner the OP gets here the better the odds the Minister's Delegate will decline to issue a Removal Order based on H&C reasons. The OP will get multiple opportunities there, while at the PoE, to give a full explanation for why it has taken so long to get to Canada to stay, which will be considered under the rubric of H&C grounds.

 

[primaprime]

It is obvious you have been making a concerted effort to recognize and provide good information, so I do not want to criticize you harshly or discourage your effort (indeed, I applaud and want to encourage you). And I am NO expert, so in many if not most respects my observations should be taken for what they are worth on their face, considered in conjunction with other sources and views.

Moreover, in regards to a topic in which a particular query is posed, in regards to a particular situation, such as is the case here, I try to minimize polemic tangents that are prone to divert or distract, tangents likely to confuse the OP more than help.

So I did not go into much detail regarding what in particular I disagreed with in the first paragraph of your observations, let alone why. I simply noted my disagreement and stated what is likely to most influence how it goes.

In contrast, as I noted, your second paragraph (in the post I was referencing and quoting) was an important one deserving emphasis, and so of course I entirely agreed with that.

Moreover, my previous observations did not go into a lot of detail about how these things go at the PoE. These details have been discussed at-length and in-depth many dozens of times in scores of other topics here.

Trying to sort out the influence of particular factors, and even more so particular aspects of this or that factor, gets very complicated and tends to be highly speculative. This is a big, big part of the reason that in general I am reluctant to comment on the probability of making a successful H&C case. There are many variables. Many, many variables. There is almost no limit to what factors can be considered. How this or that factor influences things can vary a lot, including the same factor having a virtually opposite influence for one individual compared to another, depending on context and how that factor relates to other factors. It can and often does get complicated.

I recently elaborated about this here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/chances-of-appeal-success-when-prtd-rejected.704337/#post-8885367

This brings the discussion back to why I simply disagreed with the first paragraph in the quoted post, which was:

"At the border, you will be allowed to enter Canada but will likely be reported for non-compliance with your RO and given a removal order, which you must appeal against within 30 days to keep your PR status. You will have to get a lawyer and argue why you should be allowed to keep your status, despite failing to meet your RO, based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. COVID isn't an H&C ground as it didn't stop you from living in Canada in 2017, 2018, and 2019. "​

Let me start with the last part: "COVID isn't an H&C ground as it didn't stop you from living in Canada in 2017, 2018, and 2019."

In contrast, I am confident that Covid-19 will be taken into consideration in any PR RO H&C evaluation for PRs arriving here in the next many months or year or so. Of course it is fair to note that Covid-19 did not stop a PR from coming to or staying in Canada prior to 2020. And this will likely have influence in how much this factor will help a PR. As you remind us, I have stated that "those in breach before the global pandemic started, for example, will have a more difficult time getting much leniency based on the impact of Covid-19." To be clear about that statement, however, it does not suggest, let alone assert, that even for a PR who was in breach BEFORE the start of this pandemic, that the impact of covid-19 is not a ground for H&C relief; rather, it will be considered, in context, and its weight will depend on how it relates to the PR's situation considering many other aspects of the PR's situation . . . even if it is not likely the pandemic itself will be sufficient to obtain H&C relief.

Moreover, the odds are high that it is wrong to say any personal circumstance "isn't an H&C ground." What is grounds for H&C relief in a PR RO breach case is rarely a [yes] or [no], [on] or [off] issue. It is almost always a matter of how much positive or negative weight the particular circumstance has in considering ALL aspects of the PR's situation. In some cases, it warrants noting, some factors are given both a positive weight and a negative weight. Explicitly, and described as such by IAD panels. (Ties in Canada based on having a spouse and/or minor children living in Canada can be both a positive and a negative factor, since it is a tie weighing favourably but that can be offset because it also shows that the PR, and the spouse and/or children, have managed, respectively, showing that in the course of the PR's life they all manage with the PR being abroad for such long periods of time. Employment choices can similarly have notoriously variable influence; in contrast to many forum participants saying that choosing to work abroad is not a H&C reason, there are times such choices HELP make the H&C case, and noting again I generally disagree with on/off characterizations in the RO H&C analysis.)

Trying to analyze the actual influence of given factors, let alone the net effect and outcome, is generally too speculative to be useful. The best that can be said in this regard is little more than pointing in the more likely direction . . . perhaps saying that this or that circumstance is likely to help, or hurt, help a lot, or hurt a lot. Trying to be any more specific than that is too speculative to be useful. Forecasting the outcome ("likely be reported" for example), except in the most obvious cases, especially tends to be an exercise in unfruitful speculation.

The Pandemic In Particular:

Consider the impact of the pandemic and how it will influence a particular PR's H&C case: this will almost certainly will be very individual case specific. In this regard, I do NOT KNOW but I would anticipate that PRs still within the first five years of their landing are likely to be given more leeway, more leniency, based on the impact of the pandemic, than those who have been PRs for more than five years.

The following warrants further clarification:

"While OP was not "in breach" between 2017 and 2020 in a strictly legal sense, they still were not living in Canada prior to the pandemic, which is what I was getting at with my observation that COVID would not be an H&C reason in their case, as it did not prevent their return to Canada for the better part of the three years they were abroad."​

In contrast, my strong impression is that any NEW PR (PR within the first five years) who was NOT already in breach of the RO at the beginning of this year, has good odds of being allowed a chance to keep PR status as long as the PR arrives here, in Canada, within the next . . . the By-When part gets much harder to forecast. And of course varies as well, given how long the PR was abroad before this year.

I do think it can make a big difference (emphasis on what can or might happen, not what "will" happen) whether the PR was technically in breach of the RO at the beginning of this year. It is not likely new PRs will get an automatic extension of the time within which they need to come to Canada to settle, BUT fairly likely their situations will be approached comparable to, in effect, being given a commensurate amount of leeway. Nearly the equivalent of an extension. DEPENDING on other factors. (Thus, for example, and in particular, how soon the PR gets here can be a big factor . . . or at least how soon after the pandemic conditions abate.)

The latter is extrapolation, not reporting known decisions. But that is what makes sense in consideration of the way CBSA and IRCC, and the IAD, have historically approached factors causing PRs to remain abroad.

OVERALL, FOR the OP:

What will matter most is still, simply, how soon the OP actually comes to Canada to stay. The sooner, the better the OP's chances of (1) simply being waived through at the PIL (Primary Inspection Line), no examination as to RO compliance let alone getting Reported, but also (2) if referred to Secondary at the PoE, the sooner the OP gets here the better the OP's odds of being given a warning about the RO but not Reported, and (3) even if Reported, the sooner the OP gets here the better the odds the Minister's Delegate will decline to issue a Removal Order based on H&C reasons. The OP will get multiple opportunities there, while at the PoE, to give a full explanation for why it has taken so long to get to Canada to stay, which will be considered under the rubric of H&C grounds.

I agree I was overly simplistic in making my point, which was that the pandemic alone is extraordinarily unlikely to be a sufficient H&C reason given the lack of establishment in Canada. On the off chance OP has a truly compelling and well documented reason to be abroad for the three prior years, and they successfully argue they could not have reasonably returned earlier, the continued absence since March may become a neutral factor in their case. But in general, I maintain that people should not expect to be relieved of their residency obligations solely due to the pandemic.

 

[armoured]

But in general, I maintain that people should not expect to be relieved of their residency obligations solely due to the pandemic.

In practice, we'll probably just have to wait and see how officers at ports of entry apply any consideration for covid-related issues, including relative leniency.

One point on the phrasing above - you are absolutely right that no-one should expect to be relieved of their residency obligation.

The residency obligation is an ongoing requirement, and not just applicable at (for example) point of entry after considerable absence.

I'm underlining this because it has a few important implications:
1) As you and others have rightly pointed out, any leniency at port of entry for those out of compliance (at the time they first 're-enter') does NOT mean that leniency applies to future interactions and especially travel out of Canada and returning. Indeed, if a PR who was out of formal compliance is admitted without a formal report or process started, that does NOT mean that there wasn't a note made - and if the PR was sent to secondary review, there probably was a note made to flag the matter.

In other words - PRs who are admitted while out of compliance, whether or not mention was made of covid or whatever else, should NOT count on such lenience applying if they travel again. Previous general guidance applies: PRs who are out of compliance should get in compliance by staying in Canada, and understand that they are taking a risk of issues arising when/if they do interact with IRCC/CBSA, especially at ports of entry.

2) To some degree, this logic (the residency obligation is a continuing one) likely applies to examining officers. If the case for being out of compliance is plausibly attributable to some combination of covid and/or H&C (and whether covid itself is considered H&C), they MAY exercise more leniency than they otherwise would have without covid - partly because the formal review and appeal process is lengthy and costly (and they don't wish to start that machine in cases where it might well be subsequently 'overturned').

And partly because the continuing nature of the residency obligation means they're not granting a blanket exemption - they're only allowing the PR back in to establish residency and get compliant.

Put as simply as possible: anyone returning should be aware that any covid-related leniency will possibly (likely?) only apply once - at re-entry.

I think the likelihood of leniency during covid time for some non-compliance will be a bit higher, all things being equal, as there are real reasons covid has contributed to delays in returning. (And govt of Canada has by various means made it clear it does not want 'more' travel or re-entry during covid, i.e. implicitly discouraging travel may be balanced by more leniency - but remains to be seen).

But no mistake, it's not a blanket exemption.

(This of course is not getting into the weeds of specific cases and how far out of compliance matters, etc., on which @dpenabill has written extensively, "it depends" on too many unknown factors to say with any certainty.)

 

[alberta2019]

I was lacking ROs due to being outside Canada for too long
Though my PR card was still valid, I traveled into Canada via US border on a visa exempt passport.
Fortunately officer at the border was a gentlemen, didnt ask me about absence from Canada, only asked basic questions
I remained honest with all the answers
Officer let me in without reporting
Applied for health card, searched for job, got completely settled in canada
I didnt travel outside Canada for the next 2 years
After 2 years plus some extra weeks as buffer applied for PR renewal
Got new PR card within standard processing time

 

[Copingwithlife]

I was lacking ROs due to being outside Canada for too long
Though my PR card was still valid, I traveled into Canada via US border on a visa exempt passport.
Fortunately officer at the border was a gentlemen, didnt ask me about absence from Canada, only asked basic questions
I remained honest with all the answers
Officer let me in without reporting
Applied for health card, searched for job, got completely settled in canada
I didnt travel outside Canada for the next 2 years
After 2 years plus some extra weeks as buffer applied for PR renewal
Got new PR card within standard processing time

The officer wasn’t a “ gentleman “. They weren’t doing their job in the assessment of an individual’s compliance with their RO.

 

[AkkiV]

Hello everyone. I am highly grateful to you all for your sincere advice. Also apologize for the delay in my response.
I agree that I could have entered Canada before Covid happened but I was trying to move after I have a job in hand and this took away the initial years without any success and license requirements, Canadian exp., applying from abroad, etc. made it even more difficult. Things were not so easy as they appeared initially,

In the meantime, I changed my job here to a company which has office in Canada as well. I am trying to get an internal transfer within my company.
I am pushing my company for transfer with the premise that I already have a PR and have serious intention of moving to Canada.
However, I am now concerned what will happen if I miss my RO deadline (April 2021). Although I might still be allowed to enter Canada, I won't be able to leave and re-enter for the next 2 years which will be very difficult as I might need to have overseas business trips. Is there something that I can do if I find myself in such situation?
Can I get a work visa later once I am already in Canada? Or should I enter Canada with a work visa?

 

[dpenabill]

Hello everyone. I am highly grateful to you all for your sincere advice. Also apologize for the delay in my response.
I agree that I could have entered Canada before Covid happened but I was trying to move after I have a job in hand and this took away the initial years without any success and license requirements, Canadian exp., applying from abroad, etc. made it even more difficult. Things were not so easy as they appeared initially,

In the meantime, I changed my job here to a company which has office in Canada as well. I am trying to get an internal transfer within my company.
I am pushing my company for transfer with the premise that I already have a PR and have serious intention of moving to Canada.
However, I am now concerned what will happen if I miss my RO deadline (April 2021). Although I might still be allowed to enter Canada, I won't be able to leave and re-enter for the next 2 years which will be very difficult as I might need to have overseas business trips. Is there something that I can do if I find myself in such situation?
Can I get a work visa later once I am already in Canada? Or should I enter Canada with a work visa?

It gets complicated . . . and can get more complicated.

You cannot obtain a work visa unless you have already lost or given up PR status. Almost always easier to keep status than to qualify for and be granted status again after losing it or voluntarily surrendering it (noting, though, losing it for RO breach, or surrendering it for RO reasons, does NOT hurt an application for new PR; it is just that absent a more definite path, such as being sponsored by a Canadian spouse, is subject to contingencies and hurdles that can pose significant difficulty in getting PR again).

Best approach is probably to make the trip to Canada as soon as practical. Upon arrival at the PoE you should learn more, and potentially a lot more, about how things are going to go. Based on that, you can then make better informed decisions about how to navigate things from there.

Remember, even if Reported, you can appeal, and stay in Canada pending the appeal, and come and go as well.

If NOT reported, that could actually be the more difficult scenario in terms of figuring out what to do . . . staying is the safe bet, for keeping PR status, but employment is a huge factor in an individual's decision making, so it will be up to you to decide. At that stage that might be the time to go see a qualified and reputable immigration lawyer to more specifically review your situation and options.

 

[canuck78]

Hello everyone. I am highly grateful to you all for your sincere advice. Also apologize for the delay in my response.
I agree that I could have entered Canada before Covid happened but I was trying to move after I have a job in hand and this took away the initial years without any success and license requirements, Canadian exp., applying from abroad, etc. made it even more difficult. Things were not so easy as they appeared initially,

In the meantime, I changed my job here to a company which has office in Canada as well. I am trying to get an internal transfer within my company.
I am pushing my company for transfer with the premise that I already have a PR and have serious intention of moving to Canada.
However, I am now concerned what will happen if I miss my RO deadline (April 2021). Although I might still be allowed to enter Canada, I won't be able to leave and re-enter for the next 2 years which will be very difficult as I might need to have overseas business trips. Is there something that I can do if I find myself in such situation?
Can I get a work visa later once I am already in Canada? Or should I enter Canada with a work visa?

When did you land in Canada? If you have only done a soft landing I don’t see how you are arriving at April 2021? You must meet the 2 out of 5 years from your landing date.