Help needed ....PR Expiring soon

[Buletruck]

Granted there have been cases where that has been the case, even more recently than the example (2005), but a competent lawyer should be able to have that set aside based on ENF 23.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf

7.5 Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada
R61(4) provides that each day a permanent resident is outside Canada accompanying (that is, ordinarily residing with) a Canadian citizen constitutes a day of physical presence in Canada, provided that the Canadian citizen they are accompanying is a spouse or common- law partner or parent.
In the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met.

 

[sabaadil]

Are you ppl really sure that if i as a Canadian citizen go n live with my spouse as he is working there on full time basis, his days towards residency obligation be counted?? to let you that i was living apart from my husband because i had permanent resident status & not a citizen.. i received my grant of citizenship couple of months ago. So now we can decide & i can for sure accompany him living there.

 

[sabaadil]

Granted there have been cases where that has been the case, even more recently than the example (2005), but a competent lawyer should be able to have that set aside based on ENF 23.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf[/Q

Is'nt there a obligation that the citizen should be working abroad for canadian purposes while accompanying the spouse.?? and do i have to hire a lawyer regarding this??

 

[Buletruck]

it is not necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for what purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent resident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not relevant as the residency obligation is met.

That is directly from the IRCC manual. It clearly states the purpose is irrelevant. I would, if it was me, consult with an immigration lawyer at the very least. As others have stated, this has been ignored in some RO appeals in the past, so there is a risk it won’t work. The members on the forum tend to give pretty good advice, but we are not immigration professional by any means.

 

[meyakanor]

That CanLII ruling is indeed confusing, and once again illustrates the risk one takes when trying to rely on days accrued outside of Canada.

The ENF23 manual is clear: it should not matter who accompanies whom and for what purpose, but some judge might have different interpretation of that specific part of IRPR. The manual clearly spells out that it is enough to show that the PR is 'ordinarily residing' abroad with their Canadian citizen spouse. But in the case where some judge may disagree with the manuals, then the judge should go with his interpretation of the regulation rather than the wording of the manual.

IAD was given an enormous amount of discretion so consequently, some of their decisions may make you wonder and scratch your head sometimes.

Earlier this week, I posted a decision by IAD that accepted lifestyle reasons (the PR was trying to pursue PhD in another country) to overrule Section 44 report. She is a citizen of France, and had lived in France for so many years (including obtaining a French PhD), so it's not like it would be a significant hardship were she deported back to France, yet the IAD allowed the appeal, and she retained her PR status.