+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Is there any exemption on RO due to COVID

Mush1981

Full Member
Nov 28, 2018
47
4
I was wondering if there is any exemption from Govt for RO due to covid. Most of us could not travel for almost 2 years due to travel bans. If we do not meet 2 yr RO , will our PR cards still be renewed. Any advice would be highly appreciated
 

YVR123

VIP Member
Jul 27, 2017
6,553
2,504
I was wondering if there is any exemption from Govt for RO due to covid. Most of us could not travel for almost 2 years due to travel bans. If we do not meet 2 yr RO , will our PR cards still be renewed. Any advice would be highly appreciated
There is no new rule or annocement regarding to relaxation of the RO.
I don't think there has been any travel ban for PR for the last 2 years.

If you are a PR, you can travel into Canada. It may be harder to get flight or it may cost more. But I haven't heard any travel ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Qwertypod

ishaannayyyar

Star Member
Jul 28, 2017
75
28
There is no new rule or annocement regarding to relaxation of the RO.
I don't think there has been any travel ban for PR for the last 2 years.

If you are a PR, you can travel into Canada. It may be harder to get flight or it may cost more. But I haven't heard any travel ban.
It certainly made hard for people to make the move.
 

ishaannayyyar

Star Member
Jul 28, 2017
75
28
The requirement is 2 out of 5 years. If people left moving to the 3rd year mark they were always risking their status whether it was covid, a recession, a family emergency, etc.
show some compassion. People can have serious problems that prevented them from moving. No one likes to put themselves in trouble unnecessary.
 

Buletruck

VIP Member
May 18, 2015
6,686
2,531
show some compassion. People can have serious problems that prevented them from moving. No one likes to put themselves in trouble unnecessary.
Life is full of tough choices. And most often they aren’t easy to make. Simple fact is, it’s 2 years out of 5 for residency obligation. If your waiting till the last moment to make the move, some of those earlier “tough choices” should have been given greater consideration at that time.
 

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,434
7,860
show some compassion. People can have serious problems that prevented them from moving. No one likes to put themselves in trouble unnecessary.
There are plenty of threads showing compassion here about this and the situation is (arguably) a bit more nuanced than some of the responses may seem.

But they're right that the existing policy is already quite lenient, allows for emergencies like covid, and - crucially - do not necessarily make things easy for those returning.

Notably, officers and on appeal they MUST consider the impact of covid-19. But that does not mean they'll agree that the specific case or individual meets the criteria for H&C consideration under the laws and regs.

Most practically: an individual might be allowed in to Canada, but might be (in practical terms) subject to serious restrictions on travel and have a long process before the situation is entirely resolved.

Anyway, there are several other threads on the exact same topic, and the answer is: there's no new policy and there probably won't be; the existing policy requires IRCC to consider the impact of covid; that existing policy (how it works) is still not necessarily easy or provide the certainty individuals want.

Feel free to look up those threads, going over the same topic (again) may be a factor in why you feel there hasn't been enough compassion (impatience is not the same thing as a lack of compassion).
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
52,969
12,768
show some compassion. People can have serious problems that prevented them from moving. No one likes to put themselves in trouble unnecessary.
We see people leave relocating to Canada to the 3 year mark over and over again on this forum and something often comes up at the 3 year mark and people expect special consideration. If people do not move until the 3 year mark they know they are taking a risk. PRs have been free to travel throughout most of the pandemic except in a few specific cases.
 

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,434
7,860
PRs have been free to travel throughout most of the pandemic except in a few specific cases.
I think this formulation is overly rigid and quite likely wrong in many cases - or at least what may be wrong is the implication, that all PRs who were out of compliance or close or who became out of compliance during covid SHOULD HAVE travelled to Canada (because it was technically possible) and therefore will not be given leniency in some form (in most cases by simply not being reported on entry, in other cases on PRTD applications).

Because: on appeal at various steps, it will be rather hard for government to credibly argue that all PRs in such situations should have returned to Canada DESPITE prominent warnings by the Canadian government not to travel, as well as practical limitations imposed by government on travel. (Leaving aside second-order affects that I think would be taken into consideration, such as - for example - not having certainty about being able to travel and return in case of need).

I don't have proof of this. But strongly doubt such a hard line will be taken.

WARNING: I also do not think that covid will mean that all such non-compliance will be forgiven. The decisions will be individual and specific to cases. Those well out of compliance well before covid will have less success arguing the point. Those only slightly out of compliance and with strong cases (eg those unable to depart India because of an actual ban on direct flights) will have much, much more success.

Upshot is the same for most as before: return sooner, be prepared to remain in Canada once returned until in compliance, don't expect miracles. (Since we won't know for quite some time exactly how lenient, and not until cases and numbers are known - don't count on it and return soonest - seriously - is an important conclusion).

But the implication that 'you could have travelled and therefore no lenience' is likely wrong. Although I will absolutely agree that any expectations of blanket forgiveness - and expectations of many for massive leniency - are also wrong.

*Note: I know that's not exactly what you said and my inference is likely an exaggeration - but still, I think that's how it's being read by some. (Or more directly, that's how it reads, even if not how it was intended).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadGamer6

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
52,969
12,768
I think this formulation is overly rigid and quite likely wrong in many cases - or at least what may be wrong is the implication, that all PRs who were out of compliance or close or who became out of compliance during covid SHOULD HAVE travelled to Canada (because it was technically possible) and therefore will not be given leniency in some form (in most cases by simply not being reported on entry, in other cases on PRTD applications).

Because: on appeal at various steps, it will be rather hard for government to credibly argue that all PRs in such situations should have returned to Canada DESPITE prominent warnings by the Canadian government not to travel, as well as practical limitations imposed by government on travel. (Leaving aside second-order affects that I think would be taken into consideration, such as - for example - not having certainty about being able to travel and return in case of need).

I don't have proof of this. But strongly doubt such a hard line will be taken.

WARNING: I also do not think that covid will mean that all such non-compliance will be forgiven. The decisions will be individual and specific to cases. Those well out of compliance well before covid will have less success arguing the point. Those only slightly out of compliance and with strong cases (eg those unable to depart India because of an actual ban on direct flights) will have much, much more success.

Upshot is the same for most as before: return sooner, be prepared to remain in Canada once returned until in compliance, don't expect miracles. (Since we won't know for quite some time exactly how lenient, and not until cases and numbers are known - don't count on it and return soonest - seriously - is an important conclusion).

But the implication that 'you could have travelled and therefore no lenience' is likely wrong. Although I will absolutely agree that any expectations of blanket forgiveness - and expectations of many for massive leniency - are also wrong.

*Note: I know that's not exactly what you said and my inference is likely an exaggeration - but still, I think that's how it's being read by some. (Or more directly, that's how it reads, even if not how it was intended).
Yes the extent of non-compliance will be evaluated but the warnings not to travel have ended and that would only account for 1.5 years.

In OPs case they left Canada assuming they would get their citizenship while abroad and still be compliant with their RO. They took a risk by leaving while not being a citizen.
 

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,434
7,860
Yes the extent of non-compliance will be evaluated but the warnings not to travel have ended and that would only account for 1.5 years.

In OPs case they left Canada assuming they would get their citizenship while abroad and still be compliant with their RO. They took a risk by leaving while not being a citizen.
Yes - in specific cases (and possible this one) the bar will be higher and just saying 'covid!' will not be enough. Those well out of compliance before covid need to recognize that.

But I still think the implications of the statement "PRs have been free to travel throughout most of the pandemic except in a few specific cases" are far more ominous and strict than the law (and to what we can infer, the practice) indicates.
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
52,969
12,768
Yes - in specific cases (and possible this one) the bar will be higher and just saying 'covid!' will not be enough. Those well out of compliance before covid need to recognize that.

But I still think the implications of the statement "PRs have been free to travel throughout most of the pandemic except in a few specific cases" are far more ominous and strict than the law (and to what we can infer, the practice) indicates.
I was reacting to the statement that most could not travel for almost 2 years due to travel bans which is incorrect.
 

ishaannayyyar

Star Member
Jul 28, 2017
75
28
There are plenty of threads showing compassion here about this and the situation is (arguably) a bit more nuanced than some of the responses may seem.

But they're right that the existing policy is already quite lenient, allows for emergencies like covid, and - crucially - do not necessarily make things easy for those returning.

Notably, officers and on appeal they MUST consider the impact of covid-19. But that does not mean they'll agree that the specific case or individual meets the criteria for H&C consideration under the laws and regs.

Most practically: an individual might be allowed in to Canada, but might be (in practical terms) subject to serious restrictions on travel and have a long process before the situation is entirely resolved.

Anyway, there are several other threads on the exact same topic, and the answer is: there's no new policy and there probably won't be; the existing policy requires IRCC to consider the impact of covid; that existing policy (how it works) is still not necessarily easy or provide the certainty individuals want.

Feel free to look up those threads, going over the same topic (again) may be a factor in why you feel there hasn't been enough compassion (impatience is not the same thing as a lack of compassion).
'were always allowed to travel' and is it feasible to travel (health risks, employment risks etc etc) are two different things; i was only able to travel when i had 43 days left to meet the RO.
 

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,434
7,860
'were always allowed to travel' and is it feasible to travel (health risks, employment risks etc etc) are two different things; i was only able to travel when i had 43 days left to meet the RO.
Nobody here can adjudicate your reasons. Make the best case you can to IRCC, and be ready to 'show your work' (give more detai/evidence if asked).

Same general guidance as in most cases - returning sooner with stronger ties to Canada, all things equal, improves chances.
 

ishaannayyyar

Star Member
Jul 28, 2017
75
28
Nobody here can adjudicate your reasons. Make the best case you can to IRCC, and be ready to 'show your work' (give more detai/evidence if asked).

Same general guidance as in most cases - returning sooner with stronger ties to Canada, all things equal, improves chances.
so i need a strong case? I landed on 1 september 2021 and i will be in RO on 22 July 2023. My landing date was 06 september 2018.