I've found some information that the PR status is individual, but not from official sources, if someone can help me to clarify the scenarios for the 3 kids and where to find this information I'll be really grateful.
There is NO doubt that the PR Residency Obligation
individually applies to each PR, no matter their age or relationship to another PR.
If a PR stays IN Canada enough days to comply with the PR Residency Obligation, they are RO compliant. Whether any other family members, including parents (or spouses), meet the RO or not will have NO effect.
If a PR does not stay IN Canada enough days to comply with the PR RO, and they are not entitled to credit otherwise (for one of the exceptions) sufficient to meet the RO, they are inadmissible and at risk for termination of PR status. This too is true whether any other family members, including parents (or spouses), meet the RO.
If a PR's parents stay in Canada, but the PR fails to stay in Canada enough to be in compliance with the RO, the PR is inadmissible and at risk for termination of PR status. (Likewise, if a PR's spouse stays in Canada, but the PR fails to stay in Canada enough to be in compliance with the RO, the PR is inadmissible and at risk for termination of PR status.)
So it is no surprise that other responses just state that PR status is individual as a fact.
As stated already PR status is individual status.
Note: some allowable credits toward RO compliance (
these are exceptions to required days IN Canada) are available based on particular circumstances depending in part (only in part, subject to additional qualifying factors) on the individual PR's relationship to other Canadians who are parents or spouses; but this is still about whether the
individual PR is allowed the credit toward meeting their RO, "
individually" one might add, but that is either redundant or for emphasis.
. . . where can I find this information on the Canada government site?
Section 28 IRPA. It's here:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274598
(Subsections 28(2)(a)(ii) and 28(2)(a)(iii) state the exceptions pursuant to which a PR may qualify for credit depending in part on the PR's relationship to another Canadian; but, again, there are additional qualifying requirements for these credits, and this is about whether the credits plus time IN Canada are sufficient to establish the particular, individual PR, meets their RO.)
And, among many others, is stated as such in IRCC information here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...-immigrants/pr-card/understand-pr-status.html (under heading "Time Lived in Canada"), and in an appendix to the instructions for making a PR card application here
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...newal-change-gender-identifier.html#appendixA right at the beginning of Appendix A
The latter also addresses and illuminates, discussed as "
Situation B" and "
Situation C" in that appendix, particular circumstances in which a minor PR (under the age of 22) may be allowed credit for accompanying a Canadian abroad.
If you are looking for some official or IRCC source specifically couching the rights and obligations as "
individual," using that word, that may or may not show up explicitly articulated as such in published IAD or Federal Court decisions (in some respect I think it does), which are official sources, but just like the statute itself (Section 28 IRPA), and in the appendix to instructions I referenced, it is patently implicit in scores and scores of those decisions.
After all, where the statute (and IRCC information) says "
A permanent resident must . . . " is it not clear that is saying each individual PR must? Would you expect the statute (or IRCC information) to say "
Each individual permanent resident must . . . ?"
Impact of PR Parents' Absence From Canada:
Basically, in context, as others have said, there is none, "
no impact."
To be clear, there is no indication here of "
accompanying" credits; there is no hint here that if one of these children accompany the parents abroad, that will entitle them to any credit toward RO compliance for the days they are abroad.
So, for these PRs (who appear to have obtained such status as accompanying minors), whether they are in breach of the PR RO will depend on the number of days they each, regardless of their age, are in Canada. Those who stay in Canada long enough to meet the 730 days in five years obligation are RO compliant and at no risk of losing PR status because of where their parents are. In contrast, if they leave Canada, and fail to be in Canada long enough to meet the 730 days in five years obligation, they are in breach of the RO and at risk of losing PR status.
For the latter, as discussed in many topics here, if a PR is "
removed as a minor" from Canada (typically meaning parents left Canada and took the minor child with them), they may have a strong H&C case and allowed to keep PR status despite their breach of the RO. That's a complex subject of its own, but at the least more or less requires that particular PR to make the effort to return to Canada as soon as practical . . . definitely by age 22, perhaps sooner.
