Not meeting Residency Obligation due to covid
- Thread starter tk-5
- Start date
I was correcting a factual error in your post. I wasn't making any judgement on that level of education. Will leave that up to you to argue with others.
Like fact check on news stories?
Do you do that when someone speaks with sarcasm and mocks something (such as Canadian border agency?) P.S. I won't argue about their education. I never applied for a job there and have no clue what the requirements are. I just know they acted barbarously to me, and I posted a video which talks about 500 documented cases of misconduct by them. It's sufficient for me to make a judgmenet about the agency.
Valid PR status is an eligibility requirement to sponsor family members for PR.
A PR in Canada can indeed start the sponsoring process even though the PR is not in compliance with the Residency Obligation, but that risks triggering a formal RO examination (to determine eligibility to sponsor), which can result in a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility and being issued a Removal Order. If that happens, that is a decision terminating the PR's status, subject to appeal.
Whether or not a particular PR in breach of the RO is referred to admissibility processing, when they initiate a sponsorship application despite being in breach of the RO, appears to vary widely. It seems to depend mostly on factors like the extent of the breach and the extent to which the sponsor appears settled now in Canada (as evident in the sponsor's information in the application, including employment history).
It would be little or no surprise that there are numerous anecdotal reports from individuals who gambled, took the risk, proceeded with the sponsorship application despite being in breach of the RO, and were, as the saying goes, "OK." That does not change what the rules actually are. That does not eliminate the risk for the next PR who might initiate a sponsorship application when in breach of the RO.
One might attempt to do what gamblers do, and more closely examine the odds, assess the probabilities, and perhaps take their chances, place a bet. They should understand what they are gambling for, what is at risk: losing status to live in Canada.
I have done the gambler's thing many times in life, in other contexts, and I have do so very often on the Queen's Expressway, the 401, and the Trans-Canada, fully cognizant of what the speed limit is and choosing to take my chances and go faster than the limit. Only risking a speeding ticket, however, not losing status to stay in Canada. Can say it went "OK" (but I should add, "so far") many, many times, while witnessing scores and scores of others likewise more or less breaking the rules, risking getting a speeding ticket and having to pay a fine and higher insurance rates. As often as I have seen scores getting away with breaking the rules, there is no doubt about what the rules are, and what enforcement can mean.
For the PR in breach of the Residency Obligation, it is usually (by a big margin) better to avoid engaging in a transaction with CBSA or IRCC that could trigger a formal RO examination and calculation. That includes avoiding taking the risk of losing PR status by making a sponsorship application, which can be done by waiting until AFTER getting into RO compliance. We know what the rules are. We know how they can be enforced and what the consequences can be. Just because some get away with it, does not justify suggesting it is OK, because depending on the circumstances, there is a real risk it will not go OK.
@bedema for reference:
According to the relevant law, a Permanent Resident may sponsor a foreign national "subject to the regulations";
The regulations then say that a sponsorship will be suspended if the sponsor has a 44(1) report:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/page-19.html#docCont
As @dpenabill notes, by applying to sponsor, one can trigger an examination of compliance and hence a 44(1) report, and the sponsorship application will effectively make no progress until the 44(1) is ultimately decided (i.e. PR status revoked or retained via appeal).
I believe there have been periodic reports here (hence anecdotal) that at least sometimes the sponsorship application just does not progress and nothing happens to it until sometime after the sponsor is back in compliance with the RO. Effectively IRCC just lets it 'age' rather than starting the 44(1) report process (which in a sense might be a form of leniency - or perhaps a way to see if the sponsor actually remains in Canada.)
But as not uncommon with such things, this 'put back into process sometime after' compliance is not automatic, and it might well take longer (or even considerably longer) than might have been the case if the sponsor had just waited until back in compliance.
Hey Jakkofflondon, you need a shoulder to cry on? You sound down..
I guess I am a unique individual, because most people miss the target and misunderstand my intentions. The way I view it is this: NO ONE is above the law, which includes border agents. Something was done , which was not right. In a free , civilized society , when dealing with someone who works for federal government, has a badge and authority, you don't go fist fighting and arguing with that individual in person. Instead, you can do one of the two things:
#1 - file a complaint and ask higher authority for justice (usually, you need a tangible evidence for this and acceptable by court of law proof that wrong has been done);
#2 - express your grievances openly and publicly (you can do that by standing with a piece of placard on the street, in front of the government building, or you can post on social media/online).
There are no other ways to deal with government abuse and violation of your rights. Of course, there is a third option, which is to keep mum, to treat authority figure as a Deity/God/Father figure , kiss its' feet , worship even if it grossly violates you, always try to please it and etc. A lot of people , especially those coming from places where authoritarian government is a norm, are doing it. It's just not me. I consider myself a free man and don't think anyone is entitled to mistreat me and violate my rights, regardless of their rank/position/status and etc.
I also believe that by speaking out I warn other potential victims of what they might face at the border (never forget old adage, forewarned is armed), and if more people speak out against similar abuses we will have more accountable government and public servants. It's our duty, as citizens of free states, to work towards building a civil society where everyone is equal before the law, where laws are enforced against criminals and public servants are delivering high quality of service and protection to law abiding citizens. Not really looking for a shoulder to cry
Last edited:
I am sure that is some sort of gambling, but I had a few friends who had done it and succeed.
Some posters imply that one can sponsor family members for PR while in breach of RO. I will not argue and dispute it, if anyone has done it in past and succeeded then good for them. What I will say is this: applying for immigration benefit while in breach of RO is a recipe to get stripped of PR status. If anyone wants to renounce PR status then go ahead and apply for the immigration benefits. If the adjudicating officer is new/incompetent/careless, they may still approve your application (as some posters claim). But that's not how it is supposed to work.
Sure. Keep in mind, record-keeping and reporting of entries and exits (for example) has become more comprehensive. And policies / strictness can change.
Or as the financial industry puts it 'past performance is not an indicator of future performance.'
Good luck. Let others know how it goes.