You clearly don't know who I am and who I know, please stop speculating and pulling things from thin air.
Residency Obligation - Please advise. Inputs needed.
- Thread starter rohit.joshi
- Start date
I think it sucks to be a Globalist or serve Globalist interests, to import millions of foreign doctors and engineers to pull rickshaws on the streets of Toronto and Montreal, and do so while labor market is already oversaturated, and then force those desperate rickshaws to stay in Canada for years, under the threat of stripping them of PR status. "Pull rickshaw in Canada, or else we will strip you of PR status". That's just terrible.
Last edited:
@rohit.joshi , find a licensed attorney and seek a qualified legal advise (many offer free initial consultations). Don't heed speculations of laymen. Wish you good luck!
To stop the speculation (at least for those who are not bonkers), previous posts have made this clear with links and citations:
-the law states that sponsors (PRs) must 'reside in Canada';
-the part of the law that addresses residency obligation is completely different and uses different language.
It is quite straightforward: meeting the residency obligation does NOT mean residency for purposes of being a sponsor. The text of the law does not follow the standard practice of referring to other sections when a concept or specific implementation is already defined - because they are not the same. (Likewise, 'tax residence' is also a red herring, because if the law meant to use tax residence as a definition of residency, it could and would simply reference the relevant legislation.
(An example of why this is evident can be seen in a careful reading - the law applies the same 'resides in Canada' language to both PRs and citizens, and obviously the RO does not and cannot apply in any way, shape or form to citizens; the carve-out for how citizen-sponsors not resident in Canada are treated is in a separate sub-para [seemingly done this way to limit applicability to sponsorship of immediate family members.] Therefore, there can be no foolishness here about whether compliance with the RO is 'sufficient' to be considered residency - they are different concepts and provided for separately in law.)
If there was any doubt about this, the IRCC regulations (previously cited) make this explicit and confirm these are separate concepts: persons who only visit and do not have principal residence in Canada cannot sponsor.
Here are the parts of the relevant posts and links for reference. By all means consult a lawyer to confirm if one wishes.
-the law states that sponsors (PRs) must 'reside in Canada';
-the part of the law that addresses residency obligation is completely different and uses different language.
It is quite straightforward: meeting the residency obligation does NOT mean residency for purposes of being a sponsor. The text of the law does not follow the standard practice of referring to other sections when a concept or specific implementation is already defined - because they are not the same. (Likewise, 'tax residence' is also a red herring, because if the law meant to use tax residence as a definition of residency, it could and would simply reference the relevant legislation.
(An example of why this is evident can be seen in a careful reading - the law applies the same 'resides in Canada' language to both PRs and citizens, and obviously the RO does not and cannot apply in any way, shape or form to citizens; the carve-out for how citizen-sponsors not resident in Canada are treated is in a separate sub-para [seemingly done this way to limit applicability to sponsorship of immediate family members.] Therefore, there can be no foolishness here about whether compliance with the RO is 'sufficient' to be considered residency - they are different concepts and provided for separately in law.)
If there was any doubt about this, the IRCC regulations (previously cited) make this explicit and confirm these are separate concepts: persons who only visit and do not have principal residence in Canada cannot sponsor.
Here are the parts of the relevant posts and links for reference. By all means consult a lawyer to confirm if one wishes.
Last edited:
Let me put it in chronological order, so the liars and slanderers whose pants are caught in fire can be duly exposed:
1. The following comment was left by poster canuck78, on Monday at 12:44 AM (anyone can go back to page one of this thread to verify):
I stated what I stated at the referenced point in good faith. And I never asserted anything one way or another, I admitted all along that I knew next to nothing about TRV. And I believed then ,as I believe now, that @canuck78 pulled her assertion at the time out of thin air. What transpired afterwards (if anyone brought further clarification and etc.) is irrelevant.
1. The following comment was left by poster canuck78, on Monday at 12:44 AM (anyone can go back to page one of this thread to verify):
This was comment #10 , and up to this point only myself, OP and canuck78 participated in exchange of opinions. Therefore, the allegation that "previous posts have made this clear" (meaning, made clear what the requirements are to sponsor TRV by PR) , to put it bluntly, is a lie.
I stated what I stated at the referenced point in good faith. And I never asserted anything one way or another, I admitted all along that I knew next to nothing about TRV. And I believed then ,as I believe now, that @canuck78 pulled her assertion at the time out of thin air. What transpired afterwards (if anyone brought further clarification and etc.) is irrelevant.
Last edited: