Qualifying for the employment abroad credit toward compliance with the PR Residency Obligation can be complicated, tricky, and is often rife with pitfalls.
The technicalities are typically strictly interpreted and applied, typically (at least it appears) tending toward being unfavourably so for many PRs.
Many who claim this credit are denied.
It is something of an overstatement, but it almost seems that the only PRs who are eligible for the credit are those who are nonetheless in Canada enough they do not need the credit. There are exceptions of course. In particular, while many who claim this credit are denied, many others do get this credit.
doriangray27 said:
Of course, I actually live in Canada (lease, utilities - the whole shebang), and also pay taxes here.
The
whole shebang is mostly about where a person actually lives, not just where a person pays rent and pays utilities, not where a person pays taxes, but where that person actually spends his or her days and nights.
And that is why it can be so problematic for those who need this credit, for time employed abroad: they have mostly spent their days and nights outside Canada, not in Canada.
In particular, if the PR is abroad more than half the time, that tends to be a big clue about where the PR actually lives. Thus, the PR who is outside Canada more than he or she is in Canada will often be required to affirmatively prove compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, proving days actually spent physically in Canada, and proving all the elements of what will qualify for a credit if a credit (such as credit for time employed abroad by a Canadian business) is needed to meet the minimum PR RO.
Obviously, for the PR who is outside Canada more than he or she is in Canada, if there is any question about where the PR was for any period of time,
it will be reasonable for an officer to infer that the PR was where the PR usually was, which was outside Canada.
IRCC does not usually challenge or question the PR's declarations. Most PRs accurately declare PR RO related information, allowing for minor mistakes, and IRCC accepts this.
If, however, an officer with IRCC apprehends reason to question the PR's account, for the PR who has been outside Canada more than he or she has been in Canada this is where it can get difficult. And the PR relying on credit for time employed abroad is obviously a PR who was outside Canada at least 60% of the time. In these cases IRCC has reason to be skeptical. And IRCC often will, in such cases, indeed be skeptical.
Leading to this:
Buletruck said:
Unless you have spent extended periods of time outside of Canada in the past 5 years and your business meetings are accumulating more than 6 months a year in the US, it's probably a non issue.. dont forget the travel day from canad and back to Canada count as days in Canada (part days count as days in Canada).
I concur in this observation and I think it is an important one. It is important because it highlights what really is involved: the extent of time spent abroad versus time in Canada. Spending a total of a mere 40% of the time in the country where one actually
lives and primarily works happens rather easily if indeed that is where one
ACTUALLY lives and primarily works. Even if one is sent abroad for two business weeks (outside Canada 10 to 12 days per trip) every month of the year, that would still leave well over 200 days in Canada per year, total of 1000 to 1100 days in five years . . . plenty of margin to spend an additional month abroad each year for personal reasons, and still have over a hundred day margin above the PR Residency Obligation. No need for any credit for the time abroad on business trips.
So when a PR purports to be living and primarily working in Canada, but is short of even the low 730 days in Canada minimum threshold, and thus is seeking credit for time abroad on company business, the PR should anticipate that IRCC will be skeptical and will take a hard, strict look before allowing the credit.
Overall for the OP:
doriangray27 said:
As part of my role, I am required to travel frequently for a couple of weeks at a time. These trips are primarily to have meetings with our clients in other parts of the world, and to share expertise with local teams.
. . . the following clause throws me off: "...confirmation that you are a full-time employee of the “Canadian business” working abroad on a full-time basis as a term of your employment, or that you are on contract working abroad on a full-time basis as a term of your contract;" - primarily because my business trips are short (but numerous).
Short trips: Unlike
Buletruck I doubt there is a problem rooted in getting credit for short trips abroad, even a hundred or more different, short assignments abroad (over the course of five years). I will address this further below, but generally there is no minimum duration for an assignment abroad to qualify. And as far as I can discern, there is no maximum number of assignments for which a PR can obtain credit.
Qualifying business: My guess is that a properly incorporated business employing 20k employees in Canada will readily qualify as a Canadian business for purposes of the credit. (I also address, below, some aspects of this.)
So what's the problem? The problem is we know that IRCC tends to be strict in how it interprets and applies credit for being employed abroad, and as I have alluded, the scenario here raises questions. It may be OK. It really may be OK. There may be no problem. But because short trips abroad, no matter how numerous, does not readily compute being abroad more than seven months of the year every year, there is sort of an ominous cloud of incongruity hanging over this situation.
If the real problem is about the extent of absences apart from time abroad on business trips, how all this will sort out for the OP likely depends on many other factors, including overall immigration history, nature and extent of the absences apart from the business trips, and perhaps the particular details as to the OP's position with the Canadian employer and the nature and purpose of the trips, but with a lot of emphasis on the significance of how the OP got to this place: immigration history and history of absences apart from the business trips.
Relative to the business trips in particular:
Let's be clear about having employment based in Canada but going on business trips abroad to an extent that it will interfere with meeting the PR RO based on time in Canada. There are approximately 240 or so working days in a year. Say the PR's
position IN Canada requires traveling and being abroad three times as much as working in Canada, so the PR is abroad on business trips 180 or so days of the year. A PR can be abroad for an average of 218 days a year and still meet the PR RO based on actual presence in Canada. So a PR could spend 180 days a year abroad on business trips plus spend another month abroad each year for personal reasons
and still meet the minimum 730 days out of five years, in Canada, threshold. No need for the credit for time traveling abroad.
To be frank, 180 days a year abroad on "short business trips" is a lot of time abroad for a position purportedly
IN Canada, and yet even that should
NOT pose a problem meeting the PR RO without the credit. And as
Buletruck observed, the day of departure from Canada and the day of return both count as days in Canada.
In other words, a PR employed in Canada, living in Canada, should have no problem meeting the PR RO even if the PR is sent abroad frequently for short business trips, even if such traveling is the main thing (but not the only thing) the PR does for the employer. A PR in this scenario who has looming concerns about compliance with the PR RO almost certainly has something else going on, and whatever that something else is that is likely to be what is more important if and when the PR's compliance with the PR RO is being determined (be that during a PoE examination upon return to Canada or attendant an application for a new PR card).
Some clarifications are in order:
In many respects my impression is that
Buletruck's observations are accurate in a practical sense, particularly in terms of how these things are likely to turn out in a real case. However, more or less for clarity as to the technicalities, some clarifications are warranted:
Buletruck said:
They don't consider short business trips for meetings, etc as being assigned to a foreign country.
I know of no minimum duration for a qualifying assignment abroad, so I tend to disagree with the view that short trips on company business will not qualify for the credit. On the contrary, if the business itself qualifies as a Canadian business
for purposes of this credit, and the PR is employed full time by the Canadian business, whether the assignment abroad is to attend to matters (meetings or whatever) on the company's behalf for three days, thirty days, or thirty weeks, should make no difference. It should qualify for the credit.
But the thing is, the PR who is sent on
short trips abroad should not need the credit. This leads back to the second paragraph of the
Buletruck post. There is no cause or reason to fill out the part of a PR card application regarding credit for time employed abroad if the PR has spent at least 730 days in Canada within the preceding five years. So the question is what sort of scenario would involve falling short of spending 40% of days in Canada arising from business activities involving merely short trips abroad?
The scenario described by the OP here is bound to invite questions, concerns, further scrutiny, as I have addressed above. The situation appears to be about being abroad for extended periods of time apart from short trips on behalf of a Canadian business.
Buletruck said:
The other issue is the company you work for is a Canadian subsidiary of an American company. To be considered, you need to have been assigned to a foreign office of a Canadian company (wholy Canadian) . . .
As long as the subsidiary of what may be a foreign corporation is properly incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province, and it has
an ongoing operation in Canada, the fact that it is the subsidiary of a parent company which is American or German or Egyptian probably does not matter.
There is no requirement that the corporation be "wholly Canadian" or even that there is any minimum percentage of Canadian ownership. Even if the Canadian business is not incorporated under Canadian law but is an
"enterprise" constituting a business (and meets the qualifying criteria otherwise), the extent of Canadian ownership does not need to be exclusively Canadian as long as a majority of ownership interest is Canadian.
Also note, the employee may be on contract to a totally separate business abroad, thus working for a foreign business entity, so long as that constitutes a full time position to which the PR is
assigned by the Canadian business.
Buletruck said:
To be considered, you need to have been assigned . . . for a specific period of time (I.e.a 2 year contract) and able to return to a job in Canada with the same company.
So far as I am aware, it is not necessary that the assignment be for a period of time prescribed by the calendar so long as it is
temporary and, as you say, the PR will be returning to a position in Canada with the same company. I suppose this can be a bit confusing because IRCC (and previously CIC) has typically considered employment for an indefinite period of time to basically be permanent employment (even though subject to termination), and thus a position abroad for an indefinite duration may tend to be considered permanent not temporary. But this does not mean the time period for the assignment needs to be a specific number of days, or weeks, or months, or years; the duration of many assignments may be subject to various contingencies, such as completion of a particular project (for example, an assignment to assemble, install, and put into operation certain machinery in a location abroad, which may be scheduled for completion within a range of months, with the understanding that when that job is completed the assignment is completed, and the PR will return to his or her position with the company in Canada; another example might be someone assigned to be an on-site engineer for the building of a dam, hotel, or just about any facility), thus temporary even though no precise amount of time is prescribed.
Reminder: It warrants remembering the importance of factors influencing perceptions about who deserves to keep PR status.
There is no requirement that a PR deserve to keep PR status. Only a fool will fail to recognize, however, how much influence this can have in what a decision-maker determines the facts to be and how the rules apply to those facts. In this regard, as is almost always the case, the PR's credibility, or lack thereof, looms large.
