Since there have seemingly been many posts from PRs who are not in compliance about the ability to return, wonder what the level of risk is perceived as for a PR who has been approved for PRTD to immediately apply for PR renewal upon returning? Whether for someone who was out of compliance or had the potential to be determined out of compliance (e.g., accompanying a citizen spouse for extended period).
Risk of PR Renewal after approval of PRTD
- Thread starter Tubsmagee
- Start date
Depends on what kind of PRTD was approved and if they are in compliance with RO at the time they apply to renew their PR card.
If the PRTD was approved with H&C considerations, the person can apply to renew their PR card as soon as they return to Canada.
If it was a regular (non-H&C) PRTD, then that individual needs to make sure they meet the residency obligation at the time they submit the application to renew their PR card. The PRTD doesn't guaranteed the PR card application will be renewed.
Yeah, if I am posting, it is going to go long . . . the long read . . . 3 posts in fact . . .
@scylla covered what was asked quite well.
Some observations going beyond the scope of the question . . . including, in particular, addressing the nature and effect of the decision to issue a PR Travel Document . . . along with some collateral aspects . . . again, the long read:
The underlying mechanics of the decision-making may help illuminate the difference between
Caution re PR TDs not coded RC-1: While in recent months the anecdotal reports have slowed considerably, for the past couple or so years we saw numerous cases where PRs were issued a regular PR TD, not a PR TD coded RC-1, despite the PR being in RO breach and presenting H&C factors in their TD application. To some extent these are more or less ("de facto" some might say) H&C based decisions. BUT THEY ARE NOT FORMAL DETERMINATIONS ALLOWING H&C relief. They are more like being waived through a Port-of-Entry, a type of "informal," or again "de facto," H&C relief. I do not know why IRCC visa offices were doing this, or to what extent they may or may not still be doing this. But if the PR TD is not coded RC-1, it does not indicate a formal H&C determination (adjudication), even if given the circumstances there had to be, in effect, a type of H&C relief.
Effect of RC-1 coded PR TD: The distinction regarding those PRs issued a PR Travel Document based on H&C considerations (PR TD coded RC-1) is that EVEN though they are not in compliance with the Residency Obligation based on credit for days in Canada (or alternative credit, that is credit for days as referenced in questions 5.2, 5.3, or 5.4, in the current PR TD application, and likewise in the current PR card application, such as the accompanying citizen spouse credit), the positive H&C determination in processing the PR TD application is recognized as a formal decision the PR should be allowed to retain PR status DESPITE the BREACH of the RO. So, despite not being in RO compliance, there is little risk applying for a PR card AFTER the PR has arrived and is STAYING in Canada, because it has already been determined they are entitled to H&C relief for their absence, for not returning to Canada sooner.
It is NOT entirely risk free. But assuming the PR has timely traveled to Canada after being issued the PR TD, and is in fact IN Canada, and living IN Canada, there should be near zero risk a PR card application would lead to the initiation of a 44(1) Report procedure. This is specifically about the PR TD decision, one including a positive H&C determination, being given credit in processing a PR card application. (Again, this is not applicable unless the TD is coded RC-1.)
But as hammered hard and often in this forum, for good reason, whenever there is a transaction with CBSA or IRCC that triggers a RO compliance examination, the assessment of RO compliance is based on the facts as of that date, the date of the examination. So to the extent the factual situation has changed since the PR TD was granted, a subsequent RO compliance examination will depend on the facts as of the operative date for that examination. Thus, for example, if there has been a significant change in circumstances, that is a significant change in the facts, a subsequent RO compliance determination may differ significantly from a prior RO compliance determination. Even a prior H&C determination.
So, if circumstances or facts have substantially changed since the PR TD was granted, not only a PR card application, but also a PoE examination or an application to sponsor a family member, can trigger a new RO compliance assessment based on the facts as of the operative date for that examination. Different facts can lead to different results.
That said, past facts do not change. So to the extent it has already been formally adjudicated that the PR is allowed relief based on H&C considerations, for a past absence, the PR is entitled to that relief for the past absence.
This brings up the potential influence of absences AFTER a H&C PR TD was granted, that is, absences possibly constituting a substantial change in circumstances. Lengthy absences can change the calculation, alter the balance between days in Canada versus days outside Canada. Thus, for example, additional extended/lengthy absences, or a pattern of absences indicating PR's "home" remains abroad, may be sufficient to constitute a "material change in circumstances," and thus can be a reason why either CBSA (in a PoE examination) or IRCC (in processing a PR card application) determines there is a RO breach despite an earlier favourable H&C decision.
Thus, I typically add a caveat to the view it is safe to apply for a PR card after returning to Canada pursuant to a PR TD coded RC-1, suggesting that it is better to wait to make the PR card application AFTER coming to Canada to STAY and establishing an in-fact personal residence in Canada. This is mostly to avoid, hopefully, non-routine processing which could cause a long delay in getting a new PR card, but it is also a kind of insurance, improving the odds, basic risk-avoidance.
Otherwise, that is other than having, more or less in hand a formal decision allowing H&C relief, the SAFE approach, oft reiterated as the conventional wisdom here, is to WAIT to apply ONLY when the PR is confident they are in RO compliance.
Effect of PR TD based on days in Canada credit (including alternative credits, like accompanying-citizen-spouse credit):
A positive PR TD decision based on credits for days in Canada, is based on a calculation as of the date of the PR TD application, so that alone cannot show the PR is still in RO compliance as of a later date when a PR card application is made. That said, unless there is a lengthy continued absence after applying for the PR TD, before the PR actually returns to Canada, just as a matter of fact it is quite likely the PR is either still in RO compliance or is close enough there is little risk in making a PR card application.
Which is to say that a recent positive RO compliance decision (based on credit for days meeting RO), in processing a PR TD application, should USUALLY mean the PR who subsequently is IN Canada is in a favourable, minimal risk position to soon proceed with a PR card application. Based on the facts. Not because there was a positive PR TD decision, but because the facts which supported that decision will (unless there is a lengthy absence in the meantime) also support a positive PR card decision.
There are some wrinkles in this, nonetheless, which could use some ironing . . . so . . .
@scylla covered what was asked quite well.
Some observations going beyond the scope of the question . . . including, in particular, addressing the nature and effect of the decision to issue a PR Travel Document . . . along with some collateral aspects . . . again, the long read:
The underlying mechanics of the decision-making may help illuminate the difference between
-- why a PR TD based on H&C considerations means it is safe (generally) to make a PR card application, despite spending less than 730 days in Canada within the previous five years
-- whereas if otherwise issued a PR TD enabling their return to Canada, a PR should NOT make a PR card application UNLESS/UNTIL they are in compliance with the RO
Caution re PR TDs not coded RC-1: While in recent months the anecdotal reports have slowed considerably, for the past couple or so years we saw numerous cases where PRs were issued a regular PR TD, not a PR TD coded RC-1, despite the PR being in RO breach and presenting H&C factors in their TD application. To some extent these are more or less ("de facto" some might say) H&C based decisions. BUT THEY ARE NOT FORMAL DETERMINATIONS ALLOWING H&C relief. They are more like being waived through a Port-of-Entry, a type of "informal," or again "de facto," H&C relief. I do not know why IRCC visa offices were doing this, or to what extent they may or may not still be doing this. But if the PR TD is not coded RC-1, it does not indicate a formal H&C determination (adjudication), even if given the circumstances there had to be, in effect, a type of H&C relief.
Effect of RC-1 coded PR TD: The distinction regarding those PRs issued a PR Travel Document based on H&C considerations (PR TD coded RC-1) is that EVEN though they are not in compliance with the Residency Obligation based on credit for days in Canada (or alternative credit, that is credit for days as referenced in questions 5.2, 5.3, or 5.4, in the current PR TD application, and likewise in the current PR card application, such as the accompanying citizen spouse credit), the positive H&C determination in processing the PR TD application is recognized as a formal decision the PR should be allowed to retain PR status DESPITE the BREACH of the RO. So, despite not being in RO compliance, there is little risk applying for a PR card AFTER the PR has arrived and is STAYING in Canada, because it has already been determined they are entitled to H&C relief for their absence, for not returning to Canada sooner.
It is NOT entirely risk free. But assuming the PR has timely traveled to Canada after being issued the PR TD, and is in fact IN Canada, and living IN Canada, there should be near zero risk a PR card application would lead to the initiation of a 44(1) Report procedure. This is specifically about the PR TD decision, one including a positive H&C determination, being given credit in processing a PR card application. (Again, this is not applicable unless the TD is coded RC-1.)
But as hammered hard and often in this forum, for good reason, whenever there is a transaction with CBSA or IRCC that triggers a RO compliance examination, the assessment of RO compliance is based on the facts as of that date, the date of the examination. So to the extent the factual situation has changed since the PR TD was granted, a subsequent RO compliance examination will depend on the facts as of the operative date for that examination. Thus, for example, if there has been a significant change in circumstances, that is a significant change in the facts, a subsequent RO compliance determination may differ significantly from a prior RO compliance determination. Even a prior H&C determination.
So, if circumstances or facts have substantially changed since the PR TD was granted, not only a PR card application, but also a PoE examination or an application to sponsor a family member, can trigger a new RO compliance assessment based on the facts as of the operative date for that examination. Different facts can lead to different results.
That said, past facts do not change. So to the extent it has already been formally adjudicated that the PR is allowed relief based on H&C considerations, for a past absence, the PR is entitled to that relief for the past absence.
This brings up the potential influence of absences AFTER a H&C PR TD was granted, that is, absences possibly constituting a substantial change in circumstances. Lengthy absences can change the calculation, alter the balance between days in Canada versus days outside Canada. Thus, for example, additional extended/lengthy absences, or a pattern of absences indicating PR's "home" remains abroad, may be sufficient to constitute a "material change in circumstances," and thus can be a reason why either CBSA (in a PoE examination) or IRCC (in processing a PR card application) determines there is a RO breach despite an earlier favourable H&C decision.
Thus, I typically add a caveat to the view it is safe to apply for a PR card after returning to Canada pursuant to a PR TD coded RC-1, suggesting that it is better to wait to make the PR card application AFTER coming to Canada to STAY and establishing an in-fact personal residence in Canada. This is mostly to avoid, hopefully, non-routine processing which could cause a long delay in getting a new PR card, but it is also a kind of insurance, improving the odds, basic risk-avoidance.
Note: a formal decision allowing H&C relief can result from a PoE examination as well as a PR TD application, where a 44(1) Report was prepared but then the Minister's Delegate set it aside, allowing H&C relief . . . this is not a mere "waive through," but where the more formal procedure attendant a 44(1) Report is done at the PoE . . . the difficulty is that a PR might not be certain whether they were waived through or allowed entry based on a formal MD's decision, since where the MD makes a favourable H&C decision the PR might not be specifically informed there was a 44(1) Report prepared and adjudicated. But if the PR is certain the formal procedure was followed, they too would be safe to apply for a PR card soon after settling back in Canada, just like the PR issued a PR TD coded RC-1.
Otherwise, that is other than having, more or less in hand a formal decision allowing H&C relief, the SAFE approach, oft reiterated as the conventional wisdom here, is to WAIT to apply ONLY when the PR is confident they are in RO compliance.
Effect of PR TD based on days in Canada credit (including alternative credits, like accompanying-citizen-spouse credit):
A positive PR TD decision based on credits for days in Canada, is based on a calculation as of the date of the PR TD application, so that alone cannot show the PR is still in RO compliance as of a later date when a PR card application is made. That said, unless there is a lengthy continued absence after applying for the PR TD, before the PR actually returns to Canada, just as a matter of fact it is quite likely the PR is either still in RO compliance or is close enough there is little risk in making a PR card application.
Which is to say that a recent positive RO compliance decision (based on credit for days meeting RO), in processing a PR TD application, should USUALLY mean the PR who subsequently is IN Canada is in a favourable, minimal risk position to soon proceed with a PR card application. Based on the facts. Not because there was a positive PR TD decision, but because the facts which supported that decision will (unless there is a lengthy absence in the meantime) also support a positive PR card decision.
There are some wrinkles in this, nonetheless, which could use some ironing . . . so . . .
PART II; PR TD decisions Versus PR card decisions Not Involving H&C Consideration (with some repetition, sorry):
As noted above, other than having a formal decision allowing H&C relief, the SAFE approach, oft reiterated as the conventional wisdom here, is to WAIT to apply ONLY when the PR is confident they are in RO compliance. This is true whether a PR returned to Canada using a PR TD, or still had a valid PR card when returning to Canada, or the PR traveled via the U.S. and was waived through the Port-of-Entry. Once in Canada, the SAFE approach for a PR is to not engage in any further transactions with CBSA (which means STAY put in Canada) or IRCC, UNTIL/UNLESS the PR is in RO compliance.
This is the SAFE approach. It is not necessary for some. That's a wrinkle to be ironed.
(Note that there is NO problem or question for most PRs, those who are well within RO compliance, without doubt, who can simply proceed to apply for a new PR card anytime, currently up to nine months prior to the date their PR card expires.)
Only applying when for sure in RO compliance is the safe approach even if the PR has been granted a PR TD based on days in Canada credit (including alternative credits, like accompanying-citizen-spouse credit).
In particular, a positive PR TD decision based on credits for days in Canada, is based on a calculation as of the date of the PR TD application, so that alone cannot show the PR is still in RO compliance as of a later date when a PR card application is made.
That said, a positive PR TD decision nonetheless is meaningful. Unless there is a lengthy continued absence after applying for the PR TD, before the PR actually returns to Canada, just as a matter of fact it is quite likely the PR is either still in RO compliance or is close enough there is little risk in making a PR card application.
Which is to say that a recent positive RO compliance decision (again, based on credit for days meeting RO), in processing a PR TD application, should USUALLY mean the PR who subsequently is IN Canada is in a favourable, minimal risk position to soon proceed with a PR card application. This is based on the facts. Not because there was a positive PR TD decision, but because the facts which supported that decision will (unless there is a lengthy absence in the meantime) also support a positive PR card decision.
Which brings this to the "close enough" scenarios and situations in which it is not necessarily "necessary" to take the SAFE approach. I have discussed this in some depth before. Generally this is a nuance, a "wrinkle," hardly worth much attention because the SAFE approach is simple and easy, risk-free, and probably results in being actually delivered a new PR card as soon if not sooner despite the time waiting to make the application. I bring it up again NOT to suggest, let alone encourage anyone to rush making a PR card application based on being "close enough," but because it is obvious many PRs do rush it, do apply before they have stayed long enough to be in RO compliance. So I bring it up to address how things work when they do.
And this in turn brings this to . . . a Sidebar re PR card application procedure:
So, for example, if the PR is close enough to being in RO compliance when they make a PR card application that by the time there is a formal RO examination they meet the RO (based on credit for days in Canada after applying for the PR card), they will be OK. Again, I am not suggesting doing this. The safe approach is, well, the safe approach.
However, and this is probably the crux of why I have addressed this at such length, there is little indication that IRCC will proceed with the 44(1) Report procedure, in the course of processing a PR card application, when the PR is relatively close to being in RO compliance AND is IN Canada, staying in Canada, even though the PR is still short months after making the PR card application. Removal Orders emerging from the processing of PR card applications are NOT common (adjudications resulting in loss of PR status for a RO breach are mostly PR TD application denials, and otherwise 44(1) Report cases arising from PoE examinations), and while I cannot say I have reviewed most IAD decisions, I have reviewed enough to readily identify and infer, in conjunction with anecdotal reports about how it goes, that these cases, where IRCC takes action to terminate status while processing a PR card application, mostly happen in the following scenarios:
In particular, the PR who is readily perceived to have finally settled in Canada, here to stay, and is not way, way short of the RO, is more likely to see the PR card application bogged down in long-term non-routine processing rather than be subject to the 44(1) Report procedure leading to loss of PR status.
It is important to emphasize, again, this is NOT to suggest a PR rely on this. If a PR is in RO breach, there is a risk of being Reported and losing PR status. That is not a risk worth taking, at least not for most, most of the time, especially since there is nothing much to be gained since it is likely non-routine processing will delay getting a PR card anyway.
But it does bring this back around to the PR who is granted a PR TD . . . again, just based on the facts which supported the positive decision resulting in issuing the PR TD (EXCEPT, as cautioned earlier, PRs issued a PR TD even though they were in breach but without getting a RC-1 coded TD) . . . such a PR is probably OK if they proceeded to apply for a PR card once back in Canada and is settled in, just based on the same facts. STILL, better to be sure to be in RO compliance, to wait if needed to be sure, but for those who rushed it, no need to panic, odds are still very good it will be OK.
This does not address the extent to which a PR TD decision based on alternative credits, such as credit for time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, means that such credit is more or less in the bank, that for example in processing the PR card application IRCC will not (or perhaps even cannot) reconsider whether the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit is allowed.
As noted above, other than having a formal decision allowing H&C relief, the SAFE approach, oft reiterated as the conventional wisdom here, is to WAIT to apply ONLY when the PR is confident they are in RO compliance. This is true whether a PR returned to Canada using a PR TD, or still had a valid PR card when returning to Canada, or the PR traveled via the U.S. and was waived through the Port-of-Entry. Once in Canada, the SAFE approach for a PR is to not engage in any further transactions with CBSA (which means STAY put in Canada) or IRCC, UNTIL/UNLESS the PR is in RO compliance.
This is the SAFE approach. It is not necessary for some. That's a wrinkle to be ironed.
(Note that there is NO problem or question for most PRs, those who are well within RO compliance, without doubt, who can simply proceed to apply for a new PR card anytime, currently up to nine months prior to the date their PR card expires.)
Only applying when for sure in RO compliance is the safe approach even if the PR has been granted a PR TD based on days in Canada credit (including alternative credits, like accompanying-citizen-spouse credit).
In particular, a positive PR TD decision based on credits for days in Canada, is based on a calculation as of the date of the PR TD application, so that alone cannot show the PR is still in RO compliance as of a later date when a PR card application is made.
That said, a positive PR TD decision nonetheless is meaningful. Unless there is a lengthy continued absence after applying for the PR TD, before the PR actually returns to Canada, just as a matter of fact it is quite likely the PR is either still in RO compliance or is close enough there is little risk in making a PR card application.
Which is to say that a recent positive RO compliance decision (again, based on credit for days meeting RO), in processing a PR TD application, should USUALLY mean the PR who subsequently is IN Canada is in a favourable, minimal risk position to soon proceed with a PR card application. This is based on the facts. Not because there was a positive PR TD decision, but because the facts which supported that decision will (unless there is a lengthy absence in the meantime) also support a positive PR card decision.
Which brings this to the "close enough" scenarios and situations in which it is not necessarily "necessary" to take the SAFE approach. I have discussed this in some depth before. Generally this is a nuance, a "wrinkle," hardly worth much attention because the SAFE approach is simple and easy, risk-free, and probably results in being actually delivered a new PR card as soon if not sooner despite the time waiting to make the application. I bring it up again NOT to suggest, let alone encourage anyone to rush making a PR card application based on being "close enough," but because it is obvious many PRs do rush it, do apply before they have stayed long enough to be in RO compliance. So I bring it up to address how things work when they do.
And this in turn brings this to . . . a Sidebar re PR card application procedure:
PR card applications (with rare exceptions) are NOT denied based on a breach of the PR RO.
Rather, if in processing the PR card application it is ascertained that the PR is probably in breach of the RO, there is then a formal RO examination and determination, and if in doing that IRCC concludes the PR is in breach, as of the date of that examination, a 44(1) Report is prepared, reviewed by a Minister's Delegate, and if the Report is valid in law, absent H&C relief a Removal Order is issued. This terminates PR status unless an appeal is timely made.
It is important to remember that for PR card applications the operative date, the date which the RO assessment is based on, is only initially the date the PR card application was made; as long as the PR remains in Canada, days in Canada continue to count, so even if the PR was not in compliance as of the date of the application, if additional credit is due for days in Canada after applying, and those are sufficient to meet the RO by the date there is a formal RO compliance examination, IRCC cannot (not appropriately) prepare a 44(1) Report or issue a Removal Order for a RO breach (the previous breach, the breach as of the date the PRC application was made, has been cured by staying long enough, in the meantime, to be in RO compliance).
This works going the other way as well, if a PR was in RO compliance on the date the PR card application is made but then leaves Canada, and IRCC later conducts a formal RO compliance examination, even though technically the PR is entitled to be issued a new PR card as long as they were, in fact as determined, in compliance with the RO as of the date of the application, if by the time of the formal RO compliance examination the PR is in breach IRCC can prepare a 44(1) Report and issue a Removal Order . . . indeed, even if the PR is actually delivered a newly issued PR card, such as during an in-person pick-up, but in an interview it is determined that as of that date the PR is in breach, IRCC can proceed with a 44(1) Report and Removal Order.
So, for example, if the PR is close enough to being in RO compliance when they make a PR card application that by the time there is a formal RO examination they meet the RO (based on credit for days in Canada after applying for the PR card), they will be OK. Again, I am not suggesting doing this. The safe approach is, well, the safe approach.
However, and this is probably the crux of why I have addressed this at such length, there is little indication that IRCC will proceed with the 44(1) Report procedure, in the course of processing a PR card application, when the PR is relatively close to being in RO compliance AND is IN Canada, staying in Canada, even though the PR is still short months after making the PR card application. Removal Orders emerging from the processing of PR card applications are NOT common (adjudications resulting in loss of PR status for a RO breach are mostly PR TD application denials, and otherwise 44(1) Report cases arising from PoE examinations), and while I cannot say I have reviewed most IAD decisions, I have reviewed enough to readily identify and infer, in conjunction with anecdotal reports about how it goes, that these cases, where IRCC takes action to terminate status while processing a PR card application, mostly happen in the following scenarios:
-- PRs way, way in breach of the RO (such as more than a year short)
-- PRs in substantial breach who have also left Canada after applying for the PR card
-- PRs in breach and suspected of misrepresentation (IRCC picking the low hanging fruit to deem the PR inadmissible, fact of RO breach, rather than going after the more difficult to prove misrepresentation case), or
-- PRs in breach and otherwise suspected of abusing the system
In particular, the PR who is readily perceived to have finally settled in Canada, here to stay, and is not way, way short of the RO, is more likely to see the PR card application bogged down in long-term non-routine processing rather than be subject to the 44(1) Report procedure leading to loss of PR status.
It is important to emphasize, again, this is NOT to suggest a PR rely on this. If a PR is in RO breach, there is a risk of being Reported and losing PR status. That is not a risk worth taking, at least not for most, most of the time, especially since there is nothing much to be gained since it is likely non-routine processing will delay getting a PR card anyway.
But it does bring this back around to the PR who is granted a PR TD . . . again, just based on the facts which supported the positive decision resulting in issuing the PR TD (EXCEPT, as cautioned earlier, PRs issued a PR TD even though they were in breach but without getting a RC-1 coded TD) . . . such a PR is probably OK if they proceeded to apply for a PR card once back in Canada and is settled in, just based on the same facts. STILL, better to be sure to be in RO compliance, to wait if needed to be sure, but for those who rushed it, no need to panic, odds are still very good it will be OK.
This does not address the extent to which a PR TD decision based on alternative credits, such as credit for time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, means that such credit is more or less in the bank, that for example in processing the PR card application IRCC will not (or perhaps even cannot) reconsider whether the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit is allowed.
Alternative Credit, Such As Credit For Time Abroad Accompanying Canadian Citizen Spouse:
As noted, the previous discussion does not address the extent to which a PR TD decision based on alternative credit, such as credit for time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, means that such credit is more or less in the bank, that for example in processing the PR card application IRCC will not (or perhaps even cannot) reconsider whether the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit is allowed. I do not know. In contrast to seeing many references to the weight of a formal H&C decision in subsequent RO examinations, saying the positive H&C decision at the least carries a lot of weight, I have not seen any IAD or Federal Court discussion about the weight (if any) that IRCC should give to underlying facts supporting the decision made in processing a PR TD.
I doubt such factual determinations made in processing the PR TD application carry much if any weight of that kind, a kind of res judicata (the "thing" is "decided") effect. But the decision made by a visa office does represent how an IRCC official sees the facts, those facts in that particular case, so that's at least a good indication of how another IRCC official is going to see those same facts. Moreover, the visa office scrutiny in processing a PR application is generally the most thorough and strict RO examination (remember, a PR abroad without a valid PR card is presumed to not have PR status), so if the circumstances passed who-accompanied-whom screening in processing the TD application, those circumstances should easily suffice for a PR card application (by a PR IN Canada).
MOREOVER, I have not seen any cases where, in processing a PR card application, a 44(1) Report has been prepared based on denying accompanying-citizen-spouse credit following a PR TD that was based on allowing such credit. In fact, I cannot recall seeing any cases where, in processing a PR card application, a 44(1) Report has been prepared based on denying accompanying-citizen-spouse credit.
As already noted, even proceeding with the process to terminate PR status for a PR IN Canada during the processing of a PR card application is NOT common, even when the PR is in breach of the RO (noting the relatively severe situations in which IRCC does proceed to terminate PR status, as I outlined in the previous post).
It also warrants noting, that a very high percentage (nearly all I believe) of the IAD decisions in cases involving a who-accompanied-whom issue derive from the denial of a PR TD application. And, as best I can recall, I am not sure that there is more than an isolated one or four who-accompanied-whom cases deriving from a PoE 44(1) Report (and the only one I can somewhat clearly recall involved a Report and Removal Order where the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit was not addressed, but rather came up in the IAD appeal and that was where who-accompanied-whom was considered and credit, as best I can recall, was denied; so that issue itself did not arise in the PoE examination and decision-making).
Which is to suggest there may NOT be much risk of a who-accompanied-whom parsing of RO credit in the processing of a PR card application, at all, for a PR who has returned to and is living in Canada. But for the PR who has already gotten such credit in a PR TD application, there is no indication of any risk at all that IRCC would reach a contrary conclusion in processing a PR card application (unless the applicant failed to provide the underlying information and supporting documentation).
AN OVERRIDING OBSERVATION:
I couched most of the discussions above about processing a PR card application in situations where the context is a PR who applied while IN Canada and who is continuing to STAY in Canada (allowing for some occasional, brief travel abroad).
A lot of PRs do not continue to live in Canada after applying for a PR card. That has long been something which tends to trigger non-routine processing and elevated scrutiny. Being outside Canada while the PR card application is in process can significantly alter the dynamics of the decision-making process, introducing additional and widely variable risk factors.
My sense, my suspicion, is that this is a factor which could have a bigger, negative influence going forward. I am not sure. I might very well be wrong. But that's what I smell in the wind.
As noted, the previous discussion does not address the extent to which a PR TD decision based on alternative credit, such as credit for time abroad accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, means that such credit is more or less in the bank, that for example in processing the PR card application IRCC will not (or perhaps even cannot) reconsider whether the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit is allowed. I do not know. In contrast to seeing many references to the weight of a formal H&C decision in subsequent RO examinations, saying the positive H&C decision at the least carries a lot of weight, I have not seen any IAD or Federal Court discussion about the weight (if any) that IRCC should give to underlying facts supporting the decision made in processing a PR TD.
I doubt such factual determinations made in processing the PR TD application carry much if any weight of that kind, a kind of res judicata (the "thing" is "decided") effect. But the decision made by a visa office does represent how an IRCC official sees the facts, those facts in that particular case, so that's at least a good indication of how another IRCC official is going to see those same facts. Moreover, the visa office scrutiny in processing a PR application is generally the most thorough and strict RO examination (remember, a PR abroad without a valid PR card is presumed to not have PR status), so if the circumstances passed who-accompanied-whom screening in processing the TD application, those circumstances should easily suffice for a PR card application (by a PR IN Canada).
MOREOVER, I have not seen any cases where, in processing a PR card application, a 44(1) Report has been prepared based on denying accompanying-citizen-spouse credit following a PR TD that was based on allowing such credit. In fact, I cannot recall seeing any cases where, in processing a PR card application, a 44(1) Report has been prepared based on denying accompanying-citizen-spouse credit.
As already noted, even proceeding with the process to terminate PR status for a PR IN Canada during the processing of a PR card application is NOT common, even when the PR is in breach of the RO (noting the relatively severe situations in which IRCC does proceed to terminate PR status, as I outlined in the previous post).
It also warrants noting, that a very high percentage (nearly all I believe) of the IAD decisions in cases involving a who-accompanied-whom issue derive from the denial of a PR TD application. And, as best I can recall, I am not sure that there is more than an isolated one or four who-accompanied-whom cases deriving from a PoE 44(1) Report (and the only one I can somewhat clearly recall involved a Report and Removal Order where the accompanying-citizen-spouse credit was not addressed, but rather came up in the IAD appeal and that was where who-accompanied-whom was considered and credit, as best I can recall, was denied; so that issue itself did not arise in the PoE examination and decision-making).
Which is to suggest there may NOT be much risk of a who-accompanied-whom parsing of RO credit in the processing of a PR card application, at all, for a PR who has returned to and is living in Canada. But for the PR who has already gotten such credit in a PR TD application, there is no indication of any risk at all that IRCC would reach a contrary conclusion in processing a PR card application (unless the applicant failed to provide the underlying information and supporting documentation).
AN OVERRIDING OBSERVATION:
I couched most of the discussions above about processing a PR card application in situations where the context is a PR who applied while IN Canada and who is continuing to STAY in Canada (allowing for some occasional, brief travel abroad).
A lot of PRs do not continue to live in Canada after applying for a PR card. That has long been something which tends to trigger non-routine processing and elevated scrutiny. Being outside Canada while the PR card application is in process can significantly alter the dynamics of the decision-making process, introducing additional and widely variable risk factors.
My sense, my suspicion, is that this is a factor which could have a bigger, negative influence going forward. I am not sure. I might very well be wrong. But that's what I smell in the wind.