Hi All,
My wife is PR (landed on Jan 15, 2015)and her mother is critically ill in India. Situation has arrived where my wife might have to leave canada. If she leaves now and return before her PR card expires i.e Feb 21 she will be able to travel by air but she will be short of 730 days in last 5 years by 75 days when she will return.
Is there any way out where we can reduce the chances of her getting flagged at POE for ro obligation.
I don't know how to avoid this difficult situation but these thoughts are coming to my mind to reduce the risk
1. Should we call cic and ask their permission by explaining the situation.
2. Return by road through usa
3. Come with all medical papers and explain at POE that she has a job here, kids here who are studying here for last 1.5 years
Not sure if any of these will work.please advise
Hi,
If she returns before her card expires, she will be allowed to enter however she may or may not be questioned on the Residency Obligation. It all depends on her luck.
But in case if she is questioned she can always state the reason that she had to travel due to medical emergency with supporting documents from the doctors and the hospital. The intention is to live in Canada permanently which the authorities do take into consideration especially if you have child who may get affected incase if they decide to report your wife at the POE.
Google for enf-23 pdf doc for Residency Obligation
"If the combined total of days is still less than 730 days, the residency obligation may still be met if there are humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the permanent resident, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination, that justify retention of permanent resident status. Refer to A28(2)(c) and section 7.7 below. Note: A28(2)(b) and A31(3) provide that the onus rests with the permanent resident to provide information and evidence to satisfy an officer that the residency obligation has been/will be met. Put simply, this means that the permanent resident bears the full responsibility of demonstrating - with supporting documentation as considered necessary by an officer - that they were physically present in Canada for the required number of days or that they have otherwise met (or will be able to meet) the residency obligation as prescribed in the Act. "
7.7 Humanitarian and compassionate determinations A28 provisions require the consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors before making a determination that may lead to a loss of permanent resident status. Specifically, A28(2)(c) provides that when an officer determines that humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to a permanent resident justify the retention of permanent resident status, then such a determination will overcome any breach of the residency obligation made before the determination. Accordingly, each decision-maker involved in a residency obligation determination case should, as part of the decision-making process, assess any humanitarian and compassionate factors brought to their attention to determine whether such factors justify retention of permanent resident status, notwithstanding a breach of A28. Note: The best interests of a child directly affected by the determination must also be considered when assessing humanitarian and compassionate factors; and as a result, may justify the retention of permanent resident status. Officers should consider whether sufficient humanitarian and compassionate factors have been brought to an officer’s attention to justify the retention of permanent resident status
before making a decision that there has been a failure to comply with the residency obligation. Officers should remember that the onus is on the permanent resident to satisfy an officer that there are grounds to justify retention of status. Officers are not required to satisfy the permanent resident that such grounds do not exist. Officers should consider the objectives of the Act and that paragraph A28(2)(c) exists to allow flexibility for approving deserving cases not anticipated in the legislation. For more information within this section, see: Humanitarian and compassion (H&C) grounds; Unusual and undeserved hardship; Disproportionate hardship; Factors for consideration; Effects of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Baker v. M.C.I. Humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds A28(2)(c) provides the flexibility for allowing the retention of permanent resident status, in deserving cases, under circumstances that were not anticipated in the legislation. A positive decision on retaining permanent resident status, based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, is an exceptional response to a particular set of circumstances. An examination of humanitarian and compassionate factors includes an evaluation of reasons given and supporting evidence of events and circumstances that have occurred in the five-year period immediately preceding an examination. While “intent” is no longer the determinative factor that it was under the previous act, the applicant’s intent can be taken into consideration as an element of humanitarian and compassionate assessment. The permanent resident bears the onus of satisfying the decision-maker that there are compelling H&C factors in their individual circumstances that justify retention of permanent resident status. The permanent resident also bears the onus of explaining why they were not able to comply with the residency obligation and the extent of any hardship that the loss of permanent resident status may cause to the individual or family members who would be directly affected by the decision. The resulting hardship from loss of status may be unusual and undeserved, or disproportionate. The following definitions are not meant as “absolute rules;” rather, they are an attempt to provide guidance to decision-makers when they exercise their discretion in determining whether sufficient H&C considerations exist to justify the retention of permanent resident status. Unusual and undeserved hardship
ENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status
2015-01-23 28
The hardship (of losing permanent resident status) that the permanent resident would face should be, in most cases, unusual. In other words, a hardship not anticipated by the Act; and this hardship should be, in most cases, the result of circumstances beyond the permanent resident’s control. Disproportionate hardship Humanitarian and compassionate grounds may exist in cases that would not meet the “unusual and undeserved” criteria but would be met where the hardship would have a disproportionate impact on the permanent resident due to personal circumstances.
