The lawyers are technically right that it doesn’t automatically lead to an RO review but if you sponsor your spouse while not meeting RO the agent processing the claim can notice that you haven’t met your RO and initiate the process of RO review. Just because it isn’t automatic doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen or that it is safe. The safest option is to be compliant when sponsoring your spouse. Some agents are more diligent than others but by sponsoring your spouse it dies lead to a review of your file. Some agents will ignore the fact that a person hasn’t met their RO while others won’t. Just like at the border it often comes down to luck.
RO shortfall - when to renew PR
- Thread starter manikmonday
- Start date
Overall, to be clear: applying to sponsor a family member's PR visa application when in breach of the PR Residency Obligation MIGHT trigger a formal Residency Determination potentially leading to inadmissibility proceedings and the loss of PR status.
Assertions to the contrary are NOT credible.
This is important enough to clarify with emphasis.
In addition to numerous anecdotal reports, many of which seem obviously credible, there are examples in confirmed actual cases discussed in officially published Federal Court decisions. Which is to say, there is NO doubt, none, that sometimes some PRs in breach of the RO have been subject to inadmissibility proceedings after making a sponsorship application.
After all, the very first stage of processing sponsored family visa applications is to determine the sponsor has valid PR status. That's in every sponsorship case, FOR SURE . . . IRCC will first determine if the PR applying to sponsor a family member has valid PR status. RO compliance is, at the very least, a relevant factor. To be in breach of the RO is to meet the definition of "inadmissible," and whether the PR is inadmissible is for sure relevant when determining if they have valid PR status and are eligible to sponsor a family member.
However, the extent to which making a sponsorship application while inadmissible (for RO breach) risks Removal proceedings varies widely depending on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual PR's specific situation, with at least two factors looming large:
There is no indication that IRCC approaches the RO question in sponsorship applications in a gotcha-mode. In some ways, as @canuck78 alluded, it is similar to Port-of-Entry screening, many in breach getting a pass; and of course any PR sponsoring while in breach must have, necessarily, already successfully passed a PoE screening without being issued a Removal Order due to their RO breach. The biggest difference is the extent to which the PR's history is documented in the application to sponsor, specifically in the PR's employment and address history which in many cases will reveal the extent of the PR's absence from Canada. For sponsoring a spouse/partner, the additional details provided in regards to documenting the qualifying relationship are likely to further show the extent to which the sponsoring PR has been outside Canada.
If that information more or less spotlights lengthy absences indicating inadmissibility, the risk of RO enforcement action looms large.
In particular, unlike a PR card application or a PR TD application, for which the PR must submit evidence of RO compliance, the sponsor-eligibility determination phase of sponsoring a family member does not necessarily entail a formal Residency Determination (or as @canuck78 frames it, IRCC does not "automatically" examine RO compliance), and thus the PR does not need to include travel history or other evidence supporting RO compliance. (UNLESS asked, it warrants noting; and IRCC can and sometimes does ask.)
As noted, it is somewhat more like a PoE screening, in which the PR who appears to have valid PR status will generally be waived through without examination as to RO compliance UNLESS the screening official is aware of facts or circumstances indicating the PR is inadmissible. At the PoE, however, PRs do not generally present their work and address history for the previous five years . . . again, unless asked. But as many discover, even when they present a valid PR card at the PoE, they can indeed be asked about their travel history, work and address history, and other RO/RQ related questions.
PRs sponsoring family members, however, MUST present work and address history. No advanced degrees in rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of inquiry if the PR has very little work or address history IN Canada.
I differ a bit from how @canuck78 characterizes things:
I would guess that once the PR becomes well settled in Canada, the risk of triggering Removal proceedings for a breach of the RO, by making a sponsorship application, begins to go down by a lot. IRCC is not into gotcha-games. If it is apparent the PR is following through with what they represented to be their intent, and with the purpose for which they were granted PR status, that is, if it is apparent the PR has come to establish a PERMANENT residence, permanent in-fact residence in Canada, all sorts of indicators suggest IRCC does not strictly enforce the PR RO.
The conventional wisdom . . . essentially, play it safe:
The conventional wisdom in this forum, to NOT proceed with making family sponsored applications UNLESS the PR is in RO compliance is soundly based on avoiding the risk of triggering a 44(1) Report. The only guaranteed NO-RO-enforcement-problem is to be in RO compliance when making the application.
However, as I and some others have noted, and here too there are scores of confirming anecdotal reports, for some the risk may be relatively low and for some a risk worth taking. Basically, the smaller the breach and longer the PR has been back in Canada, and is demonstrably settled in Canada now, the lower the risk. As already noted, there is no indication that IRCC approaches this in a gotcha-mode. In contrast, if the information in the application overtly indicates the sponsor is likely to be inadmissible, IRCC officials are more or less obligated to further examine and evaluate the PR's status, including RO compliance.
To the extent "the right thing" is about approaching the decision-making, whether to proceed with a sponsorship application despite the risk of triggering inadmissibility proceedings for a breach of the RO, with careful deliberation considering personal factors, yeah, that is the prudent approach. The risk a sponsorship application might trigger RO enforcement action is very much dependent on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual case. For some in breach, the risk can be quite low. For others, fairly high risk. A lot in-between, where a range of pros and cons particular to the individual suggests different choices for different PRs. No one rule fits all.
What the lawyers say:
Hard to imagine going three for three in lawyers who appear to be so poorly informed as to categorically state that a family sponsorship application does not trigger a Residency Determination, at least NOT in the sense that a sponsorship application for sure will not trigger a Residency Determination.
But I doubt that's what three lawyers out of three said. How well what they did say has been paraphrased here, how close or far off from what they meant, I dare not guess.
There is no doubt, as we know it happens, that making a sponsorship application when in breach of the RO (that is when inadmissible) CAN lead to inadmissibility proceedings, potentially resulting in being issued a Removal Order.
Assertions to the contrary are NOT credible.
This is important enough to clarify with emphasis.
In addition to numerous anecdotal reports, many of which seem obviously credible, there are examples in confirmed actual cases discussed in officially published Federal Court decisions. Which is to say, there is NO doubt, none, that sometimes some PRs in breach of the RO have been subject to inadmissibility proceedings after making a sponsorship application.
After all, the very first stage of processing sponsored family visa applications is to determine the sponsor has valid PR status. That's in every sponsorship case, FOR SURE . . . IRCC will first determine if the PR applying to sponsor a family member has valid PR status. RO compliance is, at the very least, a relevant factor. To be in breach of the RO is to meet the definition of "inadmissible," and whether the PR is inadmissible is for sure relevant when determining if they have valid PR status and are eligible to sponsor a family member.
However, the extent to which making a sponsorship application while inadmissible (for RO breach) risks Removal proceedings varies widely depending on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual PR's specific situation, with at least two factors looming large:
-- extent of breach, and
-- extent to which the PR is (and appears) to be well settled IN Canada.
There is no indication that IRCC approaches the RO question in sponsorship applications in a gotcha-mode. In some ways, as @canuck78 alluded, it is similar to Port-of-Entry screening, many in breach getting a pass; and of course any PR sponsoring while in breach must have, necessarily, already successfully passed a PoE screening without being issued a Removal Order due to their RO breach. The biggest difference is the extent to which the PR's history is documented in the application to sponsor, specifically in the PR's employment and address history which in many cases will reveal the extent of the PR's absence from Canada. For sponsoring a spouse/partner, the additional details provided in regards to documenting the qualifying relationship are likely to further show the extent to which the sponsoring PR has been outside Canada.
If that information more or less spotlights lengthy absences indicating inadmissibility, the risk of RO enforcement action looms large.
In particular, unlike a PR card application or a PR TD application, for which the PR must submit evidence of RO compliance, the sponsor-eligibility determination phase of sponsoring a family member does not necessarily entail a formal Residency Determination (or as @canuck78 frames it, IRCC does not "automatically" examine RO compliance), and thus the PR does not need to include travel history or other evidence supporting RO compliance. (UNLESS asked, it warrants noting; and IRCC can and sometimes does ask.)
As noted, it is somewhat more like a PoE screening, in which the PR who appears to have valid PR status will generally be waived through without examination as to RO compliance UNLESS the screening official is aware of facts or circumstances indicating the PR is inadmissible. At the PoE, however, PRs do not generally present their work and address history for the previous five years . . . again, unless asked. But as many discover, even when they present a valid PR card at the PoE, they can indeed be asked about their travel history, work and address history, and other RO/RQ related questions.
PRs sponsoring family members, however, MUST present work and address history. No advanced degrees in rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of inquiry if the PR has very little work or address history IN Canada.
I differ a bit from how @canuck78 characterizes things:
OK, sure, it can come down to "luck," but that's not what usually tips the scales. Chance, or luck, can make the difference in which way things go, BUT mostly it is about the particular facts and circumstances in the individual situation. The PR arriving on a flight from abroad after an absence from Canada for nearly five years, or even after being abroad much longer than three years, who has until then not yet established a home in Canada, is at much higher risk than a PR who has established a home in Toronto, been working in Ontario for months, who risks taking a brief road trip to the U.S. despite still being in breach of the RO. The latter PR probably has a very low risk despite the breach if the PR is driving their own private vehicle licensed in Ontario. There are innumerably variable scenarios in-between, ranging from those situations in which the risk is at least quite low, to those scenarios in which the PR is more or less relying on "luck," for whom one can only say "good luck with that."
I would guess that once the PR becomes well settled in Canada, the risk of triggering Removal proceedings for a breach of the RO, by making a sponsorship application, begins to go down by a lot. IRCC is not into gotcha-games. If it is apparent the PR is following through with what they represented to be their intent, and with the purpose for which they were granted PR status, that is, if it is apparent the PR has come to establish a PERMANENT residence, permanent in-fact residence in Canada, all sorts of indicators suggest IRCC does not strictly enforce the PR RO.
The conventional wisdom . . . essentially, play it safe:
The conventional wisdom in this forum, to NOT proceed with making family sponsored applications UNLESS the PR is in RO compliance is soundly based on avoiding the risk of triggering a 44(1) Report. The only guaranteed NO-RO-enforcement-problem is to be in RO compliance when making the application.
However, as I and some others have noted, and here too there are scores of confirming anecdotal reports, for some the risk may be relatively low and for some a risk worth taking. Basically, the smaller the breach and longer the PR has been back in Canada, and is demonstrably settled in Canada now, the lower the risk. As already noted, there is no indication that IRCC approaches this in a gotcha-mode. In contrast, if the information in the application overtly indicates the sponsor is likely to be inadmissible, IRCC officials are more or less obligated to further examine and evaluate the PR's status, including RO compliance.
I will not offer judgment about whether @manikmonday "did the right thing" by proceeding with a family sponsorship application despite being in breach of the Residency Obligation but will suggest it is NOT wise to trust a source who makes such judgments without having had the opportunity to fully review and assess ALL the individual's relevant circumstances.
To the extent "the right thing" is about approaching the decision-making, whether to proceed with a sponsorship application despite the risk of triggering inadmissibility proceedings for a breach of the RO, with careful deliberation considering personal factors, yeah, that is the prudent approach. The risk a sponsorship application might trigger RO enforcement action is very much dependent on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual case. For some in breach, the risk can be quite low. For others, fairly high risk. A lot in-between, where a range of pros and cons particular to the individual suggests different choices for different PRs. No one rule fits all.
What the lawyers say:
Hard to imagine going three for three in lawyers who appear to be so poorly informed as to categorically state that a family sponsorship application does not trigger a Residency Determination, at least NOT in the sense that a sponsorship application for sure will not trigger a Residency Determination.
But I doubt that's what three lawyers out of three said. How well what they did say has been paraphrased here, how close or far off from what they meant, I dare not guess.
There is no doubt, as we know it happens, that making a sponsorship application when in breach of the RO (that is when inadmissible) CAN lead to inadmissibility proceedings, potentially resulting in being issued a Removal Order.
Hello guys, I need your help.
I have received photo request again on dated 26 December 2023, and same was forwarded to the concerned office very next day to Sydney,NS via courier, received on 3rd January 2024. Today, its 25th of January 2024, I have not received any response from them. Please do confirm how long would it take as I need to travel next month.
I have received photo request again on dated 26 December 2023, and same was forwarded to the concerned office very next day to Sydney,NS via courier, received on 3rd January 2024. Today, its 25th of January 2024, I have not received any response from them. Please do confirm how long would it take as I need to travel next month.
Continuing the same thread as it has some details for context. We are planning to buy a home in AB province, but my PR card has expired. My spouse has valid PR card but is not working at this moment. The mortgage team said its no problem with them or with the banks as well but not sure if the lawyers would see this as a problem during their paperwork. (Also trying to get inputs from Realtor's lawyers to see if this can pose any problems).
Would anyone have any idea if expired PR card on one of the applicants can cause concern in any steps during the home buying process, especially because there were restrictions put in place to deter foreigners from buying homes in Canada a couple of years back.
I do not intend to apply for PR renewal until 2 more months when I will be back in RO compliance.
Thanks
You have a COPR. You have a SIN. You have a copy of the expired card (I presume). That's enough to demonstrate you are a PR.
As far as I am aware and have seen, lenders can ask for any documentation they like to decide if they want to underwrite a home loan / mortgage and it is within their remit to refuse your application if you cannot supply the documents they ask for (such as a valid PR card). However, it looks like your particular lender/bank is satisfied with the evidence you have.
As for the actual legal change of title (I assume this is what you are referring to by legal paperwork), I am unsure how compliance with SOR/2022-250 is enforced, and this may be different from province to province.
But you should have your own legal representative through your realtor or independently, and they should be able to provide you with a definitive answer.
Please report back here so others can benefit from the information.
I applied for PR renewal in Sept 23 under H&C as my days were short to met RO. Got my Par card today in the mail with a 5 year expiry. So to all those who have not met RO if you have a genuine reason with documents to proove, they look at it compassionately. Don't loose hope.
How many days were you short of your RO. And did you stay in Canada after you applied for renewal? What is your H&C reason? Medical?
Also you/someone who used your account became a citizen. Would a spouse/family being Canadian count towards proof of your intend to settle?
a little more information may help others.
It would be nice to get some more information about your case for reference. Like How many days you were short? What were the H&C reasons you provided?
Father's medical reason.. yes my spouse became a citizen last year..Yes it definitely helps..shows intent that family wants to settle on Canada.