Rolling five years and renewing PR card

[Kattikam]

Yes. Fair. And that is why Canada allows PRs to remain outside Canada for up to three years out of the previous five, PRECISELY TO ACCOMMODATE such circumstances.

If the PR is outside Canada more than that, that constitutes a breach of the PR Residency Obligation. A PR in breach of the PR RO is at risk of being reported during any PoE examination.

It is very, very difficult to forecast the nature or scope of inquiry a returning PR WHO IS IN BREACH OF THE PR RO will encounter upon returning to Canada. In other topics I have enumerated many of the factors which are likely to have some influence.

For an individual who has been a PR for going on eight years and still has not permanently settled in Canada, and whose last absence from Canada is more than a year, especially two years, the risk of a PR RO examination is probably significantly higher than for many others. The risk of being reported is difficult to guess, but there is definitely a significant if not substantial risk.

Yes, H&C grounds may be raised and may persuade the Minister's Delegate to not issue a Removal Order despite the breach in the PR RO, but that is a big gamble.

The sooner the PR returns to Canada the the better the odds of not being reported. But once a PR well past the first five years since landing is in breach of the PR RO, my guess is it is significantly more difficult, more risky. For obvious reasons. The purpose of PR status, after all, is for the individual to settle permanently and live in Canada. The liberal PR RO is not intended to facilitate living in Canada part-time.

Well said.

You have rightly commented that PR is not just for going and coming and partly living.

1. Actually there is no half-hearted effort on our part. It is our genuine desire to get settled in Canada.

2. As mentioned my mother is a widow and I am the only child. My father died in 2008. We became PR in October 2010. We had to go back to look after her even during the first five years. As she aged she had greater needs to be looked after and we had to spend more time during the second span of 5 years. We have to take care also of my wife’s mother.

3. Undoubtedly there was a gross overlooking on my part too. There might not be much excuse for that. We were always very careful in meeting the residency obligations. This time I somehow did not comprehend properly the meaning of rolling period. I thought that the requirement is two years during the span 2010-2015 and further two years in 2011-2020 and had I understood it properly, probably I would have tried to manage at least short yearly visits although they were difficult. It was difficult to visit Canada without resigning from the Job in India since the service did not permit any further ex-India leave. I had already availed the permissible limit of ex-India leave in the first five years. It was necessary to keep the job in order to sustain ourselves here. Ex-India leave was not possible. So I am selling my house and resigning my full-fledged good job just to come to Canada. I believe that indicates my clear intentions of getting settled in Canada eventually.

4. Now that I am selling our property here and resigning my permanent job clearly means that I have serious intention of settling in Canada. Moreover I have worked for a short time in Canada and have also volunteered in different historic houses and art galleries in Canada. Of course I could not get settled in any profession or in the world of art in Canada owing to my dire need of going back to India.

5. I also understand that the officer at the port of entry may question us whether we would be going back to India during the span of landing in Canada in 2018 and 2020 when the validity of our PR card expires and we would have to answer that “yes in case of any medical emergency regarding my mother in India we would have to rush back.” We would have to answer “yes” since we really would rush back. It means that after rushing back to India when we re-enter Canada again the entire process of examination would begin anew.

6. Of course, unwittingly we face the situation of circumstances that perhaps we could have avoided at least to some extent. However, the facts mentioned above indicate the clear intention of getting settled in Canada and contributing meaningfully to the society.

7. It is grotesquely interesting situation. We think that we are working perfectly according to the rule and law that states that we must cover two years in “every five years” and suddenly one fine morning when you wake up you realize that “every five years” is not what you thought it to be. I thought that my planning was perfect as I am still in a position to complete two years stay in Canada during the second span of five years. But we realize a little too late that, after all, it is not.

8. Ultimately you are absolutely true that we cannot be sure whether we are reported or not.