My spouse is a PR and I am a Canadian citizen, and I'm looking to work abroad in UK/EU. I understand that if my spouse travels with me, the time spent with me will count towards her PR residency requirement. However, if she is working abroad, unless it is for a CAD company/government, it does not. However, the UK allows the spouse of a work visa holder to work as well....so in this case, my spouse would both be travelling with a partner who is a Canadian citizen AND be working for a non-canadian organization....so will that time abroad count towards her PR residency requirement?
Time abroad counting towards PR requirement - Both working for non-CAD organization & travelling w/ a CAD citizen
- Thread starter caduser20230101
- Start date
It may or it may not - so best to assume it won't count. IRCC will sometimes apply the "who followed whom" rule in these circumstances. This means that in order for you to count the time spent outside of Canada towards RO, the primary reason why you are outside of Canada must be due to your Canadian citizen spouse (e.g. your Canadian citizen spouse taking up a job outside of Canada). If IRCC applies the "who followed whom" rule to your situation, then you will not be able to count the time spent outside of Canada towards RO since based on the information you've provided above, your employment will be the primary driver for being outside of Canada.
Long story short, assume you will not be able to count the time spent outside of Canada towards RO. This is the safest assumption to make given the circumstances you've outlined.
In simple terms, if you are the Canadian citizen and you relocate for eg work purposes, there should - in principal - be no issue with spouse claiming to accompany you (if reasonable 'nexus' of travel and residing together). Working separately while you reside together should not be an issue, regardless of the employer.
As noted by @scylla, if the primary reason is the reasons attributed to the PR (and perhaps esp if the PR is returning to home country), it might well be treated differently. [I think the difference in how this was stated is interpretation of who is the citizen and who is accompanying.]
And note - no way to find out in advance if IRCC will agree with how you claim it. If they don't - it's your problem basically. Or really the problem of the PR-spouse.
Sorry - I may have read your post too quickly. If the Canadian citizen is the one taking the job and the PR is the one getting a dependent visa, then I think you should be good. If it's the reverse, then assume you won't be able to count the time.
Fully concur with @armoured observation . . . "In simple terms, if you are the Canadian citizen and you relocate for eg work purposes, there should - in principal - be no issue with spouse claiming to accompany you (if reasonable 'nexus' of travel and residing together). Working separately while you reside together should not be an issue, regardless of the employer."
That essentially covers it.
For a couple living IN Canada who then move abroad (as @armoured aptly phrased it, "relocate"), there is almost NO risk of the credit for accompanying citizen spouse being denied. Indeed, very little risk even if they relocate from Canada to another country regardless why, even if it is a move motivated by the PR's employment abroad.
Some Additional Observations:
As @scylla's observations have suggested, there are cases in which who-accompanied-whom has been an issue, and credit toward RO compliance denied if CBSA/IRCC/IAD have determined the PR was or went abroad and, in effect, was joined abroad by the Canadian citizen spouse. With an isolated exception (in which bias or perception of compromised credibility, or a combination of both, appears to have influenced things), there has been no sign a who-accompanied-whom issue arises for couples who were clearly settled and living together IN Canada before the move abroad (as @armoured here as well aptly phrased it, assuming a "reasonable 'nexus' of travel and residing together") . . . regardless of the reason for the move . . . even if the move was to accommodate the PR's employment abroad.
There is a serious inconsistency underlying who-accompanied-whom cases, noting that an inquiry into why the couple is abroad is contrary to internal procedural guidelines, but that is indeed the nature of the inquiry if-and-when there is an issue about whether the PR was actually accompanying the citizen abroad. That's a complex subject. No need, in the context here, to go there. (This is discussed at length and in-depth here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/who-accompanied-whom-can-matter-for-prs-living-with-citizen-spouse-abroad-update.579860/ )
But, again, if the couple was settled and living together IN Canada before relocating abroad, there is no sign this issue will come up. And, even if it did, in your scenario, where the move abroad is motivated by the citizen's employment, it would not pose any concern. Meaning, there is no reason to worry if your PR spouse is also employed abroad.
Observations Regarding Relocating Outside Canada While Citizenship Application is Pending:
That query was, of course, appropriately asked in the citizenship forum where there are many threads in which leaving Canada for extended periods of time, after applying for citizenship, is discussed in-depth and at-length. Unfortunately those discussions are riddled with less than helpful generalizations and too often disrupted by commentary conflating and confusing how many believe things should work with how things do in fact work.
Please forgive my appending a response here.
The key elements are not complicated:
-- living abroad after applying does NOT have any direct effect on the PR's eligibility for a grant of citizenship; that is, living abroad is NOT disqualifying
-- there are logistical risks, or to be more precise, living abroad tends to increase the logistical risks, missing scheduled events or due dates for requested submissions for example
-- there are procedural risks, including:
-- -- relocating abroad is one factor (among others) that can increase the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing (extent of this risk likely influenced by other RQ risk factors, the underlying strength of the case looming large with consideration of particular factors ranging from the amount of margin over physical presence minimum to extent of ties in Canada versus outside Canada)
-- -- some, but not all applicants abroad, have encountered some non-routine delays and requests to verify return to Canada in order to be scheduled for the oath
-- for applicants encountering extra-long processing, the PR needs to be sure to continue complying with the PR Residency Obligation
-- -- should NOT be an issue for PR accompanying citizen spouse abroad
-- -- can arise due to delays in processing because of situations affecting a large number of applicants, like the impact of covid on tens of thousands of applicants, or delays specific to the individual case, such as full blown RQ cases or where there are security issues taking an extra-long time
Regarding procedural risks, including non-routine processing related to proof of return to Canada as well as RQ-related requests: NOT all applicants are created equal. In fact, it is readily apparent there is wide variation in how being abroad can affect different PRs. The underlying strength of the case is a big factor, perhaps the dominant factor. Some of those who are living abroad after applying encounter NO non-routine processing, sailing through as smoothly as it can go; for others, things do not go so well.
@armoured --
This time taking a semantics detour indeed, in reference to your use of the term "relocate," to express appreciation. Sometimes semantics matter, because sometimes the meaning of terms can make a big difference. Here the use of "relocate" is especially informative, illuminating. That really is a key element in whether or not there is a risk that who-accompanied-whom becomes an issue. For couples who, as you so aptly framed it, "relocate" abroad (from Canada of course), there is almost no risk that who-accompanied-whom becomes an issue (regardless why they make the move, why they relocate abroad). That is, if who-accompanied-whom becomes an issue, then why they are abroad can be a key question and being abroad to accommodate the PR can be problematic . . . but who-accompanied-whom is not much, if hardly at all, likely to be an issue (so far as known cases illuminate) if the couple have relocated abroad after being settled and living in Canada.
Too much emphasis on particular terms can be misleading, and sometimes dangerous. But this one tells the tale. The writer side of me enthusiastically applauds finding the best word, as you have here.