Husband meets number of days req., wife doesn't

There are a number of things to consider in making these kinds of decisions and way too many factors to fully assess the options in a forum like this.

From the surface of things, the decision to wait seems wise, and indeed is probably the only sensible approach.

Since you indicate that this coming absence will be for two years, there should be no problem with maintaining PR status, but to be clear, be aware that the PR residency obligation is a continuing one and has NOTHING to do with the date your PR cards are valid for.

Thus, just to be clear, if you leave Canada and do not return until July 15, 2014 as of that day, the day you are returning, compliance with the PR residency requirement will be based on whether or not you have been present in Canada at least 730 days between July 15, 2009 and July 15, 2014 (it is a little more complicated than that if you did not become a PR until after July 15, 2009) regardless of the date to which your current PR card is valid.

Regarding this:

pergunta:

When we get back to Canada in 2014, we'll complete the 2 years of residence in 5 that are necessary to keep PR. Should we then renew the PR to maintain it until we're eligible to apply for citizenship?

Short answer: yes, you will want to renew your PR cards in 2014.

Bottom-line here is that if you are outside Canada for more than 365 days, as a practical matter the soonest you will want to apply for citizenship is three years from the date of your return (and more if there are absences in the meantime). So if you return in 2014, the soonest you will want to apply for citizenship will be after that same date in 2017, and even if the timeline for processing applications is much improved, it will be well into 2018 before you would get citizenship, so yes, you almost undoubtedly want to renew your PR cards in 2014.

Overall I agree with the essence of what canuck25 previously posted.

However, I am quite sure that the qualified applicant for citizenship who proves compliance with the residency requirement is entitled to a grant of citizenship, not merely eligible. The Citizenship Act states that "The Minister SHALL grant citizenship to [those who meet the requirements set out in section 5(1)]" There is no discretion in this, the qualified applicant must be granted citizenship.

That said, actually proving residence can be a bit of a hurdle for many applicants, but the applicant who can prove they resided in Canada and were actually present 1095 days, thereby meets the residency requirement and if otherwise qualified must be granted citizenship ("must be" equals "is entitled" to the grant).

I also disagree with canuck25 regarding this:

If you decide to also apply at the same time I think you will be wasting your time because again - you must be physically present in the country for 1095 days in the 4 years preceding the date of your application. If you don't accumulate at least that many days your application will be flat out rejected, which will cause further scrutiny if you decide to reapply in the future.

I agree that your application is likely to get rejected, and it would thus be a waste of time. That would probably invite further scrutiny in the future but this is not particularly problematic and, after all, working and residing abroad after becoming a PR in Canada will, alone, invite at least that level of scrutiny.

The part I disagree with is the "must" be present for 1095 days part.

That is NOT the law.

In general there is a very substantial risk of being rejected for an applicant who applies and was not actually, physically present in the country for at least 1095 days in the relevant time period. The Citizenship Judge has discretion to apply what is called the actual, physical presence test and if that is the test the CJ applies, yes, an applicant short of 1095 days will be rejected. Not all CJs apply this test. I am not sure if many or even any always apply this test (my impression is that there are some who will presumptively apply this test but not always). CJs are not supposed to apply a hybrid of the physical presence test and the qualitative test, but in practice it appears that for applicants who are short of the 1095 day threshold, for physical presence, even the tougher CJs assess whether or not the applicant deserves to be given citizenship (whether in their view they should be given citizenship), and then decides whether or not to make a decision strictly based on the physical presence test or to consider the qualitative evidence of residence.

In any event, applicants are eligible for citizenship even though they have not been physically present for 1095 days and the question then is whether, despite the extent of their absences, they were resident-in-Canada for at least three years in the four preceding the date of application. At minimum, such applicants must show that their life was centralized in Canada, a quite high burden for anyone who was physically outside Canada for more than a fourth of the time and near impossible burden for someone with continuing ties abroad such as through employment abroad.

Thus, I do not think this changes the analysis of your situation. By working abroad, you clearly have continuing ties abroad, so falling short of the 1095 physical presence test threshold would almost certainly preclude being granted citizenship. This is why I agree in essence with the post by canuck25 despite my differences on the more or less technical points.

Important Note:

I would say that the probability of changes to the residency requirement in the Citizenship Act between now and 2017 are very high. You will want to keep yourselves informed about this.

Additionally, while no overt clues are emerging from behind the Minister's firmly closed doors, it would be no surprise to see some changes to the PR residency obligation either. This has not been hinted at . . . mostly the hints and overt acts have been toward far more strictly enforcing existing law and regulation . . . but this government functions almost entirely behind closed doors until the time comes that they must be public, and there are plenty of hints of more draconian measures to come from this government.