Canada Immigration and Visa Discussion Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Canada Immigration Topics > Preserving Permanent Residence Status
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Citizen Citizen accompanying PR  (730 rule..?)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Citizen Citizen accompanying PR (730 rule..?)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
pzb View Drop Down
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pzb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Citizen Citizen accompanying PR (730 rule..?)
    Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by matthewc matthewc wrote:

Like you said, the regulations are, like the processing manuals, updated from time to time. My understanding of how it works is that updates to the regulations are simply made by publishing them in the Canada Gazette. If you look through the current version there are references under certain paragraphs to the Statutory Orders and Regulations (SOR) under which an update was made, e.g. R(4) "Bad faith" was updated most recently in SOR/2004-167, which is available in the Canada Gazette here.


The regulations are updated from time to time, but is not without notice.  For example, there was an announcement this week, in Part I of the Gazette, that the government is proposing to update R(4).  (http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2010/2010-04-03/html/reg1-eng.html#k101)  It was signed by the clerk of the Privy Council and opened a 30 day period for comments.  When the changes actually come into effect, they will be published in Part II.  Ministerial Instructions, as provided for in C-50, are also published the Gazette, but I am not sure if they are subject to the comment period.

On the other hand, all the operational guides (including Operational Manuals, Operational Bulletins, and Operational Memorandums) are not law, rather they are guidance on implementing the law (IRPA and IRPR).  Almost all of them have an opening section that references the applicable sections of the Act and Regulations and cite the appropriate sections throughout the text.   CIC updates these guides fairly often (evidence suggests they issue a new memorandum or bulletin at least once a week).  Unfortunately CIC does not publish the memorandums on their public website at all and they only publish some of the bulletins and manuals.  This leaves the public guessing as to what the CIC and CBSA officers are using for current guidance.  Unhappy
Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Apr 2010 at 4:54pm
Well, Robsluv has long been adamant that they do not much follow their own rules or regs or guidelines even at CIC.

It is curious that the IAD decisions make so little reference to sources other than the IRPA itself. One rarely sees, in most contexts, a reference to the regulations even, and even more rarely a reference to an operational manual. It almost seems like the panel is making its decisions off the top of their heads, based primarily on their own understanding of things. Not exactly what a jurist likes to see.

Frankly, though, it is my impression that it is primarily those who really push the limits whose cases go so far. Like Smith (no Canadian ties whatsoever for more than two decades). Like in the Li case even (he had never really established a residence in Canada at all, and his spouse primarily lived in Canada, so even counting her time with him he barely met the 730 days).

It has been nearly two decades since I was a trial lawyer (nightmare life that was), but as one, it was nice if all the technicalities were in favor of your case, but what you really preferred was a case in which the equities weighed heavily in your favor -- it was better to have a case the person (or persons) making the decision would WANT to rule in favor of than it was to have a technically good case (unless the technicalities were overwhelming, undisputably in one's favor -- which is rarely the case, since such cases usually do not go to court in the first place).

Most of these cases involve people the officials involved do not want to rule in favor of, so they naturally go out of their way to interpret the facts and the law against them.

But, yeah, some people do get caught on the horns of a technical dilemma running into a less than lenient, not at all flexible, official/bureaucrat making decisions that will profoundly affect their lives.

Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
matthewc View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton, ON
Status: Offline
Points: 273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote matthewc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 10:50pm
Thanks, that's interesting.

Like you said, the regulations are, like the processing manuals, updated from time to time. My understanding of how it works is that updates to the regulations are simply made by publishing them in the Canada Gazette. If you look through the current version there are references under certain paragraphs to the Statutory Orders and Regulations (SOR) under which an update was made, e.g. R(4) "Bad faith" was updated most recently in SOR/2004-167, which is available in the Canada Gazette here.

In the post above I linked to the original version of the IRPA regulations, which includes that definition of "Accompanying". It doesn't seem to have been changed since. I also thought that, perhaps, the definition had been clarified by a change in the regulations in recent years, but that doesn't seem to actually be the case, so I'm really at a loss to explain the lack of reference to that regulation in those various appeal decisions.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, by the way.
e-CAS Tracker - Get notified when your e-CAS changes
Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 9:59pm
I suspected, but could not confirm, that this arises in amendments to the regulations . . . like the operational manuals as well, the regs are essentially a work in progress ironing out the details of applying the respective statutory provisions (which, likewise, are often in the process of being revised), and all this is post the adoption of IRPA in 2002.

I see the language you refer to . . . but I am not sure it was in fact adopted that way then. The Gazette is displaying information regarding "proposed" regulations including commentary on their intent, as well as alternatives. So I am not sure when the precise provision was actually implemented.

I tried to research the dates the regulations actually were adopted (trying to confirm my suspicion since I too noticed the lack of reference). I can do this in U.S. law fairly competently but since I am an American lawyer, not a Canadian one, with three decades of experience researching U.S. law (which is what I still do professionally, as a contributing editor/author to various encylopedic law publications in the U.S.), I have not conquered the ways and means of researching Canadian law yet. Moreover, through my publisher in the States I have broad access to extensive databases of U.S. law with powerful search functions (it would cost a fortune if I had to pay for the service) whereas I have nothing of that sort for Canadian law -- here I have the same as anyone else.

In trying to unravel the history a bit, though, I did come across some of the proposed language leading up to the thorough revision of immigration law which was the IRPA (taking effect in 2002), and it is actually fairly interesting to see to what extent there were so-called different schools of jurisprudence and, aligned along lines reacting to those, hard fought differences . . . the battle over implementing a strict physical presence test for citizenship, for example (which I was led to by an important federal case handed down late last year, CIC v Takla at
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2009/2009fc1120/2009fc1120.html
which goes into some detail regarding the history and various schools of jurisprudence relative to the "residency" requirement (now pretty settled by the criteria set forth in Koo re a "centralized residence").

I tend to take an academic interest in some of these questions.

It should be noted that my exposure to Canadian law has revealed a different take on using and applying precedent compared to what I am familiar with in U.S. law . . . one that might be worrisome relative to some of these extreme cases and a tortured interpretation of law like that in Smith, but . . . well, again, I think that to the extent there were different results in the field in the period 2002 to 2009, relative to this issue, I'd bet there is very little if any doubt about the applicable standard now. There is nothing in any of the CIC web-based informational materials that would even hint to the contrary, but plenty that overtly supports the "ordinarily residing with . . . " approach.

Edited by dpenabill - 02 Apr 2010 at 10:07pm
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
matthewc View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton, ON
Status: Offline
Points: 273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote matthewc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 9:31pm
Somehow I missed R61(4) - I know you posted it above - and have to agree that does seem to settle it.

Maybe you can explain something I simply don't understand, then - why do none of those cases refer to R61(4) then, at all, not once, since it appears the definition was there in the original (2002) version of the regulations?


Edited by matthewc - 02 Apr 2010 at 9:31pm
e-CAS Tracker - Get notified when your e-CAS changes
Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 8:33pm
I disagree that a PR living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse is running the risk of having to take their case to appeal to preserve PR status based on an interpretation of A28(2) that turns on who went abroad first or why. No, there is no indication of that, and the applicable OPs make it clear.

Moreover, as I have quoted before, a specific Regulation R61(4) now governs this, defining accompanying in terms of "ordinarily residing with . . ." There is nothing ambiguous about this. To any extent the change in law in June 2002 was subject to the interpretation cited in Smith, the regulation and operational manuals now clearly clarify the proper interpretation.

And, again, Smith was as extreme a fact pattern as could be manufactured, two decades gone before even meeting the Canadian citizen.

Quote Unless specific guidance is issued to visa offices on this . . .

And again, specific guidance has been provided. That is what the Operational Manual is for (it is not for our benefit; we are merely given access to it due to transparency rules). That is why the regulation was adopted.

Remember, this is applying (and interpreting) law which only came into effect June 2002, and which it has taken years to unravel, to interpret. Under the law prior to June, 2002 all these cases would have clearly resulted in the loss of PR status, almost without question. And sure, many if not most visa officers were in the field under the prior law and no doubt lean toward finding grounds to refuse a TD or revoke PR status to persons who have had very minimal ties to Canada for many, many years. And one can expect them to continue to at least scrutinize any such case with great intensity, looking for a basis upon which to refuse the TD or revoke PR. But that is only in the extreme cases, in the sort of cases for which the officer will dig to find any grounds, and sure anyone who pushes the envelope to such an extreme (like having no contacts with Canada whatsoever for more than two decades, like Smith) is risking having their affairs examined under the microscope before being allowed back into Canada as a PR.

But anyone with significant ties to Canada is not risking having a visa officer challenge their PR on the basis of a technical interpretation of "accompanying" in the manner of the Smith decision.

Again, in contrast I am quite certain of this. The law may have of been a little bit fuzzy through 2004, even until 2006 or a little more recently in rare circumstances (Li for example), but it is not now.

100% certain? Nothing in the application of law is ever that certain. Things do, sometimes, go bump in the night -- or, in a tortured version of the old saying, "stuff happens."

But this issue is pretty well settled.




Edited by dpenabill - 02 Apr 2010 at 8:35pm
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
matthewc View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton, ON
Status: Offline
Points: 273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote matthewc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 6:36pm
Oh, also I asked PMM and he said it was an IAD decision he was referring to before.
e-CAS Tracker - Get notified when your e-CAS changes
Back to Top
matthewc View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton, ON
Status: Offline
Points: 273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote matthewc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 6:35pm
Well in terms of precedent:

Abraham - 2005
Ahmed - 2006
Smith - 2007
Li - 2009

Maybe that's just one bad decision. I, personally, think the definition of accompanying in this context should be "residing with", without a doubt.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, I'm genuinely unsure the current state of the law is 100% certain, since the law is only as good as how it is interpreted, and this has clearly been interpreted both ways.

What is clear is that some visa officers have refused TD applications based on this. Unless specific guidance is issued to visa offices on this, it's certainly possible officers may refuse travel documents again on the same grounds. So, even if you are confident the three IAD decisions I quoted first are sufficient that you'll be able to win on appeal, you are still running the risk of having to take your case to appeal to preserve your PR status if you rely on this interpretation of "accompanying".
e-CAS Tracker - Get notified when your e-CAS changes
Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 6:09pm
The Smith case is clearly overruled by the later cases (in so far as IAD decisions establish precedent). In particular, the meaning of "accompanying" this IAD panel relied upon was the "to go with" language the later (more recent) decisions disavow.

It can't be the case pmm alluded to because it is not a federal court decision, but an IAD decision.

I have not researched relevant cases decided by the Federal Court on this issue -- since, to my mind there really is no issue, the rules, regs, and law look to be very clear on this, at least as of now . . . and that is, that "accompanying" is a matter of being with (residing with), not, as this IAD panel ruled, a matter of "to go with."

But, as I had suggested earlier above, that is that any such case was likely to involve significantly more than the technical question turning on the definition of accompanying; and indeed, this Smith case involves an extensive array of factors weighing heavily against the person claiming PR status. As lawyers often say, "bad facts make bad decisions," and this looks like a perfect example of that. After all, this was not a case involving a PR who went abroad and was later followed abroad by their partner, but a case involving someone who went abroad, evidenced a firm intent to permanently reside abroad, and indeed stayed abroad for more than two decades PRIOR to even meeting her subsequent Canadian partner.

In other words, it was almost overwhelmingly obvious that she had had virtually NO ties to Canada for over two decades (and that is before she even met the Canadian who became her common-law partner and later her spouse), neither geographically nor by relational affinity. Moreover, she had definitively indicated an intention to permanently reside outside Canada, and had done so at a time when Canadian immigration law provided for the loss of PR status by doing so (but since her PR status had never been formally adjudicated, by the time this came up in 2004 she was entitled to the benefit of the current law which specifically provides that a PR retains PR status until a decision otherwise has been formally adjudicated).

The period of absence from Canada, for one, is more than remarkable, well over three decades. The lack of any ties whatsoever to Canada for at least two thirds of that time is remarkable. The obtaining of permanent resident status in another country during that time was remarkable (and again, this was done at a time when doing so was specifically a grounds upon which her PR status in Canada could have been revoked).

I am quite confident (well, actually, my opinion is quite certain) the current state of the law is not the least bit ambiguous or in doubt. I don't think it matters who went abroad first, or why. I don't think anyone has to worry about "accompanying" being parsed in that sense.

The "accompanying" issues are:
-- "who" (whether the partner is a citizen or not, or in the the exception for accompanying a PR, whether one or the other was working for a Canadian company or not),
-- and "whether or not residing together."
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
matthewc View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton, ON
Status: Offline
Points: 273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote matthewc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 12:49pm
For completeness, here is one appeal decision that clearly conflicts with the three cases I quoted above, and dpenabill's reading of the processing manual. This may be the case PMM was referring to, I'm not sure. Thanks to toby over at canadavisa.com for finding this.

Smith vs. Canada

"[28] Where the panel does not accept counsel’s argument is around the phrase “outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen”.  Subparagraph 28(2)(a)(ii) requires that a permanent resident accompany a Canadian citizen outside Canada.  The panel is of the view that the common-law relationship in this case involved a Canadian citizen accompanying a permanent resident outside Canada, not vice versa."

It's worth reading the full case. The appeal was approved, on H&C grounds, despite the panel upholding the refusal as valid in law, based on the narrower interpretation of "accompanying".

So I think the take home message is that there is conflicting case law on this, even at the appeals level, and it may not be entirely safe to rely on 28(2)(a)(ii) in a situation where the primary reason for the couple being outside Canada is the Permanent Resident. The decisions I quoted go the other way, so I guess you have to ask yourself "how lucky do I feel?"

In the end, it's always best to preserve PR status by being in Canada!
e-CAS Tracker - Get notified when your e-CAS changes
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down