Wife PR expires in 2 months

Hi,

I am Canadian citizen who is presently living in India with my wife.

She got her PR in 2007 and till date she has been in Canada only for 2 months but has stayed with me during all these years.

I believe all the time that she has been with me will count towards her PR requirement.

Her PR is expiring in May 2012 and she is in a dilemma whether to go to Canada and renew it or to let it expire.

1)      If she goes to Canada, she will not be able to stay there for 2-3 months which I believe is the normal PR processing times. She will have to come back to India and go back to Canada to collect her card in person? Am I correct?

2)      If her PR expires and we decide to go to Canada, she will need a travel document. But will she have to apply for PR renewal or start the PR application process from scratch.

 Thanks for your suggestions and help.

PR status does not expire.

PR cards, like passports, do expire.

A PR should be in Canada at the time of applying for a new PR card. Evidence the PR was not in Canada at the time of applying should not be the sole ground for denying the PR card, but, again, the PR should be actually present in Canada at the time of applying.

A PR issued a new PR card must pick the card up in person in Canada. Attendant this, the PR will be required to present certain documents (mostly evidencing identity, but see instructions) plus asked some routine questions; a PR who has been living abroad and basing in-Canada credit on accompanying a citizen partner abroad can expect to be questioned in more detail about this and should be prepared to present documentary evidence to support the claim of having met the residency obligation through accompanying a Canadian citizen partner abroad, including proof of relationship, proof of partner's citizenship, and some proof of living together abroad.

Urgent processing is available for PR's with documented travel plans. However, I suspect that in this circumstance a request for urgent processing is not likely to be processed all that expeditiously, since I believe they are more likely to do at least some level of residency obligation assessment. I do not know this for sure. Just saying that for someone in this circumstance I would not count on the application for the new PR card being processed in less than ten weeks. More likely several months.

Another aspect of the circumstances reported here further suggest, by the way, potential reasons why the residency assessment may be a little more intensive than for the routine case.

She got her PR in 2007 and till date she has been in Canada only for 2 months but has stayed with me during all these years.

In the past I doubt this would have raised much of a flag. The current government, however, seems to be examining more thoroughly those cases where the PR never established a real residence in Canada. I am not at all sure to what extent such PRs are being subjected to more scrutiny, just that one sees it in a number of IAD cases last year. It is my impression that this looms far larger relative to applications for a Travel Document by a PR abroad than it might relative to POE questioning regarding compliance with the residency obligation or CIC assessment of residency attendant processing an application for a new PR card.

The suggestion is that this factor probably deserves a good deal of weight relative to whether or not to return to Canada and remain in Canada sufficiently to obtain a new PR card, rather than allowing the PR card to expire and rely on obtaining a Travel Document for future travel to Canada. There is, it appears, far more scrutiny and more strict applications of the requirements in TD applications than at a POE or in processing PR card applications.

The incongruity underlying such PRs is obvious (the purpose of having PR status being to reside in Canada), even though, as I said, one did not see much evidence that this was much considered prior to the current Conservative government efforts to crack down on the technicalities for maintaining PR status.

I suspect that a bona fide Canadian couple living together abroad, where there are no doubts about their living together, no doubts about the genuineness of the relationship, will have no problem with either an application to renew the PR card or even with an application for a Travel Document when the time comes to travel to Canada. So I do not want to unnecessarily alarm anyone that CIC is going to engage in a draconian parsing or examination of PRs. If, however, there are any circumstances which might cast some doubt as to these elements, there are some hints that the "accompanying" a Canadian citizen part of the law may be examined rather closely, even strictly.

I think my previous post answers most of your questions to the extent they can be answered. Obviously, what you decide to do is really a judgment call, and some of the factors are at-risk factors, so there are not definitive answers for these questions.

Yes, if she obtains a TD to travel to Canada and then applies for a new PR card, there is still a substantial prospect of having to go through a more rigorous examination as to compliance with the PR residency obligation in that process. But, note, she may be subjected to such an examination at any time she attempts to travel to Canada . . . even if she obtains a brand new PR card valid for another five years, upon approaching the POE she is more likely than most PRs to be questioned about compliance with the PR obligation. It is, remember, an ongoing obligation.

In any event, you may want to review, for yourself, the operational manual governing the loss of PR status, ENF-23 (this is a link), and the operational manual governing the PR card ENF 27 (this is link). Also see the regulation that specifically governs the application for a PR card, 56(2), ( link if it works, if not go to www.justice.gc.ca and to the consolidated regulations "Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, again section 56).

You may notice that in the operational manual it basically says that so long as the PR is living together with the Canadian citizen partner, that will satisfy the "accompanying" a Canadian citizen provision for in-Canada credit toward the PR residency obligation.

But, beware, there are some IAD cases which parse the meaning of "accompanying" and have denied TDs to PRs despite evidence of living together with their Canadian citizen partner abroad. This issue is discussed in multiple threads here.

It may be worth your while to read this topic (linked) and perhaps look at some of the cases discussed there. In particular, you may want to look at the Diaz - Diouf - Birfer cases, all linked in that topic, all decided last year, all involving PRs who claimed credit for time living with their Canadian citizen partner, together suggesting a trend toward cracking down on PRs who really do not have residential roots in Canada.

I disagree with PMM, for example, who says that it is essentially a coin toss. I believe, in contrast, that it is really fact-driven, that they are addressing PRs based on specific criteria . . . and it appears that these cases involve two major factual circumstances:

-- the PRs were all "well ensconced in the foreign jurisdiction" (where they were living abroad)

-- there seems to be underlying credibility issues relative to the strength of the evidence of living together

Now, these cases cite the Pasch-Smith case, which goes back a few years, which case specifically parses the "accompanying" term in the provision, which case says it is not enough for the PR to be with the Canadian citizen, but that the PR must be accompanying the Canadian citizen, not the other way around.

The first of these factors seems very much present in your wife's situation. Again, it is my opinion that if you are, as you say, a traditional couple really living together, traveling together when you do travel, and have children together, and so on, I don't think there will be a problem, even in applying for a TD. But I do not know for certain. I am not sure, either, whether those cases from last year are signalling a policy/practice change or not. It is possible.

However, the Pasch-Smith case does not have the credibility issue at stake; the Pasch-Smith case on its face, if applied to your wife's situation, could be trouble.

And, to be frank, your situation raises some other concerns. I do not know your situation hardly at all, and I am definitely not passing any judgment, but I can tell you that the timeline raises some flags. It is, again, my impression that CIC and CBSA were not looking at all closely in these circumstances before the current government, but that they may very well be looking a lot more closely now. What I am pointing to is the fact that your partner never did come to Canada to reside permanently. And that apparently you were living together outside Canada prior to her obtaining PR status. I assume this was and is in her "home" country. If you sponsored her PR, you were in effect representing an intention to live in Canada together. Perhaps you changed your minds (and thus did not engage in any material misrepresentations as to intent to live together in Canada). But, the bottom line, this is not a coin-toss, but rather the circumstances suggest that you have been and continue to be living together in her home country, opening the door to an application of "accompanying" that would not apply.

I feel that it must be emphasized that, again, if as you say you are truly a couple living together, no doubts or questions about the living together aspect, it is my opinion there should be NO problem. But, again, that is merely my opinion and I am no expert, and in particular I am not at all an insider who has any knowledge about how CIC practices or policies may be changing relative to this . . . beyond what can be gleaned from the cases I refer to above. In contrast, to the extent the advisory raised by PMM in the other topic is about a trend by this government to target PRs living abroad with no real in-Canada roots, I agree with PMM that PRs abroad should be aware of and take into consideration the recent decisions parsing the meaning of "accompanying."

yep, lettimg it expire and renewing it when you are ready to come back seems least complicated. Unless you have other reasons...

does any one know who much time does it take for the letter of PR pick up after renewal takes......it says four weeks but just wanted hear about your experiences