Period of physical presence in Canada
Daisy
Canada, for a returning resident using PR card?
My situation:
When I left Canada, no EXIT stamp was made on my passport Canadian
airport, nor any date of Entry could be stamped on the port of
destination.
That is, immigration officer can not determine from my passport the
date on which I left Canada.
So, what when returning to Canada, and upon asking I declare that I
left Canada just last week or month? what are the risks?
NorthernLigths25
>Subject: Period of physical presence in Canada
>From: dais...@yahoo.com (Daisy)
>Date: 5/11/03 6:43 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
>Message-id: <e178bfca.03051...@posting.google.com>
S B
If CIC suspect that the periods you claim are inaccurate, they will ask
you to prove that you were in Canada ... It's not up to them to prove
you were outside Canada, it's up to you to prove you were there. Some
typical items of proof are signed credit card slips, letters etc.
NorthernLigths25
expert on immigration matters. Your best bet is to talk directly to CIC.
>Subject: Re: Period of physical presence in Canada
>From: S B s_brook...@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca
>Date: 5/11/03 11:03 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3EBE583A...@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca>
Andrew Miller
immigrant who must prove meeting residency obligations. Of course some may
lie to examining officer at the port of entry or in their PR Card or
citizenship application - but such lie will sooner or later be discovered
and bite them and they may end up deported.
--
../..
Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: AndrewMil...@REMOVEcanada.com
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________
"NorthernLigths25" <northern...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030511161548...@mb-m14.aol.com...
NorthernLigths25
>Subject: Re: Period of physical presence in Canada
>From: "Andrew Miller" AndrewMil...@REMOVEcanada.com
>Date: 5/11/03 10:03 PM Atlantic Daylight Time
>Message-id: <XpCva.5912$6q6.7...@news2.telusplanet.net>
Daisy
Indeed, straight path is the best.
Bianca
From my understanding, using the PR card can detect when you leave canada
and entered canada. That's why they create a biometric PR card that can
release all the necessary information about you, including the date of
entry, date of leaving canada and it could sum up all your absences in just
one SWIPE in there database system. I worked before in Singapore and the PR
card now is almost the same as my Employment Pass Card before. Entering and
leaving singapore can release all the necessary information about me in just
one swipe as well. Passport was just used for verification and no stamp was
made on it.
hope this helps.
Richel
"Daisy" <dais...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e178bfca.03051...@posting.google.com...
pkj...@echo-on.net
Richel:
PR Card has no means of in and out tracking.
Jim Metcalfe
Bodza Bodza
> That is, immigration officer can not determine from my passport the
> date on which I left Canada.
> So, what when returning to Canada, and upon asking I declare that I
> left Canada just last week or month? what are the risks?
OK here's the skinny.
If you went to the states then they will be able to find out since you
will be in the INS system and CIC and INS computers have been linked
since 2001.
IF you flew out since about 1995 there is a miniscule chance that they
will be able to find you in the airline records since the federal
government reserves the right to request airline records.
On the way in, however, the CIC agents at the airport have no way to
check unless you came from the states.
So realistically there's a pretty good chance that you would at least
get back in no questions asked. I know this to be true because I know
personally at least one person who has done this (i.e. been outside
for 4 years and on his return he said he had been away only a couple
of weeks). This person however, didn't give a damn whether he lost his
PR or not so it was basically a laugh for him. Now I suspect he would
probably get back in but would not be able to apply for a PR card so
the next time he left after dec 31st of this year he would be screwed.
BUT and this is the big but...
If you subsequently try to apply for either a PR card they will most
likely find something suspicious and investigate further if you have
been away for a long time since almost everyone who is physically in
Canada leaves traces, e.g. bank accounts, credit cards, driving
license renewals, ohip card renewals.
So don't try it unless you've only been away for a short time since
you will probably have problems unless you plan to come back and
never, ever leave again.
NorthernLigths25
>ubject: Re: Period of physical presence in Canada
>From: bod...@hotmail.com (Bodza Bodza)
>Date: 5/14/03 12:54 AM Atlantic Daylight Time
>Message-id: <355bc975.03051...@posting.google.com>
MadRedHatter
> INS and CIC systems are not linked.
>
Daisy
My stay away will be around 7,8 months.
I've been curious just to find if this much time could be gained in
getting earlier enability to apply for citizenship.
But, I think the applicatio of citizenship would also be requiring one
to declare his period of presence/absence in Canada. And false
declarations there are likely to be very consequential.
So, really speaking... now I don't see a need to care whether or not
imm. officer can find about true period of my absence.
Help Needed
I have seen numerous people who have applied for citizenship without
having actually been physically present in Canada for any significant
time. These people land in Canada, open bank accounts (using a friend's
address), get a driver's license, etc. and then leave. After three
years, they return and apply for citizenship.
Is there any way to stop this kind of abuse of the system?
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
S B
There are lots of ways ... but moreover the fundamental abuse is even
before applying for citizenship in attempting to maintain permanent
residence status. A sponsor for citizenship along the lines of the
passport guarantor would go a long way - someone who could swear that
they have had personal contact with person X at least so many times per
year within Canada.
The problem is doing such a thing with low costs.
Rich Wales
Are you talking about people who openly admit that they have spent
most of the last three years outside Canada, but who claim that they
have established sufficient residential ties to Canada despite their
long absence?
Or are you talking about people who lie on their citizenship appli-
cations, claiming that they were in Canada when in fact they weren't?
The former issue will be largely dealt with if and when the govern-
ment's proposed rewrite of the Citizenship Act gets enacted into law.
The new law will, in general, define residence as requiring literal,
physical presence in Canada (in contrast to the current law, which
does not contain a definition of residence).
It should probably be noted, however, that the government has been
trying (unsuccessfully) to get rewritten citizenship legislation
of this sort through Parliament for over four years now. Thus, it's
impossible to say when (or even whether) a new, stricter definition
of "residence" will become law.
If you're talking about fraud, this will probably always be a problem
to some extent, though I believe there are ways to determine if
someone has really spent any significant time in Canada at all, and
if there is any doubt, the applicant can be asked to prove he/she
has been in Canada long enough (the burden of proof is on the
applicant, not on the government). And, of course, someone who
lies on their citizenship application can have their citizenship
revoked if the facts ever come to light -- even years afterwards.
Rich Wales ri...@richw.org http://www.richw.org
*NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
Bodza Bodza
> something like a passport guarantor would go a long way - someone who could
> they have had personal contact with person X at least so many times per
> year within Canada.
>
> The problem is doing such a thing with low costs.
That kind of thing does actually happen, but only when they
investigate.
I have it from a source that if the immigrant has filed tax returns
and the income is verifiably from a Canadian source and paid into a
Canadian bank account then most times the verification stops there.
It is only when unusual details pop up like being outside the country
for months at a time or not filing income taxes for one or more years
that they start checking in more detail.
In my own case they checked me in more detail for two reasons:
My income tax return was late because my accounts were still with my
accountant (I was self employed) and secondly because I apparently had
similar biographical information to a Canadian with a criminal record
so I had to be fingerprinted. I can also attest to the fact that I
received phone calls a couple of times supposedly to check details on
my application form that were "illegible" and to ask how I was paid my
salary. I suspect they were calling to find out if I was actually in
the country or not because I had a couple months outside and something
like 15 weekend visits to the U.S.
At that time it was possible to bullshit that you had been outside
Canada for a few days at a time when in fact you had been away for a
longer period because nobody stamped your passport and the CIC and INS
computers did not share information, nor was there a camera at the
border crossing to photograph your vehicle's plates, so there had to
be a lot of people bullshitting who were actually working in the
states. I think they suspected I was doing the same and that's another
reason why they called me. I sent them some deposit slips proving I
paid my salary into a Canadian bank.
In the end event it took a year and a half to get my citizenship and
that included 2 phone calls from CIC, sending bank deposit slips and
being fingerprinted.
I think from now on in it will be a lot simpler if the new citizenship
act comes into play because it specifically states 3 years of physical
presence out of 6 years of residence. Also, CIC has made maintaining
residence much easier so those who fail to meet the residence
requirements under the newer much more lax IRPA must really have no
interest in living in Canada because the allowances/loopholes are wide
as football fields.
S B
> I think from now on in it will be a lot simpler if the new citizenship
> act comes into play because it specifically states 3 years of physical
> presence out of 6 years of residence. Also, CIC has made maintaining
> residence much easier so those who fail to meet the residence
> requirements under the newer much more lax IRPA must really have no
> interest in living in Canada because the allowances/loopholes are wide
> as football fields.
Which is a disgrace.
Bodza Bodza
> Which is a disgrace.
I respectfully disagree Stuart.
The IRPA is much fairer than the old act.
Under the old act you only had to have "intent" to maintain residence
and it was yours. Under the new act it is physical presence that
counts. The allowances outside are very generous but the rules are
written in stone: If you fail to maintain 2 years out of every five
you lose. Also, it is much fairer that a spouse accompanying a citizen
should maintain residence whilst outside canada. Do you think the old
way was better where after six months the spouse would have to go
through immigration again?
I think the allowances are very generous indeed but they are also
scrupulously fair. You missed my point I think, which is that anyone
who fails to maintain residence under the new laws definitely has no
interest in living in Canada.
NorthernLigths25
>Subject: Re: Period of physical presence in Canada
>From: bod...@hotmail.com (Bodza Bodza)
>Date: 5/21/03 8:34 PM Atlantic Daylight Time
>Message-id: <355bc975.03052...@posting.google.com>
S B
I do agree that the rules themselves are better in removing Intent, but
I believe they are far too generous, as are the proposed citz rules.
First, I believe that the PR rules should be 2 years in 3 or 4. I
believe that they should offer a "delayed entry" option which would
permit one to delay one's landing by up to 2 years on presentation of
updated medical and police info current to within 6 mos of proposed
landing. It's currently a mockery of the medical to be able to land,
and return to somewhere for nearly 3 years
Citizenship should continue to be 3 years in 4 ... maybe 3 years in 5,
but certainly NOT 3 in 6 Either you want to be a citizen or not.
MadRedHatter
> the child stuart is wrong as always.
>
Bodza Bodza
> I do agree that the rules themselves are better in removing Intent, but
> I believe they are far too generous, as are the proposed citz rules.
Again I respectfully disagree.
> First, I believe that the PR rules should be 2 years in 3 or 4. I
> believe that they should offer a "delayed entry" option which would
> permit one to delay one's landing by up to 2 years on presentation of
> updated medical and police info current to within 6 mos of proposed
> landing. It's currently a mockery of the medical to be able to land,
> and return to somewhere for nearly 3 years
The point about the medical is taken, but the extended absence is to
permit for example, the teenage child of a PR to e.g. go to college in
a foreign jurisdiction without losing residence.
> Citizenship should continue to be 3 years in 4 ... maybe 3 years in 5,
> but certainly NOT 3 in 6 Either you want to be a citizen or not.
I agree that either you want to be a citizen or not, but in my own
opinion you should not lose time whatsoever. If you have spent a
significant portion of time in Canada *at any point* then you have
"rubbed shoulders with Canadians".
What does it matter that it's 3 in 4 or 3 in 6?
I'll give you an example:
I have a peculiar pair of friends who are a married couple.
If you talk to them for a couple minutes you would come to the
conclusion that the male friend is English, born and bred and his
female partner is Canadian born and bred.
You would be wrong. He was born in Canada and moved back to the UK
when he was two.
She was born in the UK and moved to Canada when she was two. His
status is not in question but what about hers?
Her parents never obtained Canadian citizenship and neither did she.
But she went to elementary school, junior school and high school in
Canada and has spend her entire life in Canada. Now let's suppose her
parents moved back to the UK and one of them died and one of them
became terminally ill and she had to go to the UK to care for them.
Suppose she was in the UK for four years.
Do you think it is fair that she should lose the ability to come back
to Canada when she wants? Let me put it another way: Is she not *much*
more Canadian than me?
In my opinion one should be able to clock up time towards citizenship
and *never* lose it. Even if this means one month a year in Canada for
thirty years then in my opinion this is enough time to become
Canadianized. 3 out of 4 or 3 out of 6 is arbitrary and stupid.
3 out of 6, however is better than 3 out of 4.
S B
>
> S B <s_brook...@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca> wrote:
>
> > I do agree that the rules themselves are better in removing Intent, but
> > I believe they are far too generous, as are the proposed citz rules.
>
> Again I respectfully disagree.
>
> > First, I believe that the PR rules should be 2 years in 3 or 4. I
> > believe that they should offer a "delayed entry" option which would
> > permit one to delay one's landing by up to 2 years on presentation of
> > updated medical and police info current to within 6 mos of proposed
> > landing. It's currently a mockery of the medical to be able to land,
> > and return to somewhere for nearly 3 years
>
> The point about the medical is taken, but the extended absence is to
> permit for example, the teenage child of a PR to e.g. go to college in
> a foreign jurisdiction without losing residence.
I'll buy that and this is where the old idea of the RRP was of value,
except it was not specific enough. If the student goes to take say a 4
year univ. course outside Canada and then doesn't return, then the
student (who is no longer a child) clearly doesn't intend to make Canada
their home. Departing a country that is your PR home is very risky.
Those risks need to be spelled out. The new scheme is too generous.
> > Citizenship should continue to be 3 years in 4 ... maybe 3 years in 5,
> > but certainly NOT 3 in 6 Either you want to be a citizen or not.
>
> I agree that either you want to be a citizen or not, but in my own
> opinion you should not lose time whatsoever. If you have spent a
> significant portion of time in Canada *at any point* then you have
> "rubbed shoulders with Canadians".
> What does it matter that it's 3 in 4 or 3 in 6?
How about 3 years in 25 then ?
>
> I'll give you an example:
> I have a peculiar pair of friends who are a married couple.
> If you talk to them for a couple minutes you would come to the
> conclusion that the male friend is English, born and bred and his
> female partner is Canadian born and bred.
> You would be wrong. He was born in Canada and moved back to the UK
> when he was two.
> She was born in the UK and moved to Canada when she was two. His
> status is not in question but what about hers?
I am intimately familiar with a very similar scenarios in my own family.
I would agree that for a child the situation should be different,
because until 18-21, the choice is not that of the child.
> Her parents never obtained Canadian citizenship and neither did she.
> But she went to elementary school, junior school and high school in
> Canada and has spend her entire life in Canada. Now let's suppose her
> parents moved back to the UK and one of them died and one of them
> became terminally ill and she had to go to the UK to care for them.
> Suppose she was in the UK for four years.
>
> Do you think it is fair that she should lose the ability to come back
> to Canada when she wants? Let me put it another way: Is she not *much*
> more Canadian than me?
I would suggest that the parents *should* have applied for citizenship
for her.
To cope with this kind of scenario, my reaction is that if a minor has
spent more than say 5 years in Canada after about age 10, then they
should have the right to continued PR at any age and the right to
citizenship after resuming residence in Canada after age 18. Proof of
the resuming residence would be say, 1 year.
> In my opinion one should be able to clock up time towards citizenship
> and *never* lose it. Even if this means one month a year in Canada for
> thirty years then in my opinion this is enough time to become
> Canadianized. 3 out of 4 or 3 out of 6 is arbitrary and stupid.
I disagree here ... 3 years spent in Canada 25 years ago should not
count as reinstated if they return as new PRs. A month a year in 30
years or 3 years 25 years ago shows no intent to be a Canadian PR or
citizen.
The law as it is proposed is ridiculously simplified to the point it
will be abused as the PR laws used to be and are now.
JAJ
>On Thu, 22 May 2003 16:19:02 GMT, S B <s_brook...@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca> wrote:
>Bodza Bodza wrote:
>>
>> S B <s_brook...@not.here.for.spam.att.canada.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > I do agree that the rules themselves are better in removing Intent, but
>> > I believe they are far too generous, as are the proposed citz rules.
>>
>> Again I respectfully disagree.
>>
>> > First, I believe that the PR rules should be 2 years in 3 or 4.
But is there much of a difference between 2 years in 4 and 2 years in
5?
I'm with Bodza on this one. In my opinion it's far better to have a
generous rule with strict limits and clearly defined exemptions, as
opposed to any business about 'intent'
If you cannot meet the 2/5 residence requirement, then it's pretty
clear you have abandoned Canada unless one of the exemptions apply.
I
>> > believe that they should offer a "delayed entry" option which would
>> > permit one to delay one's landing by up to 2 years on presentation of
>> > updated medical and police info current to within 6 mos of proposed
>> > landing. It's currently a mockery of the medical to be able to land,
>> > and return to somewhere for nearly 3 years
To do things any differently would require re-establishment of rules
requiring a lot of interpretation as to whether someone had 'really'
landed.
>
>> > Citizenship should continue to be 3 years in 4 ... maybe 3 years in 5,
>> > but certainly NOT 3 in 6 Either you want to be a citizen or not.
You could consider 2 in 5, like Australia.
Australia additionally demands you have 12 months presence in the 2
years before applying.
>> Her parents never obtained Canadian citizenship and neither did she.
>> But she went to elementary school, junior school and high school in
>> Canada and has spend her entire life in Canada. Now let's suppose her
>> parents moved back to the UK and one of them died and one of them
>> became terminally ill and she had to go to the UK to care for them.
>> Suppose she was in the UK for four years.
>>
>> Do you think it is fair that she should lose the ability to come back
>> to Canada when she wants? Let me put it another way: Is she not *much*
>> more Canadian than me?
>
>I would suggest that the parents *should* have applied for citizenship
>for her.
If you add up the numbers in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, there
must be half a million or more British migrants in these countries who
either refuse to, or can't be bothered to, take citizenship.
As dual nationality is allowed the question has got to be - Why not?
There is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of horror stories of lost PR
coming from these often long time resident British migrants.
>
>To cope with this kind of scenario, my reaction is that if a minor has
>spent more than say 5 years in Canada after about age 10, then they
>should have the right to continued PR at any age and the right to
>citizenship after resuming residence in Canada after age 18. Proof of
>the resuming residence would be say, 1 year.
Australia has a 'former resident' visa that sometimes allows people in
a position like this to re-immigrate.
You need to be, in general:
- under 45
- have spent 9 out of your first 18 years in Australia as a permanent
resident
- have maintained ties with Australia
- meet health and character requirements
>> In my opinion one should be able to clock up time towards citizenship
>> and *never* lose it. Even if this means one month a year in Canada for
>> thirty years then in my opinion this is enough time to become
>> Canadianized. 3 out of 4 or 3 out of 6 is arbitrary and stupid.
>
>I disagree here ... 3 years spent in Canada 25 years ago should not
>count as reinstated if they return as new PRs. A month a year in 30
>years or 3 years 25 years ago shows no intent to be a Canadian PR or
>citizen.
>
>The law as it is proposed is ridiculously simplified to the point it
>will be abused as the PR laws used to be and are now.
Currently there is a 3/4 year citizenship requirement but there is
scope for discretion.
As they are removing the scope for discretion surely they have got to
widen the window to accumulate the 3 years. Otherwise you will get
cases of people resident in Canada who have to travel a lot on
business, for example, never being able to become Canadian citizens.
Jeremy
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
Amir
>I believe they are far too generous, as are the proposed citz rules.
>Citizenship should continue to be 3 years in 4 ... maybe 3 years in
5,
>but certainly NOT 3 in 6 Either you want to be a citizen or not.
Obviously !! Stuart has got Canadian citizenship, so he would like
to tighten the noose for any new comers.
Display of such mentality, particularly from politicians, is one of
the core reasons of unjust distribution of resources in the world.
> > I agree that either you want to be a citizen or not, but in my own
> > opinion you should not lose time whatsoever. If you have spent a
> > significant portion of time in Canada *at any point* then you have
> > "rubbed shoulders with Canadians".
> > What does it matter that it's 3 in 4 or 3 in 6?
>
> How about 3 years in 25 then ?
>
why it should not??
> > In my opinion one should be able to clock up time towards citizenship
> > and *never* lose it. Even if this means one month a year in Canada for
> > thirty years then in my opinion this is enough time to become
> > Canadianized. 3 out of 4 or 3 out of 6 is arbitrary and stupid.
>
> I disagree here ... 3 years spent in Canada 25 years ago should not
> count as reinstated if they return as new PRs. A month a year in 30
> years or 3 years 25 years ago shows no intent to be a Canadian PR or
> citizen.
>
> The law as it is proposed is ridiculously simplified to the point it
> will be abused as the PR laws used to be and are now.
How about the ridiculous nature and simplifcation of immigration laws
under which you applied and got PR ??
I can't understand EXACTLY WHY, a person whose eligibilty for Canadian
PR has been established today, and who keeps fulfilling his other
obligations such as tax returns, etc. should be stripped of his PR
status after certain period of time, no matter how small or large?
And, 'abuse of PR laws' !! how??
Anyone residing/working outside Canada is NOT a burden on Canadian
resouces. Whenever, he choses to return to Canada, he still has to
confront finding of job, settlement etc. from his own means. Any
fraudulant use of Canada's welfare system, of course should be
prevented, and this is a need in its own right that has nothing to do
with PR laws.
As to the need of fresh medicals and police/criminal verification of
returning PRs: why this suggestion for PRs only? why not from
citizens also who have lived outside for significant time?
Bodza Bodza
> I can't understand EXACTLY WHY, a person whose eligibilty for Canadian
> PR has been established today, and who keeps fulfilling his other
> obligations such as tax returns, etc. should be stripped of his PR
> status after certain period of time, no matter how small or large?
I agree. I think the fact that PR can expire is stupid.
If PR can expire, why not Citizenship? The whole idea is stupid.
> And, 'abuse of PR laws' !! how??
I agree.
> Anyone residing/working outside Canada is NOT a burden on Canadian
> resouces. Whenever, he choses to return to Canada, he still has to
> confront finding of job, settlement etc. from his own means. Any
> fraudulant use of Canada's welfare system, of course should be
> prevented, and this is a need in its own right that has nothing to do
> with PR laws.
Exactly. I'm a Citizen and nobody cut me any slack when I returned a few weeks ago.
> As to the need of fresh medicals and police/criminal verification of
> returning PRs: why this suggestion for PRs only? why not from
> citizens also who have lived outside for significant time?
I agree. The only thing is: If a citizen fails the medicals, what then?