2 out of 5 for residency
Jun 12th 2002, 1:06 pm
#1
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14
2 out of 5 for residency
Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the residency requirement?
I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
Jun 12th 2002, 4:20 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2 out of 5 for residency
It is not about the future - it is about the past. Residency is calculated back from
the day of re-entry to Canada.
This is what IRPA says about demonstrating at the time of examination (for example
during re-entry) meeting residency requirements by permanent residents:
(i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident;
(ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have
met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
before the examination;
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the residency
> requirement?
>
> I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
>
> However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
>
>
>
> --
> VM
>
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
the day of re-entry to Canada.
This is what IRPA says about demonstrating at the time of examination (for example
during re-entry) meeting residency requirements by permanent residents:
(i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident;
(ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have
met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
before the examination;
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the residency
> requirement?
>
> I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
>
> However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
>
>
>
> --
> VM
>
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 13th 2002, 4:20 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2 out of 5 for residency
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the residency
> requirement?
>
> I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
>
> However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
There is no assessment of the likelihood of your ability to meet this required, only
of whether or not you have met it to date. If you leave now and come back in one
month, you would be clearly within the allowable duration of absence.
________
CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
[email protected] http://canadavisa.com
Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community
> Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the residency
> requirement?
>
> I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
>
> However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
There is no assessment of the likelihood of your ability to meet this required, only
of whether or not you have met it to date. If you leave now and come back in one
month, you would be clearly within the allowable duration of absence.
________
CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
[email protected] http://canadavisa.com
Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community
Jun 13th 2002, 4:20 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2 out of 5 for residency
Please look into IRPA (not the Regulations) - it clearly says that permanent resident
should demonstrate at examination the following:
(i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident;
(ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have
met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
before the examination;
So, the (i) above seems to me without a doubt like "assessment of the likelihood of
ability to meet residency requirements"...
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > residency requirement?
> >
> > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> >
> > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> > the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> > future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
>
> There is no assessment of the likelihood of your ability to meet this required,
> only of whether or not you have met it to date. If you leave now and come back in
> one month, you would be clearly within the allowable duration of absence.
> ________
> CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
> [email protected] http://canadavisa.com
>
> Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community
should demonstrate at examination the following:
(i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident;
(ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have
met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
before the examination;
So, the (i) above seems to me without a doubt like "assessment of the likelihood of
ability to meet residency requirements"...
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > residency requirement?
> >
> > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> >
> > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> > the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> > future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
>
> There is no assessment of the likelihood of your ability to meet this required,
> only of whether or not you have met it to date. If you leave now and come back in
> one month, you would be clearly within the allowable duration of absence.
> ________
> CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
> [email protected] http://canadavisa.com
>
> Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community
Jun 13th 2002, 10:20 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2 out of 5 for residency
Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does not mean you can
leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number of days in Canada.
With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement 2 out of 5
years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you should make sure that
by the time you come back you will still have enough time to make 2 years in Canada.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the residency
> requirement?
>
> I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
>
> However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
>
>
>
> --
> VM
>
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number of days in Canada.
With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement 2 out of 5
years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you should make sure that
by the time you come back you will still have enough time to make 2 years in Canada.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the residency
> requirement?
>
> I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
>
> However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
>
>
>
> --
> VM
>
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 13th 2002, 10:20 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2 out of 5 for residency
I would have to agree with that.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please look into IRPA (not the Regulations) - it clearly says that
permanent
> resident should demonstrate at examination the following:
>
> (i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that
they
> will be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
> immediately after they became a permanent resident;
>
> (ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that
they
> have met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
> before the examination;
>
> So, the (i) above seems to me without a doubt like "assessment of the likelihood of
> ability to meet residency requirements"...
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > > residency requirement?
> > >
> > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> > >
> > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how
> > > will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in
> > > the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
> >
> > There is no assessment of the likelihood of your ability to meet this required,
> > only of whether or not you have met it to date. If you leave now and come back in
> > one month, you would be clearly within the allowable duration of absence.
> > ________
> > CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
> > [email protected] http://canadavisa.com
> >
> > Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please look into IRPA (not the Regulations) - it clearly says that
permanent
> resident should demonstrate at examination the following:
>
> (i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that
they
> will be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
> immediately after they became a permanent resident;
>
> (ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that
they
> have met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
> before the examination;
>
> So, the (i) above seems to me without a doubt like "assessment of the likelihood of
> ability to meet residency requirements"...
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > > residency requirement?
> > >
> > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> > >
> > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how
> > > will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in
> > > the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
> >
> > There is no assessment of the likelihood of your ability to meet this required,
> > only of whether or not you have met it to date. If you leave now and come back in
> > one month, you would be clearly within the allowable duration of absence.
> > ________
> > CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
> > [email protected] http://canadavisa.com
> >
> > Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community
Jun 13th 2002, 12:48 pm
#7
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14
Re: 2 out of 5 for residency
Thanks to all of you for your answers.
As I understand it, based on your discussion, the officer will be assessing the likelihood of my ability to meet this requirement in the future but NOT in a subjective manner.
For instance, if I live in Canada for one year after landing and then leave for 3 and a half years, it will be clear to the officer when I try to reenter Canada that I can't meet the 2 out of 5 requirement and I won't be allowed back.
But if I live in Canada for one year after landing and then leave for 3 years, the officer will let me back because I will still have one year left out of the 5 year period to fulfill the 2 out of 5 rule.
Hence, there is an important difference to note between the old and the new rules -- under the old rules (6 out of 12 months), the officer was looking 12 months into the past on the day the permanent resident attempted reentry into Canada.
Under the new rules, the officer is not considering the immediately preceding five-year period. Rather, s/he will look into both the past and the future. Into the past to see how much time the PR had already spent in Canada. And into the future in order to see if there is still sufficient time remaining on the calendar to allow the PR to fulfill the 2 out of 5 requirement.
M.
As I understand it, based on your discussion, the officer will be assessing the likelihood of my ability to meet this requirement in the future but NOT in a subjective manner.
For instance, if I live in Canada for one year after landing and then leave for 3 and a half years, it will be clear to the officer when I try to reenter Canada that I can't meet the 2 out of 5 requirement and I won't be allowed back.
But if I live in Canada for one year after landing and then leave for 3 years, the officer will let me back because I will still have one year left out of the 5 year period to fulfill the 2 out of 5 rule.
Hence, there is an important difference to note between the old and the new rules -- under the old rules (6 out of 12 months), the officer was looking 12 months into the past on the day the permanent resident attempted reentry into Canada.
Under the new rules, the officer is not considering the immediately preceding five-year period. Rather, s/he will look into both the past and the future. Into the past to see how much time the PR had already spent in Canada. And into the future in order to see if there is still sufficient time remaining on the calendar to allow the PR to fulfill the 2 out of 5 requirement.
M.
Jun 13th 2002, 4:20 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr. Miller ....Please help
Hello Sir,
I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to meet
the residency obligation.
So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I Right?
Thanks for all your help
"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]> ...
> Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does not mean you
> can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number of days in Canada.
>
> With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement 2 out of 5
> years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you should make sure
> that by the time you come back you will still have enough time to make 2 years
> in Canada.
>
> --
> All responses IMHO and no one else's.
>
> Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
>
> Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> www.svcanada.com
>
> 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> _________________________________________
>
> Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
>
>
>
>
>
> "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > residency requirement?
> >
> > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> >
> > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> > the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> > future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > VM
> >
> > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to meet
the residency obligation.
So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I Right?
Thanks for all your help
"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]> ...
> Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does not mean you
> can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number of days in Canada.
>
> With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement 2 out of 5
> years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you should make sure
> that by the time you come back you will still have enough time to make 2 years
> in Canada.
>
> --
> All responses IMHO and no one else's.
>
> Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
>
> Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> www.svcanada.com
>
> 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> _________________________________________
>
> Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
>
>
>
>
>
> "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > residency requirement?
> >
> > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> >
> > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how will
> > the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in the
> > future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > VM
> >
> > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 13th 2002, 5:20 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Miller ....Please help
Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still applies. So, if you
resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have valid RRP (as you are
posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements already.
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello Sir,
>
> I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
>
> But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
> within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to meet
> the residency obligation.
>
> So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am
> I Right?
>
>
> Thanks for all your help
>
>
> "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]> ...
> > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does not mean you
> > can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number of days in Canada.
> >
> > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement 2 out of 5
> > years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you
should
> > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have enough time to make
> > 2 years in Canada.
> >
> > --
> > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> >
> > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > www.svcanada.com
> >
> > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > _________________________________________
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > > residency requirement?
> > >
> > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> > >
> > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how
> > > will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in
> > > the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > VM
> > >
> > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have valid RRP (as you are
posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements already.
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello Sir,
>
> I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
>
> But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
> within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to meet
> the residency obligation.
>
> So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am
> I Right?
>
>
> Thanks for all your help
>
>
> "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]> ...
> > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does not mean you
> > can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number of days in Canada.
> >
> > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement 2 out of 5
> > years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you
should
> > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have enough time to make
> > 2 years in Canada.
> >
> > --
> > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> >
> > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > www.svcanada.com
> >
> > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > _________________________________________
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for meeting the
> > > residency requirement?
> > >
> > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old rules.
> > >
> > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how
> > > will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2 out of 5 requirement in
> > > the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before? M.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > VM
> > >
> > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 17th 2002, 11:20 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Miller ....Please help
Andrew,
Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before he can
in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward looking. Therefore,
we may argue that it is the intention of the framers that people aught to be allowed
to have this leave even if they enter Canada only for a short time before they leave.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still applies.
So, if
> you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have valid
RRP (as
> you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
already.
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello Sir,
> >
> > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> > Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
> >
> > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
> > within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to
> > meet the residency obligation.
> >
> > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I
> > Right?
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all your help
> >
> >
> > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does
not
> > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number
of
> > > days in Canada.
> > >
> > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement
2 out
> > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you
> should
> > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have enough
time to
> > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > >
> > > --
> > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > >
> > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > www.svcanada.com
> > >
> > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > _________________________________________
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
meeting
> > > > the residency requirement?
> > > >
> > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old
> > > > rules.
> > > >
> > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how
> > > > will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2
out
> > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before?
> > > > M.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > VM
> > > >
> > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before he can
in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward looking. Therefore,
we may argue that it is the intention of the framers that people aught to be allowed
to have this leave even if they enter Canada only for a short time before they leave.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still applies.
So, if
> you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have valid
RRP (as
> you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
already.
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello Sir,
> >
> > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> > Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
> >
> > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
> > within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to
> > meet the residency obligation.
> >
> > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I
> > Right?
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all your help
> >
> >
> > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does
not
> > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number
of
> > > days in Canada.
> > >
> > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement
2 out
> > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you
> should
> > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have enough
time to
> > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > >
> > > --
> > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > >
> > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > www.svcanada.com
> > >
> > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > _________________________________________
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
meeting
> > > > the residency requirement?
> > > >
> > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old
> > > > rules.
> > > >
> > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month, how
> > > > will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2
out
> > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective than before?
> > > > M.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > VM
> > > >
> > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 17th 2002, 12:20 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Miller ....Please help
Berto,
Until June 28th the old Immigration Act is the law, isn't it? If someone already
didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including intentions) of the law in
force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented on June 28 can reverse
it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't do before June 28 will
not count?
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew,
>
> Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before he
> can in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward looking.
> Therefore, we may argue that it is the intention of the framers that people aught
> to be allowed to have this leave even if they enter Canada only for a short time
> before they leave.
>
> --
> All responses IMHO and no one else's.
>
> Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
>
> Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> www.svcanada.com
>
> 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> _________________________________________
>
> Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
>
>
>
>
>
> "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still applies.
> So, if
> > you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have valid
> RRP (as
> > you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
> already.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hello Sir,
> > >
> > > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> > > Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
> > >
> > > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
> > > within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to
> > > meet the residency obligation.
> > >
> > > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I
> > > Right?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for all your help
> > >
> > >
> > > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does
> not
> > > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number
> of
> > > > days in Canada.
> > > >
> > > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement
> 2 out
> > > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you
> > should
> > > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have enough
> time to
> > > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > > >
> > > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > > >
> > > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > > www.svcanada.com
> > > >
> > > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > > _________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416)
> > > > 892 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ):
> > > > +278314250212503
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
> meeting
> > > > > the residency requirement?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old
> > > > > rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month,
> > > > > how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2
> out
> > > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective than
> > > > > before? M.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > VM
> > > > >
> > > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
> >
>
Until June 28th the old Immigration Act is the law, isn't it? If someone already
didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including intentions) of the law in
force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented on June 28 can reverse
it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't do before June 28 will
not count?
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew,
>
> Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before he
> can in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward looking.
> Therefore, we may argue that it is the intention of the framers that people aught
> to be allowed to have this leave even if they enter Canada only for a short time
> before they leave.
>
> --
> All responses IMHO and no one else's.
>
> Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
>
> Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> www.svcanada.com
>
> 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> _________________________________________
>
> Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
>
>
>
>
>
> "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still applies.
> So, if
> > you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have valid
> RRP (as
> > you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
> already.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Hello Sir,
> > >
> > > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> > > Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183 days).
> > >
> > > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of time
> > > within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period , I will still be able to
> > > meet the residency obligation.
> > >
> > > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I
> > > Right?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for all your help
> > >
> > >
> > > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months does
> not
> > > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than number
> of
> > > > days in Canada.
> > > >
> > > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency requirement
> 2 out
> > > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now, you
> > should
> > > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have enough
> time to
> > > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > > >
> > > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > > >
> > > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > > www.svcanada.com
> > > >
> > > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > > _________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416)
> > > > 892 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ):
> > > > +278314250212503
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
> meeting
> > > > > the residency requirement?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under the old
> > > > > rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in one month,
> > > > > how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the 2
> out
> > > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective than
> > > > > before? M.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > VM
> > > > >
> > > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
> >
>
Jun 17th 2002, 12:52 pm
#12
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 44
Re: 2 out of 5 for residency
The point is:
As per IRPA, if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident..
It doesn't say whether the person had to have become PR under old or New law. Without that clarity, one can draw the conclusion that it applies from the date you landed irrespective of the law applicable at that time.
As per IRPA, if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident..
It doesn't say whether the person had to have become PR under old or New law. Without that clarity, one can draw the conclusion that it applies from the date you landed irrespective of the law applicable at that time.
Jun 17th 2002, 4:20 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Miller ....Please help
> Until June 28th the old Immigration Act is the law, isn't it? If someone already
> didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including intentions) of the law in
> force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented on June 28 can
> reverse it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't do before
> June 28 will not count?
On the one hand you are right,on the other hand the new law is kind of retroactive.
It start counting 5Y period from the date of landing,not from June 28. It looks like
rules are in opposition.
> didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including intentions) of the law in
> force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented on June 28 can
> reverse it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't do before
> June 28 will not count?
On the one hand you are right,on the other hand the new law is kind of retroactive.
It start counting 5Y period from the date of landing,not from June 28. It looks like
rules are in opposition.
Jun 18th 2002, 6:20 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Miller ....Please help
Until 28th the current law is the law. No doubt about that. But under your
description every resident of Canada would have to be assessed on 28 JUN (or 27) to
see if they meet the definition and then a report written that day.
Understand your point, but it appears that after 28th it would be the 2/5 rule that
would determine residency.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Berto,
>
> Until June 28th the old Immigration Act is the law, isn't it? If someone already
> didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including
intentions) of
> the law in force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented
on
> June 28 can reverse it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't
> do before June 28 will not count?
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before he
> > can in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward looking.
> > Therefore, we may argue that it is the intention of
the
> > framers that people aught to be allowed to have this leave even if they enter
> > Canada only for a short time before they leave.
> >
> > --
> > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> >
> > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > www.svcanada.com
> >
> > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > _________________________________________
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still
applies.
> > So, if
> > > you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have
valid
> > RRP (as
> > > you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
> > already.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ../..
> > >
> > > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > > sending email)
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Hello Sir,
> > > >
> > > > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> > > > Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183
> > > > days).
> > > >
> > > > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of
> > > > time within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period
,
> > > > I will still be able to meet the residency obligation.
> > > >
> > > > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I
> > > > Right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for all your help
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months
does
> > not
> > > > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than
number
> > of
> > > > > days in Canada.
> > > > >
> > > > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency
requirement
> > 2 out
> > > > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now,
you
> > > should
> > > > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have
enough
> > time to
> > > > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > > > >
> > > > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > > > www.svcanada.com
> > > > >
> > > > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416)
> > > > > 892 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ):
> > > > > +278314250212503
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
> > meeting
> > > > > > the residency requirement?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under
the
> > > > > > old rules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in
one
> > > > > > month, how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the
2
> > out
> > > > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective
than
> > > > > > before? M.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > VM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
description every resident of Canada would have to be assessed on 28 JUN (or 27) to
see if they meet the definition and then a report written that day.
Understand your point, but it appears that after 28th it would be the 2/5 rule that
would determine residency.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Berto,
>
> Until June 28th the old Immigration Act is the law, isn't it? If someone already
> didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including
intentions) of
> the law in force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented
on
> June 28 can reverse it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't
> do before June 28 will not count?
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before he
> > can in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward looking.
> > Therefore, we may argue that it is the intention of
the
> > framers that people aught to be allowed to have this leave even if they enter
> > Canada only for a short time before they leave.
> >
> > --
> > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> >
> > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > www.svcanada.com
> >
> > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > _________________________________________
> >
> > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still
applies.
> > So, if
> > > you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have
valid
> > RRP (as
> > > you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
> > already.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ../..
> > >
> > > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > > sending email)
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Hello Sir,
> > > >
> > > > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet the
> > > > Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183
> > > > days).
> > > >
> > > > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of
> > > > time within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period
,
> > > > I will still be able to meet the residency obligation.
> > > >
> > > > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am I
> > > > Right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for all your help
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months
does
> > not
> > > > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than
number
> > of
> > > > > days in Canada.
> > > > >
> > > > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency
requirement
> > 2 out
> > > > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now,
you
> > > should
> > > > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have
enough
> > time to
> > > > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > > > >
> > > > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > > > www.svcanada.com
> > > > >
> > > > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416)
> > > > > 892 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ):
> > > > > +278314250212503
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
> > meeting
> > > > > > the residency requirement?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under
the
> > > > > > old rules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in
one
> > > > > > month, how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the
2
> > out
> > > > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective
than
> > > > > > before? M.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > VM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Jun 18th 2002, 6:20 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Miller ....Please help
Berto, I agree with you here as well and I don't see any reason or even a remote
possibility for assessing all permanent residents meeting residency obligation as of
June 28. But the original poster is out of Canada since landing and will be examined
at least twice or three times anyway - first time during his next entry to Canada and
at this time examining officer may raise the issue of not meeting residency
obligation under old law, although it is not likely to happen. Second examination
will occur during the PR card application if s/he decides to apply for such and the
third one during citizenship application when questions not only about residency
requirements but also about ceasing/maintaining PR status will be examined. Of course
s/he may get lucky, but it is not the point...
Cheers,
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Until 28th the current law is the law. No doubt about that. But under your
> description every resident of Canada would have to be assessed on 28 JUN (or 27) to
> see if they meet the definition and then a report written that day.
>
> Understand your point, but it appears that after 28th it would be the 2/5 rule that
> would determine residency.
>
>
> --
> All responses IMHO and no one else's.
>
> Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
>
> Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> www.svcanada.com
>
> 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> _________________________________________
>
> Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
>
>
>
>
>
> "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Berto,
> >
> > Until June 28th the old Immigration Act is the law, isn't it? If someone already
> > didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including
> intentions) of
> > the law in force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented
> on
> > June 28 can reverse it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't
> > do before June 28 will not count?
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Andrew,
> > >
> > > Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before
> > > he can in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward
> > > looking. Therefore, we may argue that it is the intention of
> the
> > > framers that people aught to be allowed to have this leave even if they enter
> > > Canada only for a short time before they leave.
> > >
> > > --
> > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > >
> > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > www.svcanada.com
> > >
> > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > _________________________________________
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still
> applies.
> > > So, if
> > > > you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have
> valid
> > > RRP (as
> > > > you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
> > > already.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > ../..
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > > > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > > > sending email)
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Hello Sir,
> > > > >
> > > > > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet
> > > > > the Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183
> > > > > days).
> > > > >
> > > > > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of
> > > > > time within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period
> ,
> > > > > I will still be able to meet the residency obligation.
> > > > >
> > > > > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am
> > > > > I Right?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for all your help
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > > > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months
> does
> > > not
> > > > > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than
> number
> > > of
> > > > > > days in Canada.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency
> requirement
> > > 2 out
> > > > > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now,
> you
> > > > should
> > > > > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have
> enough
> > > time to
> > > > > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > > > > www.svcanada.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2
> > > > > > +1(416) 892 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ):
> > > > > > +278314250212503
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
> > > meeting
> > > > > > > the residency requirement?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under
> the
> > > > > > > old rules.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in
> one
> > > > > > > month, how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the
> 2
> > > out
> > > > > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective
> than
> > > > > > > before? M.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > VM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
possibility for assessing all permanent residents meeting residency obligation as of
June 28. But the original poster is out of Canada since landing and will be examined
at least twice or three times anyway - first time during his next entry to Canada and
at this time examining officer may raise the issue of not meeting residency
obligation under old law, although it is not likely to happen. Second examination
will occur during the PR card application if s/he decides to apply for such and the
third one during citizenship application when questions not only about residency
requirements but also about ceasing/maintaining PR status will be examined. Of course
s/he may get lucky, but it is not the point...
Cheers,
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Until 28th the current law is the law. No doubt about that. But under your
> description every resident of Canada would have to be assessed on 28 JUN (or 27) to
> see if they meet the definition and then a report written that day.
>
> Understand your point, but it appears that after 28th it would be the 2/5 rule that
> would determine residency.
>
>
> --
> All responses IMHO and no one else's.
>
> Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
>
> Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> www.svcanada.com
>
> 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> _________________________________________
>
> Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
>
>
>
>
>
> "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Berto,
> >
> > Until June 28th the old Immigration Act is the law, isn't it? If someone already
> > didn't meet residency (and other requirements, including
> intentions) of
> > the law in force at a time then how come new law coming being implemented
> on
> > June 28 can reverse it? Is the new IRPA saying that whatever person did or didn't
> > do before June 28 will not count?
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Andrew,
> > >
> > > Why do believe he should meet the residency requirement in the old act before
> > > he can in the new? One section of the residency test is clearly forward
> > > looking. Therefore, we may argue that it is the intention of
> the
> > > framers that people aught to be allowed to have this leave even if they enter
> > > Canada only for a short time before they leave.
> > >
> > > --
> > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > >
> > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > www.svcanada.com
> > >
> > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > _________________________________________
> > >
> > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892
> > > 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Until June 28 the old Immigration Act with all it's rules still
> applies.
> > > So, if
> > > > you resided in Canada for only 5 months so far and you don't have
> valid
> > > RRP (as
> > > > you are posting from US) then you didn't meet residency requirements
> > > already.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > ../..
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > > > millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> > > > sending email)
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Can-PR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Hello Sir,
> > > > >
> > > > > I landed in July 2001. I have lived in canada for 5 months only. To meet
> > > > > the Residency obligation I need to live one more month (as per old Rule 183
> > > > > days).
> > > > >
> > > > > But As per your comment (New Law), As long as I have that 2 year period of
> > > > > time within my 5 year(Right from the day I landed) period
> ,
> > > > > I will still be able to meet the residency obligation.
> > > > >
> > > > > So in this scenario, As per old law I fail but as per new Law I am fine. Am
> > > > > I Right?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for all your help
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:<[email protected]> ...
> > > > > > Firstly, though moot, just because you were here for six months
> does
> > > not
> > > > > > mean you can leave. There was/is a lot more to residence than
> number
> > > of
> > > > > > days in Canada.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the new rules you must be able to meet the residency
> requirement
> > > 2 out
> > > > > > of 5 years of physical residence. So if you decide to leave now,
> you
> > > > should
> > > > > > make sure that by the time you come back you will still have
> enough
> > > time to
> > > > > > make 2 years in Canada.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > All responses IMHO and no one else's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991
> > > > > > www.svcanada.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
> > > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2
> > > > > > +1(416) 892 2916 Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ):
> > > > > > +278314250212503
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "VM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > Hi, Could one of the experts please clarify the new rules for
> > > meeting
> > > > > > > the residency requirement?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been in Canada for over six months. I could now leave under
> the
> > > > > > > old rules.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, under the new rules, if I leave now and come back in
> one
> > > > > > > month, how will the officer assess that I am likely to meet the
> 2
> > > out
> > > > > > > of 5 requirement in the future? Isn't that even more subjective
> than
> > > > > > > before? M.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > VM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
