geedee

Thanks again all for your input..... first law firm response:"The lawyer does not believe they can assist you. The link below may be helpful: https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpce...um=1466&top=10 "

pawxpaw

I also previously had my pr technically lapse by similar absence from Canada. This was before pr cards existed.
but then while I was absent pr cards became a thing.

So I simply wrote a letter with an application for a travel permit to the Canadian embassy in London. I explained that I gained pr as I was under 25 at the time my parents got theirs. But as I was working in the UK I was never able to take up residency.
About 6 years later I had a chance to transfer to a similar job in Canada.
So I explained I wanted to return to Canada and as I didn't have a pr card could I please have a travel permit. I got it just fine. Moved back and 13 years later Ive now been a citizen since 2011.

As mentioned your pr isn't gone until it's gone. I'd give my method a try.

Siouxie

That is what is now called a Permanent Resident Travel Document.. which requires proof of being able to meet residency requirements... things have changed a lot since those days https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...-document.html

pawxpaw

Yes that's what I've got.
​i just called it a travel permit as i couldn't recall the exact name.

​​​And as I explained I wrote a letter saying I was fully aware I had failed to meet the residency requirements but I now intended to. So would they please issue me as such, please and thank you.

They did so.

My point is be honest and explain your ongoing intentions. They are happy to work with you in my experience.
Cancelling your pr is probably more work for them than allowing you to return. And if you are going to contribute positively to society why not allow you some leniency?

christmasoompa

So you're suggesting they do it for somebody young who plans to work, but different rules for somebody that's retired or not going to contribute in the same way?! Not sure that would work somehow.

OP can certainly try writing, but I'd be amazed if they even got a response. Things have changed in the past 13+ years, and even then you were unbelievably lucky.

pawxpaw

Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Just like when applying for pr you get more points for your future working ability. That's why a young skilled worker is given more points than an old unskilled worker.
The response I got said exactly that. Because I had a clear intention to work in an in demand field they were happy to allow me some leniency.
they also said because on the surface it appeared I would be eligible to reapply for pr and would meet the criteria to be approved it didn't make much sense to cancel it and then go through the process again.
I'll dig out the exact letter I got when I get chance. I believe I have it still.
If you write a latter with the travel document application then how could they fail to respond? They need to either issue you the document or deny you in writing. I'm not sure why the negativity, it clearly can work. I did it.
There haven't been any significant changes in the law since I did. In fact the op has done better than me. I was only in Canada 6 months from 2000 to 2007.

Right now the op doesn't appear to have many viable alternatives.
But what do I know. I've only done exactly what he wants to do..........

christmasoompa

Not sure why you're being so defensive - it was only a joke about the feasibility of policing it that way! As I said, you were very lucky. But what do I know. I've only worked in Canadian immigration for over a decade………..

pawxpaw

Well then I'm surprised you don't know that the travel document application would have to be responded to one way or the other.

And I wasn't that lucky. I only did it because I found lots of cases where others had done the same. I also know of others in more recent years who followed the same advice. So clearly it can happen.

christmasoompa

I never said the PRTD app wouldn't be responded to, I said the letter, which would usually be completely ignored.

Which is why I said the OP could try it. Maybe I'm just mean, but if it had crossed my desk, it wouldn't have worked with me.

pawxpaw

And that's why it's worth a try. Because if he's unlucky and gets you he would have clear grounds to appeal as he could cite others like me who have been allowed when he was denied just based on the personal "badass" opinion of a bureaucrat who decided to ignore a supporting letter of explanation.
Inconsistency in bureaucracy is what keeps many lawyers gainfully employed.

christmasoompa

Except it's not just based on a personal opinion. It's based on the law.

pawxpaw

You said yourself "maybe I'm badass (mean after your edit)"
Which is your personal opinion to ignore the letter. When in many other cases, using the same law, others in your job have done differently.
Hence grounds to appeal on precedent.
the law is full of may and may not etc which allow for discretion

In fact I'd be taking a screenshot of your replies as evidence of the potential thought process of a immigration employee. Because you're posting your professional opinion in a public forum. And this is a gift to a lawyer in any subsequent appeal.

christmasoompa

I don't understand most of your post. But there is no 'thought process'. There's simply laws and rules to follow, and boxes to tick. Even the ability to apply discretion is set in statute - see FL's response above (he's a CBSA officer, just in case you wanted to screenshot that ).

PMM

Hi

1. Just an aside, under the old Immigration Act/Regulations (prior to PR obligations) an Immigrant after 6 months outside Canada, was considered to have lost their PR status. But the one "hook" in that was that they had to have had the "intention" to abandon Canada. Almost impossible for an Immigration officer to determine if the person stated that they "always intended to return to Canada" That is the main reason that Residency obligations are now in black and white in the regulations.

pawxpaw

im not sure what's hard to understand. I can only guess you have little experience in legal proceedings.
Lawyers routinely use public posts of officials to evidence their case.
You said your personal practice would be to ignore the letter. Others making decisions about this topic clearly don't follow that practice.
Hence inconsistencies. Hence grounds to challenge those inconsistencies.

That's why posting professional opinion in a personal capacity is a gift to lawyers.