Michael

To all the experts

My landing permit is valid till August 2002. Therefore I must arrive in Canada by
then. I am looking into ways to extend the Visa because I have to stay in my home
country till January 2003.

First option is to arrive in August, stay for 3 weeks and return. Then arriving again
after 5 months. Can I encounter problems reentering Canada? It is a big risk after
quitting my job and selling everything. Under the new law of 3 years out of five, can
the immigration officer check for "intention to abadon Canada"? Obviously I cannot
maintain ties in just 3 week visit. Is 5 months such a long time compared to the 3
years period?

Second option: I consulted with the Canadian embassy. They said that I can return the
VISA papers to them and they will send me for medical examinations again. Then I will
get new extended Visa because of the updated medical examinations. They claimed that
all they need is the medical data but the whole process might take 4-5 months.
(Paying for the medical tests is much cheaper than flying the whole family roundtrip
to Canada). Do I take a risk that they won't approve my Visa Assuming that the
medical examination is OK? I am afraid that the rules might change etc.

Thanks

Michael

David Cohen

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] says...
    > To all the experts
    >
    > My landing permit is valid till August 2002. Therefore I must arrive in Canada by
    > then. I am looking into ways to extend the Visa because I have to stay in my home
    > country till January 2003.
    >
    > First option is to arrive in August, stay for 3 weeks and return. Then arriving
    > again after 5 months. Can I encounter problems reentering Canada? It is a big risk
    > after quitting my job and selling everything. Under the new law of 3 years out of
    > five, can the immigration officer check for "intention to abadon Canada"? Obviously
    > I cannot maintain ties in just 3 week visit. Is 5 months such a long time compared
    > to the 3 years period?

As the proposed Regulations are presently stated, an absence of 5 months should not
be consequential. Even under the present Regulations, a 5 month absence is not
automatically construed as having abandoned Canada. Additional information on this
topic may be found at Campbell, Cohen's web site at the following URL:

http://canadavisa.com/documents/rrp.htm

From CIC:

New, transparent residency criteria

Bill C-11 sets objective, transparent and flexible criteria to assess a person's
right to retain permanent resident status when they wish to return to Canada
following an absence. Under Bill C-11, the residency obligation replaces a vague,
highly subjective and easy to abuse test in the current Act which is based on an
evaluation of the intention of a person to abandon Canada as a place of residence if
they have been outside Canada for more than 183 days in any 12 month period. Under C-
11, permanent residents would be required to be physically present in Canada for at
least 730 days in every five-year period after becoming a permanent resident. The
proposed legislation would allow a permanent resident to count, as part of the
required 730 days, time spent working abroad in certain circumstances such as working
for a Canadian company or the Canadian government or accompanying their Canadian
spouse or common-law partner. This would allow permanent residents a degree of
flexibility over their personal or business affairs that is necessary in a world
where routine international travel, work periods abroad and multinational business
ties are becoming commonplace.

The period under review when assessing the residency obligation is limited to the
last five years immediately preceding the examination for persons who have been a
permanent resident for at least five years. For persons who have been permanent
residents for less than 5 years, the test is that they be able to comply with their
residency obligation in respect of the five year period immediately after becoming a
permanent resident. Humanitarian and compassionate considerations, which take into
account the best interests of affected children, will be carefully reviewed before
any loss of residency decisions are rendered for failure to satisfy the residency
obligation. This is new as the current Act only allows for humanitarian
considerations to be reviewed during an appeal but not during the initial loss of
status determination. Bill C-11also provides for an oral appeal to the Immigration
Appeal Division of all IRB decisions regarding failure to meet the residency
obligation. This includes consideration of any humanitarian and compassionate
circumstances and is subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.

    > Second option: I consulted with the Canadian embassy. They said that I can return
    > the VISA papers to them and they will send me for medical examinations again. Then
    > I will get new extended Visa because of the updated medical examinations. They
    > claimed that all they need is the medical data but the whole process might take 4-5
    > months. (Paying for the medical tests is much cheaper than flying the whole family
    > roundtrip to Canada). Do I take a risk that they won't approve my Visa Assuming
    > that the medical examination is OK? I am afraid that the rules might change etc.

This is not an option which is generally extended by the visa offices. Given the
additional costs and possible complications which exist, however, it may not be the
preferable route.
________
CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
[email protected] http://canadavisa.com

Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community

Michael

David Cohen <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] a>...
    > In article <[email protected] >,
    > [email protected] says...
    > > To all the experts
    > >
    > > My landing permit is valid till August 2002. Therefore I must arrive in Canada by
    > > then. I am looking into ways to extend the Visa because I have to stay in my home
    > > country till January 2003.
    > >
    > > First option is to arrive in August, stay for 3 weeks and return. Then arriving
    > > again after 5 months. Can I encounter problems reentering Canada? It is a big
    > > risk after quitting my job and selling everything. Under the new law of 3 years
    > > out of five, can the immigration officer check for "intention to abadon Canada"?
    > > Obviously I cannot maintain ties in just 3 week visit. Is 5 months such a long
    > > time compared to the 3 years period?
    >
    > As the proposed Regulations are presently stated, an absence of 5 months should not
    > be consequential. Even under the present Regulations, a 5 month absence is not
    > automatically construed as having abandoned Canada. Additional information on this
    > topic may be found at Campbell, Cohen's web site at the following URL:
    >
    > http://canadavisa.com/documents/rrp.htm
    >
    > From CIC:
    >
    > New, transparent residency criteria
    >
    > Bill C-11 sets objective, transparent and flexible criteria to assess a person's
    > right to retain permanent resident status when they wish to return to Canada
    > following an absence. Under Bill C-11, the residency obligation replaces a vague,
    > highly subjective and easy to abuse test in the current Act which is based on an
    > evaluation of the intention of a person to abandon Canada as a place of residence
    > if they have been outside Canada for more than 183 days in any 12 month period.
    > Under C- 11, permanent residents would be required to be physically present in
    > Canada for at least 730 days in every five-year period after becoming a permanent
    > resident. The proposed legislation would allow a permanent resident to count, as
    > part of the required 730 days, time spent working abroad in certain circumstances
    > such as working for a Canadian company or the Canadian government or accompanying
    > their Canadian spouse or common-law partner. This would allow permanent residents a
    > degree of flexibility over their personal or business affairs that is necessary in
    > a world where routine international travel, work periods abroad and multinational
    > business ties are becoming commonplace.
    >
    > The period under review when assessing the residency obligation is limited to the
    > last five years immediately preceding the examination for persons who have been a
    > permanent resident for at least five years. For persons who have been permanent
    > residents for less than 5 years, the test is that they be able to comply with their
    > residency obligation in respect of the five year period immediately after becoming
    > a permanent resident. Humanitarian and compassionate considerations, which take
    > into account the best interests of affected children, will be carefully reviewed
    > before any loss of residency decisions are rendered for failure to satisfy the
    > residency obligation. This is new as the current Act only allows for humanitarian
    > considerations to be reviewed during an appeal but not during the initial loss of
    > status determination. Bill C-11also provides for an oral appeal to the Immigration
    > Appeal Division of all IRB decisions regarding failure to meet the residency
    > obligation. This includes consideration of any humanitarian and compassionate
    > circumstances and is subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.
    >
    > > Second option: I consulted with the Canadian embassy. They said that I can return
    > > the VISA papers to them and they will send me for medical examinations again.
    > > Then I will get new extended Visa because of the updated medical examinations.
    > > They claimed that all they need is the medical data but the whole process might
    > > take 4-5 months. (Paying for the medical tests is much cheaper than flying the
    > > whole family roundtrip to Canada). Do I take a risk that they won't approve my
    > > Visa Assuming that the medical examination is OK? I am afraid that the rules
    > > might change etc.
    >
    > This is not an option which is generally extended by the visa offices. Given the
    > additional costs and possible complications which exist, however, it may not be the
    > preferable route.
    > ________
    > CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
    > [email protected] http://canadavisa.com
    >
    > Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community

Hello all experts.

I am still confused. The link that you gave to the site:
http://canadavisa.com/documents/rrp.htm is refering to the RRP and the 183 day rule,
that according to my understanding are not applicable if I arrive after June 28.

I plan to arrive as PR for 3 weeks in august and return for 5 months to my home
country. Is there a chance that after 5 months out of Canada, the immigration
officer can decide not to allow me in? Keep in mind that my second arrival will be
after I wraped up all my business in my home country, quit my job etc. This is very
crucial for me.

Another thing: Is there a prefered entry port to Canada? I can come by land from
the US or by air to Toronto. are there places where the immigration officers are
less stirct?

Please give me your opinion on that.

Thanks

Michael

Stuart Brook

Michael wrote:

m still confused.
    > The link that you gave to the site: http://canadavisa.com/documents/rrp.htm is
    > refering to the RRP and the 183 day rule, that according to my understanding are
    > not applicable if I arrive after June 28.
    >
    > I plan to arrive as PR for 3 weeks in august and return for 5 months to my home
    > country. Is there a chance that after 5 months out of Canada, the immigration
    > officer can decide not to allow me in? Keep in mind that my second arrival will be
    > after I wraped up all my business in my home country, quit my job etc. This is very
    > crucial for me.

You are correct that the RRP and 183 day rule no longer apply after the
implementation date of the new regulations which is still scheduled as Jun 28.

That said, the *new* regulations nor policy are clear on the requirement of
establishing residence as part of the process of landing. As the old regulations and
policy stand now, landing is a two part process ... the first is the paperwork
formalities, and the second is the establishment of residence. If you do not
establish residence within a very short period of landing, CIC officers often take
the position that the landing was incomplete, and therefore your attempt at landing
was abandoned, and therefore, you may not be allowed to return as a PR. It is
understood that occasionally a PR may have need to return to tie up loose ends for a
short period after landing, and this has typically been measured in weeks, not months
... i.e. typically less than a month.

Lacking new policy, one can assume that this will continue.

That said, many people do get away with it ... but CIC is becoming far more concerned
with this situation.

    >
    > Another thing: Is there a prefered entry port to Canada? I can come by land from
    > the US or by air to Toronto. are there places where the immigration officers are
    > less stirct?

No there is no preferred port of entry.

Michael

Stuart Brook <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:<[email protected] da.ca>...
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > m still confused.
    > > The link that you gave to the site: http://canadavisa.com/documents/rrp.htm is
    > > refering to the RRP and the 183 day rule, that according to my understanding are
    > > not applicable if I arrive after June 28.
    > >
    > > I plan to arrive as PR for 3 weeks in august and return for 5 months to my home
    > > country. Is there a chance that after 5 months out of Canada, the immigration
    > > officer can decide not to allow me in? Keep in mind that my second arrival will
    > > be after I wraped up all my business in my home country, quit my job etc. This is
    > > very crucial for me.
    >
    > You are correct that the RRP and 183 day rule no longer apply after the
    > implementation date of the new regulations which is still scheduled as Jun 28.
    >
    > That said, the *new* regulations nor policy are clear on the requirement of
    > establishing residence as part of the process of landing. As the old regulations
    > and policy stand now, landing is a two part process ... the first is the paperwork
    > formalities, and the second is the establishment of residence. If you do not
    > establish residence within a very short period of landing, CIC officers often take
    > the position that the landing was incomplete, and therefore your attempt at landing
    > was abandoned, and therefore, you may not be allowed to return as a PR. It is
    > understood that occasionally a PR may have need to return to tie up loose ends for
    > a short period after landing, and this has typically been measured in weeks, not
    > months ... i.e. typically less than a month.
    >
    > Lacking new policy, one can assume that this will continue.
    >
    > That said, many people do get away with it ... but CIC is becoming far more
    > concerned with this situation.
    >
    > >
    > > Another thing: Is there a prefered entry port to Canada? I can come by land from
    > > the US or by air to Toronto. are there places where the immigration officers are
    > > less stirct?
    >
    > No there is no preferred port of entry.

Thanks for the reply.

But what is the point of the 183 days rule if I can't leave canada for a period more
than weeks? The new law (700 days) is even more confusing!

The thing is that my wife have to finish some exams before we arrive. Now that
there is no RRP, I don't know how to pre-arrange that the immigration officer will
let us in.

What do you think?

Thanks

Michael

Stuart Brook

Michael wrote:
    >
    > Stuart Brook <[email protected] > wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected] da.ca>...
    > > Michael wrote:
    > >
    > > m still confused.
    > > > The link that you gave to the site: http://canadavisa.com/documents/rrp.htm is
    > > > refering to the RRP and the 183 day rule, that according to my understanding
    > > > are not applicable if I arrive after June 28.
    > > >
    > > > I plan to arrive as PR for 3 weeks in august and return for 5 months to my home
    > > > country. Is there a chance that after 5 months out of Canada, the immigration
    > > > officer can decide not to allow me in? Keep in mind that my second arrival will
    > > > be after I wraped up all my business in my home country, quit my job etc. This
    > > > is very crucial for me.
    > >
    > > You are correct that the RRP and 183 day rule no longer apply after the
    > > implementation date of the new regulations which is still scheduled as Jun 28.
    > >
    > > That said, the *new* regulations nor policy are clear on the requirement of
    > > establishing residence as part of the process of landing. As the old regulations
    > > and policy stand now, landing is a two part process ... the first is the
    > > paperwork formalities, and the second is the establishment of residence. If you
    > > do not establish residence within a very short period of landing, CIC officers
    > > often take the position that the landing was incomplete, and therefore your
    > > attempt at landing was abandoned, and therefore, you may not be allowed to return
    > > as a PR. It is understood that occasionally a PR may have need to return to tie
    > > up loose ends for a short period after landing, and this has typically been
    > > measured in weeks, not months ... i.e. typically less than a month.
    > >
    > > Lacking new policy, one can assume that this will continue.
    > >
    > > That said, many people do get away with it ... but CIC is becoming far more
    > > concerned with this situation.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Another thing: Is there a prefered entry port to Canada? I can come by land
    > > > from the US or by air to Toronto. are there places where the immigration
    > > > officers are less stirct?
    > >
    > > No there is no preferred port of entry.
    >
    > Thanks for the reply.
    >
    > But what is the point of the 183 days rule if I can't leave canada for a period
    > more than weeks? The new law (700 days) is even more confusing!
    >
    > The thing is that my wife have to finish some exams before we arrive. Now that
    > there is no RRP, I don't know how to pre-arrange that the immigration officer will
    > let us in.
    >
    > What do you think?

You are missing the point. Once you've *landed* in Canada, then you are at perfect
liberty to depart as long as you obey the current and applicable laws for departure
(183 / 700 day/whatever). BUT as mentioned, *landing* involves both the formal
paperwork at the port of entry, *AND the establishment of residence* ... which means
setting up home. If you don't set up your home in Canada, then you haven't landed
even though you've done the paperwork.

People are usually permitted a flagpole turn to tie up a few loose ends, but not
carry on their life as before and return to Canada at their own whim. The
instructions usued to say something about not applying until you are ready willing
and able to come to Canada.

Stuart

David

"Stuart Brook" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > You are correct that the RRP and 183 day rule no longer apply after the
    > implementation date of the new regulations which is still scheduled as Jun 28.
    >
    > That said, the *new* regulations nor policy are clear on the requirement of
    > establishing residence as part of the process of landing. As the old regulations
    > and policy stand now, landing is a two part process ... the first is the paperwork
    > formalities, and the second is the establishment of residence. If you do not
    > establish residence within a very short period of landing, CIC officers often take
    > the position that the landing was incomplete, and therefore your attempt at landing
    > was abandoned, and therefore, you may not be allowed to return as a PR. It is
    > understood that occasionally a PR may have need to return to tie up loose ends for
    > a short period after landing, and this has typically been measured in weeks, not
    > months ... i.e. typically less than a month.
    >
    > Lacking new policy, one can assume that this will continue.
    >
    > That said, many people do get away with it ... but CIC is becoming far more
    > concerned with this situation.

I would like to ask legal experts from this group for clarification or at least
comment on "establishing residence as part of the landing process" issue? I believe
that it is as vague, if not the same thing, as "intent to abandon" which was dumped
with *new* regulations. The new regulations, as I understand, were ment to relax
residancy obligations so they clearly state that "permanent residents would be
required to be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days in every five-year
period after becoming a permanent resident". I believe that "physical presence" part
is the key relaxation factor and that it is ment to replace all "intent" and
"establish" discretionary elements that were never really defined in law.

At present, application process is lenghty and immigrants often wind up, after couple
of years of waiting and often big changes in their lifes, left with only couple of
months to leave everything and move to Canada. If lawmakers were having that in mind
and if new regulations will allow that one can leave Canada for up to 3 years
whenever or immediatly after landing and have no problem returning whatsoever than
that gives immigrants more flexibility in choosing when is the right time to move.
But it would mean that "establishing residence as part of the landing process" will
no longer be required. What is the point in allowing someone 3 out of 5 years to be
absent and at the same time require from him/her to be "established". For what
possible real-life situation are those 3 years of absence then, if we have in mind
that working abroad etc. are counted as presence and why "intent to abandon" was
dumped, if not for (long) periods that one is really absent and consequntly not
really "established"?