|
|
| Subject: To Ray Masa |
|
|
|
Ray Masa,
This is a discussion forum and nobody here is providing free and 100% ACCURATE consultation. Nobody is above mistake. That´s why the discussion is, to share knowledge from each other and enlighten ourselves. To be able to do so one should have an open mind and some respects to the others. If you see any mistake in others then it is a common civic approach to let him/her know politely without any personal background investigation or unrelated attack.
I don´t recall you involving any debate with me; looks like you are furious on me and got me here. Though it would have made much sense if you would do it in the appropriate thread. This thread had nothing to do with encouraging/discouraging or Canada love/Canada hate like issues.
I appreacite greatly that you found my mistake. Yes, by the book I should?ve wrote the ?Citizenship by Judge? clause. What?s the extent of the mistake? As a matter of fact, it is very very exceptional. Exception can´t be the example. Try to find how many Prs got citizenship by judge without physically residing less than 3 years. If that is so easy then you wouldn´t see many PRs working overseas keeping their families in Canada. You simply stayed outside of Canada with your citizen spouse or work for some years and apply to the judge and he´ll grant you the citizenship it is not that simple. It is totally upto the judge; in general he/she considers the following in such cases:
Was the individual physically present in Canada for a long period prior to recent absences which occurred immediately before the application for citizenship;
Where are the applicant´s immediate family and dependants resident;
Does the pattern of physical presence in Canada indicate a returning home or merely visiting the country;
What is the extent of the physical absences;
Is the physical absence caused by a clearly temporary situation such as employment as a missionary abroad, following a course of study abroad as a student, accepting temporary employment abroad, accompanying a spouse who has accepted temporary employment abroad;
What is the quality of the connection with Canada: is it more substantial than that which exists with any other country.
This latter issue is usually examined from the perspective of the indicia of applicant´s ties to Canada. To avail the benefits of this approach, applicants are encouraged to maintain Canadian bank accounts, magazine subscriptions, Medicare cards, lodgings, furniture, driver licenses, bank cards, and enroll their children in Canadian schools.
Applicant´s should be cautioned however, against blindly conforming to such "residence and citizenship" planning advice, as a number of decisions have emanated from the Courts over the years which evince a strict statutory construction of the Citizenship Act requiring persons who have been "in residence" in Canada for three years during the previous four.
Recent decisions have required that applicants must "throw in their lot with Canadians by residing among Canadians, in Canada, during three of the preceding four years, in order to Canadianize themselves": Re: Pourghasemi (1993), 19 Imm. L.R. (2d) 259, 62 F.T.R. 122. This happens according to recent rulings from the Federal Court of Canada, by "rubbing elbows", with Canadians in shopping malls, corner stores, libraries, concert halls, auto repair shops, pubs, cabarets, elevators, churches, synagogues, mosques and temples - in a word wherever one can meet and converse with Canadians - during the prescribed three years.
In accord with rulings of late, applicants who elect to file applications prior to four years of residence in Canada, may be hard pressed to argue for a liberal application of the residency rule.
SOURCE: http://www.immigration.ca/permres-citizenship-requirements.asp
I don?t know many PRs got their citizenship by judge, Roy or other professionals may shed light on it or the success rate.
Now if I say that "to maintain the PR status you need to be physically present in Canada for 730 days out of 5 years OR have to stay/work for a Canadian company or Citizen/PR overseas" IS WRONG OR SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION" how does that sound? In your logic it is also wrong, false information, conspiracy to misinform others. Why? Because it is not also the final, even if you fail to keep any of the above still you can maintain the PR ship. That is called the humanitarian ground. That is even easier than the Citizenship by judge as it doesn?t need to go to a judge. CIC can decide it. But Citizenship decision is not within the CIC jurisdiction , it goes the more higher authority, the Honorable Judge. Hope you understand the difference. ?How to maintain PR-ship? question is one of the most common question in this board and rarely anybody tells about this humanitarian ground. Nobody start beaching the poster who avoid it as ?Spreading False/ Mis Information?. Exception can?t be the regular. Only insane can suggest he you don?t need to be worried about 2/5 years rule, go for the humanitarian ground. Cheers!
Now just look a little back to see what did you write;
?To meet the residency obligation, you must have been physically present in Canada for a minimum of 730 days within the past five years. If this is not the case, you may also count the days you spent outside of Canada in the following circumstances:
A. Accompanying a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident outside Canada
Accompanying a Canadian citizen
In your posting you also missed a very very important point and thus it can be very misleading and fatal to some PRs if they just rely on you.
You wrote in ?A? Accompanying a PR outside Canada which needs clear explanation otherwise it is misleading. You only explain accompanying the citizen part, not the PR part. Rules are totally different for a accompanying PR and Citizen The accompanied PR MUST maintain his/her residency in Canada following the 2/5 years rule. If you don?t explain this then it simply means that any couple can land in Canada and stay outside for good keeping their PR status valid. I didn?t jump on this great ?error? and start any personal offence.
Anyway, wish you all the best in Canada and you are most welcome to follow the Citizenship granted by Judge and share us the result.
[10-02-2008,12:36]
[**.18.16.117]
Departed_Canadian |
|
(in reply to: To Ray Masa)
Departed Canada, you are absolutely correct that you don’t recall me having a debate with you. I have no intention of getting into a debate with anyone, especially debates on this forum as I find them a waste of time. Seems like there are a few people on this forum with too much time on their hand.
I will however, point out erroneous information where I find them. Some people may think its all fun and games giving false and inaccurate information. Some like to give answers even when they don’t know the answer correctly. But playing with other people’s lives is not fun, maybe to you, but not to me.
Sutar, if you believe that is correct information, would you mind pointing me to an OFFICAL source for that information? That would be much appreciated.
Ray
[10-02-2008,14:49]
[**.144.219.227]
Ray Masa |
(in reply to: To Ray Masa)
Ray Masa,
Did you have a time to read the full post withe exaplanation? Looks like not, if you would read it then wouldn´t say the same thing again. Playing with other people´s life? In your logic I would accuse you the same thing. Read that?
Good to know that you don´t have time, though from your 1st post it didn´t look like. With a silly mistake, you wrote a lot about me, my background..those don´t indicate your noble goal. Anyone can sense that, otherwise you could´ve simply asked where did I know that or there are something I missed that you found regardless of my personal nackground.
[10-02-2008,15:06]
[**.18.16.117]
Departed_Canadian |
(in reply to: To Ray Masa)
Departed Canada, yes I had read your explanation. And I agree with that. Your initial statement however I do not agree with. You initially said:
“You can´t claim the days outside of Canada staying with your Canadian citizen spouse towards the citizenship. Those days will be counted only to keep your PR status valid. Not for citizenship.
For the citizenship you physically need to present in Canada fulfiling the 3/4 years rule.
If you work for any Canadian companies overseas then the same rule also applies.”
That is an absolute term. That one cannot ever apply or citizenship without physical presence. That is an incorrect statement. One can apply for citizenship without 3 years physical presence and its up to the citizenship judge to decide weather to grant or not grant the citizenship. Yes, in most cases the judge may not grant that citizenship. But its not up to you or me or anyone else to tell an applicant that is the case. Unless, of course you are a Canadian citizenship judge? Are you? If you are, I apologize and accept your judgment. Although, I am curious as to why a Canadian citizenship would choose to live in Florida, and post messages about how bad Canada is? Of course you don’t have to answer that.
Had you in your initial message explained that most people applying for citizenship without 3 years physical presence, it would have been ok. But instead you chose to simple said that it cannot be done. And that is what my problem was with your statement.
Ray
[11-02-2008,13:35]
[**.144.219.227]
Ray Masa |
3 years absent from canada (in reply to: To Ray Masa)
As long as I can use those days accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada to re-apply for my permanent residence card, it will be great. I know I can apply for the canadian citizen since I have been in canada more than 4 years before I went out of canada for my hasband´s job, but my country doesn´t allow to have 2 citizenships.
Thanks Ray!
[11-02-2008,14:00]
[**.225.197.116]
Megumi |
(in reply to: To Ray Masa)
I think I explained that too; why did I miss the special consideration of Citizenship by judge. I also apologized for not being 100% accurate. From now on for the same question I would definitely tell this special case as well like you suggested. I agree with that. I just added my explanation that most of the times people usually miss this special cases that you intentionally fail to grasp.
Did you read the point that I made in your statement that can be confusing as well? Why your standard is double? Did you acknowledge your fault for a single time?
I also wrote why such special cases generally aren´t discussed with the example of maintaining PR validity. If miss then may read again the Humanitarian Ground of keeping PR status which is being missed almost everytime when someone suggests anybody about how to keep the PR status valid. Same thing happens even with the Citizenship question as well. Rarely people say about this "Granted by Judge" system
Would you chase after all of them with the same allegation? If so, then please let me know then I´ll get you some of those previous links so that you can warn people aganist them.
Here are few from the thousands:
http://www.canada-city.ca/canada-immigration/posting.php?messageid=10631
http://www.canada-city.ca/canada-immigration/posting.php?messageid=10372
http://www.canada-city.ca/canada-immigration/posting.php?messageid=14393 (READ AT LEAST THIS!)
Please read some of these and see how many times this "Granted by Judge" issue appears, and chase all of them. Do you think that all are lier? Spreading false info.? Palying with people´s life?
Otherwise stop, I don´t have any intention to continue. I even wouldn´t open this new thread had you just maintained the missing part avoiding my personal background or fairytales of how I´m screwing people´s live with false information like craps.
You know very well that I´m not a judge or anyone like that, though you are most welcome to have your citizernship by a judge like said before. Or at least just try to find how many PRs got citizenship by the judge. There are many thousands of PRs every years get citizenship, not hard to find them.
Like you said I´m not bound to provide you any of my personal information. You yourself answer that question; remmeber? Where I chose to immigrate or live is my choice.
[11-02-2008,14:36]
[***.254.208.246]
Departed_Canadian |
(in reply to: To Ray Masa)
The Residency issue is found in the IRPA Immigration Act and the IRPR Regulations the first one is the Act section 28 and the second defines a business etc.
Residency obligation
28. (1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.
Application
(2) The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection (1):
(a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are
(i) physically present in Canada,
(ii) outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,
(iii) outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province,
(iv) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province, or
(v) referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;
(b) it is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination
(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; and
(c) a determination by an officer that humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to a permanent resident, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination, justify the retention of permanent resident status overcomes any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination.
2001, c. 27, s. 28; 2003, c. 22, s. 172(E).
Division 2
Residency Obligation
Canadian business
61. (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Act and of this section, a Canadian business is
(a) a corporation that is incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province and that has an ongoing operation in Canada;
(b) an enterprise, other than a corporation described in paragraph (a), that has an ongoing operation in Canada and
(i) that is capable of generating revenue and is carried on in anticipation of profit, and
(ii) in which a majority of voting or ownership interests is held by Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or Canadian businesses as defined in this subsection; or
(c) an organization or enterprise created by the laws of Canada or a province.
Exclusion
(2) For greater certainty, a Canadian business does not include a business that serves primarily to allow a permanent resident to comply with their residency obligation while residing outside Canada.
Employment outside Canada
(3) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Act, the expression "employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a province" means, in relation to a permanent resident, that the permanent resident is an employee of, or under contract to provide services to, a Canadian business or the public service of Canada or of a province, and is assigned on a full-time basis as a term of the employment or contract to
(a) a position outside Canada;
(b) an affiliated enterprise outside Canada; or
(c) a client of the Canadian business or the public service outside Canada.
Accompanying outside Canada
(4) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act and this section, a permanent resident is accompanying outside Canada a Canadian citizen or another permanent resident ? who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent ? on each day that the permanent resident is ordinarily residing with the Canadian citizen or the other permanent resident.
Compliance
(5) For the purposes of subparagraph 28(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation as long as the permanent resident they are accompanying complies with their residency obligation.
Child
(6) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, a child means a child of a parent referred to in those subparagraphs, who is not and has never been a spouse or common-law partner and is less than 22 years of age.
Calculation ? residency obligation
62. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the calculation of days under paragraph 28(2)(a) of the Act in respect of a permanent resident does not include any day after
(a) a report is prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act on the ground that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation; or
(b) a decision is made outside of Canada that the permanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation.
Exception
(2) If the permanent resident is subsequently determined to have complied with the residency obligation, subsection (1) does not apply.
Roy
www.cvimmigration.com
[11-02-2008,14:38]
[**.158.52.214]
Roy |
(in reply to: To Ray Masa)
Your question will not be noticed here... create a new threat and you will get your answers...
[09-03-2008,15:55]
[***.229.236.214]
Lily |
|
