It is mandatory for the residents to be present physically in Canada for a minimum of 2 years (730 days) in the time period of 5 years to maintain a permanent residency. The assessment of the 5-year period is taken care of by IRCC or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Read how to Maintain Permanent Residency in Canada
When the Resident is out of Canada for extended time periods:
In this case, the resident will have to fulfill the residency requirements and prove it to IRCC.
In case a resident is not able to comply with the obligations of residency, then the immigration officer may issue a departure order.
A Recent Immigration Appeals Division Hearing:
A departure order was issued against a permanent resident employed by a Canadian Company outside of Canada by the Field Law’s Business Immigration Group. The Appellant came to Canada in 1997 under the Live-in Caregiver stream.
She worked with a family that operated a business with offices in Canada as well as abroad. It was in the year 2000 that she got Canadian permanent residence. She continued working as a caregiver until 2007.
When the kids were grown, she started working as a personal assistant for the CEO of the business house. It is a major transition and there was no formal employment contract pertaining to this change.
New Set of Duties to Maintain Permanent Residency in Canada:
The Appellant started spending her time outside Canada as an employee for the Canadian Company. Later on, she was issued a departure order under Section 28 of the Act for non-compliance for failing to meet the nationality requirement.
The Appellant appealed to the IRCC Immigration Appeal Division. The Appeal Division held the Appellant inadmissible under Section 28 of the Act was not correct at law.
The Appellant’s Notice of Assessment and T-4 forms highlighted the fact that she was employed by the Corporation and not by the family since 2010. There was a lack of evidence supporting the Appellant’s services with the Corporation in the United States was arranged so that she could work outside of Canada. She was visiting the United States only for work.
After considering all the factors the appellant was given adequate credit for working with the Corporation in the United States to persuade the residency obligations.
Conclusion:
This case is a classic example to highlight the fact that it is important to be represented by capable counsel to deal with issues related to Refugees, Immigration, and Citizenship Canada.