Perhaps you misread my post
MiriamT:
dpenabill said:
Short answer: There should be no problem. Apply for urgent processing or rely on using visa-exempt passport for return flight to Canada.
That is, the response by
MiriamT works, but there is also the option of making a request for urgent processing . . . to purchase the tickets and then request/apply for urgent processing. See the
PR card urgent processing CIC web page for how to do this.
There are, however, some assumptions underlying this response. Probably no need to elaborate in the context of this particular query, as those assumptions appear to be very safe ones (husband carries a visa-exempt passport and is clearly in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation).
MiriamT said:
Those weren't assumptions, or: at least one of them had no assumption to it at all.
For his nationality, I checked out Beaverdiva's previous posts after she wrote that "[h]e'd like to make a short visit of 2 weeks back to the UK to visit me and his parents in November," and she does state in another thread that he's British.
For the residency, I simply read this thread and she does say: "He can prove he's been in Canada for over 2 years and he would have his original landing papers, payslips, bills with his home address on etc etc. We have recently filed for (outland) Spousal sponsorship and he would also have the details of that to show CBSA." Sure, one could stretch and say 'but... Beaverdiva doesn't say that those over 2 years are within the last 5 years' which in this case would be true I assumed she meant in the last 5 years also because there was a PR Card renewal application sent fairly recently.
Sorry, Beaverdiva, I have nothing to add. Just don't like others to put words in my mouth or anything of the kind.
Best of luck.
I thought my reference to "this response" was clearly in reference to the response I was making . . . noting that my response was, for once, fairly straight-forward:
"Short answer: There should be no problem. Apply for urgent processing or rely on using visa-exempt passport for return flight to Canada," adding that your response
"works" . . . and also adding a bit of detail (with a link) about the availability of urgent processing (which would avoid relying on the airline being satisfied by presentation of a visa-exempt passport).
Requesting urgent processing, by the way, is probably the better option (and using the visa-exempt passport the backup), but is really only an option
IF the OP's husband is
clearly in compliance with the PR RO, which it appears he most likely is (hence my saying it appeared safe to make that assumption).
When I referred to your response, I clearly referred to it as such, and the only thing I said in reference to what you posted is that your response "works."
In contrast, to be clear and to avoid potential misunderstanding, I overtly acknowledged
my assumptions, which are more in the nature of premises, and this is something I usually try to do so that it is clear what my observation is premised on . . . and here my reference to the assumptions or premises were clearly related respectively to the
two options I offered:
-- I suggested making a request for urgent processing, a suggestion based on the assumption/premise the husband is
clearly in compliance with the PR RO
-- in the alternative, I suggested using a visa-exempt passport, which was based on the assumption/premise the OP's husband carries a visa-exempt passport
To be clear, the assumption about clearly being in compliance with the PR RO has nothing at all to do with boarding the return flight.
To also be clear, there is no requirement that a PR
clearly be in compliance with the PR RO in order to enter Canada when returning. (Extent of potential residency examination at a POE and what happens is something amply illuminated in many other topics here, and there is no hint this is an issue for the OP's husband, so no need to revisit that here.)
Similarly, there is no requirement that a PR
clearly be in compliance with the PR RO to be eligible for a new PR card. Evidence sufficient to establish/prove presence for 730 days within the preceding five years will do. (Similarly, what is involved in a Residency Determination for PRs, when CIC has questions about compliance with the PR RO, is likewise discussed at length and in-depth in many other topics, and again this does not appear to be an issue for the OP's husband, so as I said, there is no need to elaborate regarding this.)
In contrast, if a PR is
NOT clearly in compliance with the PR RO, it can be difficult to obtain urgent processing . . . difficult as in not likely.
So that premise, or assumption, that the OP's husband is clearly in compliance with the PR RO is specifically about the availability of urgent processing.
Which as noted should not require elaboration as this regards the OP's query, but it is an important qualification or clarification about the availability of urgent processing generally, for anyone else who may be in a somewhat similar situation. Being able to prove compliance with the PR RO suffices to establish eligibility for a replacement/new PR card. If, however, it is not clear the PR is in compliance, and at risk for being requested to submit more evidence, such a PR is not so likely to be given urgent processing. This forum has seen scores of surprised PRs, those who know they meet the PR RO but with a compelling need to travel looming discover their application for urgent processing does not get expedited, and indeed more than a few have ended up with a referral to Secondary Review and thus not even afforded the routine processing timeline. Typical scenario of this sort involves those PRs who were in Canada less than 900 days within the relevant five years (less than half time in Canada).
While the OP's query did not reflect the extent to which the husband was
clearly in compliance with the PR RO, referring more to being able to prove compliance, the reference to payslips for more than two years would suggest someone who has indeed clearly been in Canada . . . employment at a location in Canada is probably the best, most convincing indicator of presence in Canada. So I thought, still think, it was safe to make the assumption he has clearly been in compliance with the PR RO and thus should have
no problem obtaining urgent processing (which you did not so much as allude to let alone suggest).
