After spending some time visiting relatives in their home country and being denied re-entry to Canada, such incidents do occur from time to time.

On July 10, 2017, the 60-year-old Chinese couple, Ms. Shang and Mr. Xing, became permanent residents of Canada.

On November 20, 2017, due to health reasons, they left Canada and have been living in China ever since.

On September 23, 2022, they planned to return to Canada and applied for travel documents but were refused entry.

The visa officer informed the elderly couple that they had not complied with the residential obligation stipulated in Section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This regulation requires permanent residents to reside in Canada for at least 730 days within a five-year period. During the five-year period from September 23, 2017, to September 23, 2022, this elderly couple only spent 69 days in Canada.

Regarding this matter, Ms. Shang and Mr. Xing did not deny it because they indeed failed to fulfill their residential obligations.

However, they requested special relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under Section 67(1)(c) of this law.

Mr. Xing stated that he left Canada due to health reasons. Shortly after arriving in Canada, he was diagnosed with adrenal insufficiency.

On October 15, 2017, Mr. Xing was hospitalized and diagnosed in Canada. The doctor prescribed medication for him and developed a care plan, which included checking every three months.

Due to his illness, Mr. Xing lost a significant amount of weight. A doctor suggested that he return to China because the food there would help increase his weight and overall health.

Mr. Xing's daughter also mentioned that her father could eat Chinese food more conveniently and easily obtain the food he needed in China compared to Canada.

Therefore, in November 2017, Ms. Shang and Mr. Xing left Canada together. Ms. Shang mainly went to take care of her husband.

In 2019, Mr. Xing felt that his condition had improved and intended to return to Canada, but was delayed due to the pandemic.

In July and August 2022, Mr. Xing underwent two kidney stone surgeries.

From a family perspective, this elderly couple has close family ties with both China and Canada. They have one son and one daughter in China, and two daughters in Canada.

Regarding the children domestically, neither lives far from the elderly couple, making it convenient to look after them.

Therefore, the judge believed that even if this couple lost their status as permanent residents of Canada, they and their family members would not face difficulties or be displaced.

In addition, Mr. Xing stated that if he and his wife lost their status as permanent residents of Canada, their lives would be difficult to sustain.

According to what the couple revealed, they each receive only 600 yuan per month as pension in China, which is insufficient to cover their expenses, especially considering their medication costs. Although their two daughters in Canada each send them 1,000 yuan RMB per month.

Regarding this, the judge said, "In China, they own their own residence, and their pensions are subsidized by their children in Canada."

The appellant did not prove their monthly expenses or that 1,200 yuan RMB per month is insufficient for their livelihood.

Therefore, I do not believe that they are currently suffering hardships, and they cannot continue in their current situation."

The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) stated that when determining whether sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief for an appeal against the residential obligation, they will consider the following factors:

1. The degree to which the residential obligation was not fulfilled;

2. The reasons for leaving Canada and staying abroad for a long time;

3. The level of integration in Canada upon arrival and at the time of the hearing;

4. Whether there are family relationships in Canada;

5. Whether they have attempted to return to Canada as soon as possible;

6. Whether losing permanent resident status would cause hardship and displacement for the appellant and their family members;

7. Whether there are any other unique or special circumstances requiring special relief.

In general, the judge believed that the degree to which the appellants did not fulfill their residential obligation was very high, accounting for only 9% of the requirement.

In addition, their reasons for leaving Canada and staying abroad are negative factors for the appeal, and they did not return to Canada earlier.

"There are three goals related to appeals regarding the residential obligation. These goals require permanent residents to make every effort to integrate into Canada so that Canada can benefit socially, culturally, and economically.

The appellants did not make these efforts, especially considering the degree of violation of the residential obligation. For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed."

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2024/2024canlii44519/2024canlii44519.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=c6d3130ed0b74de28e03eb5e85febe30&searchId=2024-06-11T13:24:42:711/20a1194c91b5421d98e40fbb5a7cdca3&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAZcGVybWFuZW50IHJlc2lkZW5jZSBjaGluYQAAAAAB

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7495628847770190372/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by clicking the 'like' or 'dislike' buttons below.