其他
案例解析 | 不满足移民监要求,强行续枫叶卡会怎么样?
想必各位同学都知道加拿大有“移民监”的要求。
“加拿大移民监”笼统来讲就是：按照加拿大移民法IRPA.s28的规定，新移民在拿到枫叶卡后，申请人必须每5年循环期需要在加拿大累计住满2年，也就是5年需要在加拿大居住够730天。但如果已经拿到永久居民身份的申请人不能满足“居住义务”的最低要求，就有可能丧失他们的永久居民身份。
这种为了保留永居身份，而不得不待在加拿大的情况，如同“坐监”，所以被戏称为“移民监”。当然，如果不能实际住满，申请人如果符合特定情况也是可以续卡成功的。但是如果不符合却强制续卡，结果会非常悲催。
下面跟小编一起看看一则最新相关的联邦法院判例。
这个案例的根本在于D同学未满足定居要求而强行续签带来的一系列不良影响。
D同学2010年跟随父母办理移民顺利拿到加拿大pr身份。因为国内生意繁忙，D同学父母在2010年短登加拿大2周后便立马回国。2014年才回加拿大。其实按照移民法要求，D同学一家在2014年时应该是无法入境加拿大的（D同学一家在2010年-2015年这一个循环年内已经不满足至少730天的定居要求）。所幸运气较好，而且估计审查入境时碰到的CBSA移民官心情较好或者疏忽了,D同学一家顺利入境。
接下来按照正常流程来说，D同学应该是抱着感恩的心，住满730天后再续卡的（即使枫叶卡已经过期，但是人在境内的话是没有任何影响的）。然后，或许是2014年的好运让D同学父母产生了侥幸心理，也或许是想马上回国，在境内只住满了296天情况下于2015年便向移民局递交了续卡申请。移民局审查时发现这一情况，认定D同学不满足续卡要求，而且违反了移民法属于inadmissible情形，随后向D同学发放了递解令限期出境...
Section 28 of the IRPA provides that a permanent resident must be physically present in Canada for 730 days in respect of any five-year period. In the five-year period following his initial entry into Canada,the Respondent was physically present in Canada for only 296 days. Therefore, when the Respondent applied to extend his permanent residency in 2015, a removal order was made against him on the basis that he was inadmissible to Canada pursuant to s 40(1)(b) of IRPA, for failing to comply with the residency obligation as set out in s 28 of IRPA.
随后，D同学托律师以人道主义humanitarian and compassionate (H&C)理由向IAD上诉，请求保留身份和废除递结令。
*H&C的通用理由如下：*
The length of time you lived in Canada
Your level of establishment in Canada (for example your assets in Canada, activities and jobs held in Canada, community involvement in Canada)
The reason why you left Canada and why you remained outside Canada so long
Whether you tried to return to live in Canada at the earliest opportunity
The impact on you losing your permanent resident status. Will you suffer any hardship as a result
The impact on your family members in Canada if you were to lose your permanent resident status
The support you have in Canada from family and others in the community
The impact on the best interests of any child affected by losing your permanent resident status
If you left Canada as a child, your efforts to return to Canada when you were no longer a child
IAD未采纳。2018年1月IAD驳回申诉。D同学只能如期出境。18年1月，D同学上诉联邦法院申请司法审查。顺利通过。IAD在重审后发现，D同学不能满足定居要求是因为D同学还小，只能跟随父母来回奔波，最终认定H&C条件适用，D同学PR身份得以保留。
The IAD began its analysis by evaluating the extent of the Respondent’s non-compliance with the residency obligation. The IAD noted thathe was a child throughout the period under review and found that his comings and goings in that period were mostly the result of decisions made by his parents. The IAD was therefore of the view that the Respondent could not be held fully responsible for the extent of his breach of the residency obligation in the same way as someone who was an adult throughout the period of permanent residence. Therefore, it attached limited weight to the Respondent’s non-compliance, such that a lesser degree of H&C considerations was necessary to overcome the non-compliance.
...
The IAD concluded, based on the reasons for his non-compliance, his circumstances, and his best interests as a minor, that there were sufficient H&C circumstances to warrant the exercise of special relief. The IAD therefore set aside the removal order against the Respondent.
然后，移民局仍然不肯放过D同学。移民局随后向联邦法院提请司法审查，要求IAD重判。
案例解析联邦法院在收到移民局审查申请后，对申请做了详细分析。法院认定本次司法审查核心点在于--IAD的决定是否合理。在本案中，法院的任务是判断移民官在审理过程中是否做到了程序公平，决策过程是否合理、透明、可被理解。法院最终认定，D同学情况符合BIOC（Best intrests of a child），H&C情况适用，IAD判决合理，驳回移民局司法审查申请。
However, the IAD concluded that the factor most influencing his best interests was the ability to complete his high school education and then analysed the evidence relevant to that factor. Again, I find nothing unreasonable in the IAD’s analysis.
后话
如果申请人符合以下情况之一，无需满足定居要求也可以继续保留身份：
Working as a full-time employee assigned outside Canada for a Canadian business or organization.
Accompanying a spouse, common-law partner or a parent who is a permanent resident, working as a full-time employee assigned outside Canada for a Canadian business or organization. A child can make this case only if they were a dependent child of the working parent at the time they lived outside Canada.
Accompanying a spouse, common-law partner or a parent who is a Canadian citizen. A child can make this case only if they were a dependent child of the Canadian citizen at the time they lived outside Canada.
如果不满足上述情况，还是建议老老实实"坐监"。IAD现在审查H&C的适用情况也越来越严格，根据目前公布的判例中，很少有不符合居住要求的上诉人获胜的案例。像D同学这种情况实属非常幸运了。
案例解析 | 过往的签证信息记不全了，没事吧？
案例解析 | 海洋四省背书拿到就算成功？S女士一家却差点五年不得入境加拿大...
案例解析 | 海外受雇加拿大公司移民监就不用坐了？
案例解析 | 因移民系统故障无法按时递交申请，到底算谁的责任？
案例 |边境移民官粗鲁无理对待入境旅客，请看法院判决...
案例 |神操作--省提名证书已经拿到了，签证官却认为我雅思分数不够？
案例 |签证官会犯错吗？
案例 | 加拿大旅转学项目现在还适合申请吗？
案例 | 加拿大毕业工签PGWP时间到底怎么计算？
自雇案例 | 自雇人士是否一定需要提供税单？提供不了就无法申请？
案例 | 感染病毒，还能移民成功吗？
雇主担保案例 | 雅思4分够了吗？S先生险丢PR..
雇主担保案例 | 移民申请后能换不同行业工作吗?移民官可以无视材料吗？
自雇案例 | 没来过加拿大或者没出过国就不能移民了？自雇一定要做到行业顶尖？联邦法官驳倒判决！案例解析 | 不同职业申请工签，到底需要多少分的雅思成绩？
案例解析 | 毕业工签真的那么容易申请吗？