回复: 去了趟古巴，回来的时候被海关查了，吊销了移民身份，郁闷呀
[FONT=宋体]以下内容给楼主参考：[/FONT]
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/brdcom/references/legjur/iadsai/roaren/Pages/index.aspx
Removal Order Appeals Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
[FONT=宋体]驱逐令上诉移民和难民保护法[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]其中的第三章部分[/FONT]Chapter3- Permanent Residence[FONT=宋体]中有这样几条可以注意一下：[/FONT]
p.7
Although the former
Immigration Act also had a physical residency requirement, absence from Canada, even for an extended period of time, did not lead to a loss permanent resident status unless it was determined that the permanent resident had the intention to abandon Canada.
Permanent residents who remained outside Canada for more than half of any 12-month period were deemed to have abandoned Canada as their place of permanent residence and the onus was on them to prove the contrary. Returning resident permits were, by statute, proof of a lack of intention to abandon Canada as a permanent residence. An adjudicator or an immigration officer determined whether or not the permanent resident had lost status as a result of an intention to abandon but the
Immigration Act provided no corresponding ground of inadmissibility. The old case law under the
Immigration Act regarding the intention to abandon is no longer relevant to appeals in law, as the
IRPA has made the determination of compliance with the residency obligation, for most cases, a matter of simple arithmetic.
However, the concept of abandonment is still relevant to the IAD’s exercise of humanitarian and compassionate discretion in residency obligation appeals.
[FONT=宋体]如果你不想放弃身份的话，请提供相关的证据证明你有不断返回加拿大的努力。[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]另外，[/FONT]IAD[FONT=宋体]在裁决上诉时有人道主义和同情心的自由裁量权。[/FONT]
p.8
Basically, for at least 730 days (2 years) in every 5 year period,a permanent resident must be either physically present in Canada,or outside Canada in certain defined situations.
[FONT=宋体]这个是居住期限的要求，标明的是每五个五年期间，所以如果你的卡在今年[/FONT]2[FONT=宋体]月份到期的话，之后即使在这里居住（也就是等待上诉结果期间），是不能算在这五年的期间之内的。[/FONT]
p. 9-10
Although the method for calculating 730 days within a five-year period sounds straightforward, it can become complicated if the permanent resident is found to have breached the residency obligation more than once within a limited time. In one such case,
the appellant, a minor, had not complied with his residency obligation. The officer however determined that humanitarian and compassionate considerations justified the breach and the appellant was allowed to return to Canada as a permanent resident. A few months later, he left Canada for a brief holiday. When he tried to return to Canada, another officer determined once again that the appellant was not in compliance with the residency obligation. His appeal to the IAD was allowed, but it was on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The residency determination was found to be valid in law as the appellant had not met the 730-day requirement in the five-year period prior to the new determination. The appellant received no special treatment in calculating the period as result of the first officer’s decision.
[FONT=宋体]以上是一个真实的案例，有很多相似的地方，但这个案例的上诉人年纪小，所以只能做个参考。[/FONT]
Where an officer has determined that a permanent resident has not met the residency obligation, the officer may decide that the breach has been overcome if in the officer’s opinion,
taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination, humanitarian and compassionate considerations justify the retention of permanent resident status.In addition, the IAD may allow an appeal on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
[FONT=宋体]如果有孩子的话，会充分考虑孩子的利益，这也是基于人道主义和同情心的考虑[/FONT]
p.11 -12
Discretionary Relief in Residency Obligation Appeals
[FONT=宋体]酌情救济居住义务的上诉[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]上诉的每个案子都有自己的独特之处，最终结果会综合考虑各种因素[/FONT]
The significance of factors considered in deciding whether equitable relief should be granted in
residency obligation appeals naturally varies from case to case and
some factors may overlap or need to be considered in conjunction with others. For example, an appellant who was absent from Canada for four years for
a very good reason might present a more compelling case for equitable relief than another appellant who missed the residency obligation by only two months without any valid excuse. A non-exhaustive list of factors commonly considered includes the following：
[FONT=宋体]上诉的每个案子都有自己的独特之处，最终结果会综合考虑各种因素。要有一个合理的理由去解释你的上诉。以下理由会被考虑：[/FONT]
a.the extent of the non-compliance with the residency obligation
b.the reasons for the departure from Canada
c.the reasons for continued or lengthy stay abroad
d.whether attempts to return to Canada were made at the first opportunity
e.the degree of establishment in Canada; both initial and continuing
f.family ties to Canada and whether they are sponsorable
g.hardship and dislocation that would be caused to the appellant and his/her family in Canada if the appellant were to be removed to his/her country of nationality
h.the best interests of any children directly involved
i.whether there are other unique or special circumstances that merit special relief
