Various things do not add up.
For PR Query as to RO credit:
Assuming the citizenship certificate question was for someone other than the PR making this Residency Obligation query . . . addressing the person making the RO query:
December 2021 through late April 2024 adds up to well over 840 days, not just a year and a half, so this is one example making it unclear how you are calculating things. There is a reason why many of the posts here are asking questions about the situation.
In any event . . .
Mostly a follow-up to the caution offered by @Ponga and @scylla; the risk of strictly applying what constitutes "accompanying" a partner:
We do not know much about the odds or probabilities in regards to the risk of IRCC denying RO credit despite living with a Canadian citizen partner, based on concluding the PR was NOT "
accompanying" their partner, which was referred to by
@Ponga, and clarified by
@scylla, other than to say there are actual cases, as reported in official IAD decisions, in which some PRs are DENIED credit toward meeting the RO for time they are living with a Canadian citizen spouse outside Canada, and many more cases in which the Minister's representative in those proceedings argued against allowing the credit but the IAD panel ruled in the PR's favour.
The significance of those rulings is that there is indeed a risk that RO credit can be denied for days a PR is living with a Canadian citizen spouse if IRCC concludes the PR did not "
accompany" their partner/spouse in going outside Canada, and if appealed, that the IAD will uphold that.
The significance of seeing the Minister's representative quite consistently advocate that credit should be denied, based on asserting the PR did not
accompany the citizen partner, is that this is a strong indication this approach is at least a part of the policy in which this credit is evaluated. Note, for example, while the shifts in IRCC language over the years have been small, incremental changes, where some information previously referred to credit for days a PR is "
ordinarily residing" with a Citizen-spouse abroad, in some instances this has been replaced by reference to the statutory term "
accompanying" in particular.
The operational manual
ENF 23 Loss of Permanent Resident Status, still refers to the credit applying for time periods the PR
ordinarily resides with the citizen spouse, but that has not been updated in nearly two decades and not only some IAD panels but some Federal Court justices as well have declined to equate ordinarily residing together and accompanying. In particular, even though Section 7.1 in the manual refers to one of the ways in which a PR can meet the RO is by "
accompanying abroad (that is, ordinarily residing with) a spouse or common-law partner" who is a Canadian citizen, suggesting that "
accompanying" means ordinarily residing with, the Minister's representative has been consistently arguing otherwise and both the IAD and Federal Court have agreed with that in numerous cases.
In terms of total numbers, we do not see a lot of these cases. So we have no practical sense of the odds, the probabilities. But there are enough of these cases to recognize they are not an anomaly; and here again this is reinforced by how consistently the Minister has advocated that
living together does not qualify for the credit if the PR did not
accompany the citizen.
A small point of clarification:
To clarify, the OP's scenario could be problematic even if the "
who-accompanied-whom" or "
who-followed-whom" approach is not applied, since it appears neither actually "
accompanied" the other in relocating outside Canada. That is, even without considering
who-followed-whom, the OP's scenario indicates that they did not even
go-with their partner.
Moreover, while we have almost no comparative numbers to help rate the probabilities, the OP's situation appears to be in line with the most damaging elements indicated in those cases that have gone against the PR:
-- no long-term settlement in Canada prior to living outside Canada
-- no living together in Canada prior to departure from Canada
-- -- this includes no concurrence or association in their respective travel leaving Canada, thus neither accompanying the other
It appears that the OP also has one other factor that has loomed large in some cases going against allowing the credit: it appears the relationship begins AFTER the PR is outside Canada (making it virtually impossible to argue the PR accompanied their partner in going abroad).
THAT SAID . . .
There's a lot loaded in that query.
This relates back to not knowing the probabilities. There are many what Brian Klaas might refer to as "
forking paths" potentially in play.
Key alternative: if and when the OP is actually intending to settle in Canada, if the OP has lost PR status in the meantime the OP could be sponsored by their Canadian citizen partner for PR. Should be obvious (since an intent to immigrate to Canada to settle "
permanently" is one of the eligibility requirements for a grant of PR status) but apparently is not so obvious to many, someone in this situation should WAIT to re-apply for PR in the family class when they are actually ready to make the move to Canada.
Even if the OP's query is about applying for a new PR card, that would require physically coming to Canada and being IN Canada to make that application, and the more prudent approach would be to wait to apply for a new PR card ONLY after the OP has settled here, is here to stay.
The latter leads to the vagaries of RO enforcement by border officials, and what risk there is of a Residency Determination followed by inadmissibility proceedings attendant a Port-of-Entry examination. If the OP only travels to Canada from the U.S. using land transportation and is prepared to present information (and some documentation would be good) supporting the claim to credit for living with a Canadian citizen partner, and especially if the OP does so accompanied by the OP's citizen partner, odds are probably good (perhaps not great, but at least good) there will be no RO problem at the border. With rare exception, the denial of credit for days living together with a Canadian citizen partner have been IRCC cases, NOT CBSA cases. It is noteworthy, in particular, in the published cases we have not seen the representative for the Minister of Public Safety (who advocates the government's case in RO inadmissibility cases arising from PoE determinations) argue against credit for time the PR is ordinarily residing with their citizen partner (much like the guidelines provide in ENF 23), in contrast to the representative for the Minister of IRCC consistently advocating a more strict approach, often specifically arguing for a
who-accompanied-whom approach.