Returning while not meeting RO - any recent experiences?

[bricksonly]

Thanks a lot for reply

but the very reason that I have been out of Canada so much is parental health issues and am the primary care giver, also I will be entering to Canada on April 28th just for 15 days in order to apply for renewal, as right now I cant be much away from my ailing parents.

Also I cannot gain any days as more I stay in Canada and delay the filing of application, though i gain days of stay in Canada but I lose the one gained in 2018.


I guess the best case is that file and hope for no explanations asked as I still meet the obligation of 730 days of presence, and if any explanation demand comes then provide it.

I am actually on the same boat as yours. Gain one day but lose one day back to 2018. So have no any chance to make a bigger buffer. I submitted my application as soon as I reached the maximum days back in Dec, 2022. Online. And got returned for "photos are missing". When I received this message I was aboard with my family for vacation. So I returned in late Jan and resubmitted online. Got GCKey linked on Mar., and now there is famous "ghost update" shows. Hope this is good news.

You could ask, as I was on "gain one day lose one day" boat, with a minimum buffer, how can I keep RO to avoid risk when passing boarder? My citizen spouse is working in US and I am with her, including vacation to Europe for 20 days. I am actually test the bottom line of this "live with citizen spouse": does this including travel aboard(third party) during our living together aboard? Anyway I counted these vacation days with spouse as active good days with the reason "B". Let IRCC decide.

And one thing I would share, if possible, better take a small stay in US before fly or drive back to Canada. In this case, when a CBSA personal stops you, you can confidently answer: I just come back from US after a vacation. It's tricky, but it's also very honest. They generally have no interest with this group of "happy" people.

 

[Ponga]

So for example: you apply tomorrow and (miracle!) you even get the new PR card two weeks later. Then you leave and in a month or so you are out of compliance with the RO.

After that, at any point, you hypothetically can be found non-compliant at any point you re-enter. THere is no "good now for two years because I got a new PR card".

Now in reality, if it's a full five year card, CBSA usually may not look at it or pay any attention, at least for a while - unless there is something else going on.

If a PR has successfully renewed their PR Card and then leaves Canada for...say 2-1/2 years, how could they be determined to be out of compliance? If the PR still has 2-1/2 to meet the R.O., why should the officer have any real concerns at that time. Granted, it would likely be an opportune time for the officer to caution the PR about meeting the R.O. before they apply to renew in future.

From OP10, page 11:

Even if a person had resided away from Canada for many years, but returned to Canada and resided there for a minimum of 730 days during the last five years, that person would comply with the residency obligation and remain a permanent resident. An officer is not permitted to consider just any five-year period in the applicant’s past, but must always assess the most
recent five-year period preceding the receipt of the application.

 

[Besram]

If a PR has successfully renewed their PR Card and then leaves Canada for...say 2-1/2 years, how could they be determined to be out of compliance? If the PR still has 2-1/2 to meet the R.O., why should the officer have any real concerns at that time. Granted, it would likely be an opportune time for the officer to caution the PR about meeting the R.O. before they apply to renew in future.

From OP10, page 11:

Even if a person had resided away from Canada for many years, but returned to Canada and resided there for a minimum of 730 days during the last five years, that person would comply with the residency obligation and remain a permanent resident. An officer is not permitted to consider just any five-year period in the applicant’s past, but must always assess the most
recent five-year period preceding the receipt of the application.

Because it depends on when exactly the stays in Canada and absences occurred. If time in Canada falls out of the rolling five-year window, it is possible that a permanent resident, who currently meets the RO, drifts out of compliance when spending time abroad.

That's why it's always important to keep track and understand what can be counted towards the RO at any given point in time, especially when planning to travel.

 

[armoured]

If a PR has successfully renewed their PR Card and then leaves Canada for...say 2-1/2 years, how could they be determined to be out of compliance? If the PR still has 2-1/2 to meet the R.O., why should the officer have any real concerns at that time. Granted, it would likely be an opportune time for the officer to caution the PR about meeting the R.O. before they apply to renew in future.

From OP10, page 11:

Even if a person had resided away from Canada for many years, but returned to Canada and resided there for a minimum of 730 days during the last five years, that person would comply with the residency obligation and remain a permanent resident. An officer is not permitted to consider just any five-year period in the applicant’s past, but must always assess the most
recent five-year period preceding the receipt of the application.

Like @Besram said: it's a rolling obligation. The PR in question here already indicated that they have days from ~5 years ago and will start losing days (and if outside Canada, no 'new' days to compensate).

 

[VJ@1981]

I am actually on the same boat as yours. Gain one day but lose one day back to 2018. So have no any chance to make a bigger buffer. I submitted my application as soon as I reached the maximum days back in Dec, 2022. Online. And got returned for "photos are missing". When I received this message I was aboard with my family for vacation. So I returned in late Jan and resubmitted online. Got GCKey linked on Mar., and now there is famous "ghost update" shows. Hope this is good news.

You could ask, as I was on "gain one day lose one day" boat, with a minimum buffer, how can I keep RO to avoid risk when passing boarder? My citizen spouse is working in US and I am with her, including vacation to Europe for 20 days. I am actually test the bottom line of this "live with citizen spouse": does this including travel aboard(third party) during our living together aboard? Anyway I counted these vacation days with spouse as active good days with the reason "B". Let IRCC decide.

And one thing I would share, if possible, better take a small stay in US before fly or drive back to Canada. In this case, when a CBSA personal stops you, you can confidently answer: I just come back from US after a vacation. It's tricky, but it's also very honest. They generally have no interest with this group of "happy" people.

In your view, is filing online application, likely to raise more issues than mailing the regular paper application?
and did you actually forgot to upload the photos or the photo scan was wrong?

 

[meghashyam75]

Where did you hear/see that? AFAIK, people are still applying online and...still facing ridiculous errors/glitches, but are eventually getting approvals.

Despite not meeting RO?

 

[bricksonly]

In your view, is filing online application, likely to raise more issues than mailing the regular paper application?
and did you actually forgot to upload the photos or the photo scan was wrong?

I guess the same between mail or online.
In my case, I think the online application is much easier because I decided to attach many supporting document. If go mail, it will cost me much to color print and mail fee.
The response is good for online application. YES, photo's missing...but anyway you will found this after around two to three weeks after your submission. OR NOT. if NOT informed, it's fine, everything goes good, you just wait and try link your application to your IRCC account so you can get email notification for status change or any additional requirement.
I forgot to give DoB and Name on the back of the photo, so I just added it and exchanged then submitted again. Do remember give a larger size of your digital photo. If you scan, I guess 600 dpi is necessary.

 

[Ponga]

Despite not meeting RO?

If a PR has not met the R.O., they probably should not be applying to renew their PR Card, unless they have compelling H&C grounds.

 

[Ponga]

Like @Besram said: it's a rolling obligation. The PR in question here already indicated that they have days from ~5 years ago and will start losing days (and if outside Canada, no 'new' days to compensate).

Understand that it's a rolling 5-year window/obligation. What is not clear to me, is if/why a PR that presents themselves at CBSA inspection, that has at least 730 days remaining on their valid PR Card, would encounter any real problems. Even if they had been outside of Canada for 2-1/2, but < 3 years, for example, they could still meet the R.O. if they understand what their math is and what's needed to meet the R.O. before the card expires.

Not worth belaboring the point, since I don't have a dog in the fight. LOL!

 

[armoured]

Understand that it's a rolling 5-year window/obligation. What is not clear to me, is if/why a PR that presents themselves at CBSA inspection, that has at least 730 days remaining on their valid PR Card, would encounter any real problems. Even if they had been outside of Canada for 2-1/2, but < 3 years, for example, they could still meet the R.O. if they understand what their math is and what's needed to meet the R.O. before the card expires.

I think you have a minor misapprehension here - since we are talking about a case of card renewal, the card expiry date of the second card is irrelevant. At that point they are either compliant or not based on a full five year period.*

(At least technically. It is possible that CBSA officers tend to just look at the time remaining on the card as their primary indication - that is, addressing your second sentence).

*I have to put this caveat that a PR in their first five year period is also compliant based on time remaining. In other words in both cases being outside Canada less than 1095 days in five years or since date of landing is fully determinative of RO compliance.

[I shiould have added, it's possible I was misapprehending your point - and if so, mea culpa]

 

[Megabuff]

While @Ponga addresses the gist of things, more specifically in response to your questions:

I would still like to know if anyone was in a similar predicament recently and managed to enter without any hassle and without losing their status. I am looking for anecdotal evidence to that may bring some hope.​

Your situation appears to be quite common and there are numerous relatively similar situations anecdotally reported in this forum. If you are really interested, you need to do the homework, to at least browse topic titles looking for relevant discussions. You do not specifically say so, but I'm guessing your situation is like the most common scenario, a PR who did what many call a soft landing, planning to make the move to Canada within the next two or so years but then failing to make the move for more than three years. You should be able to find scores of anecdotal reports similar to this and also see many responses. If you do the homework.

However, many of those who post about this do not return and update how things actually went when they arrived at the Port-of-Entry. It will be appreciated if you do, when the time comes.

Overall the accounts about how it goes vary widely, ranging from PRs who are not much more than a couple hundred days past getting here in time to be in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation encountering inadmissibility proceedings, to a significant number waived through without a problem even though they are arriving here within a few months or even weeks of when their PR card expires.

Once the PR is in breach, however, which during the first five years occurs when the PR has been outside Canada more than 1095 days since the date of landing, there is a risk of inadmissibility proceedings. Possessing and presenting a valid PR card reduces the risk, but the more days abroad total, since landing, in conjunction with more days abroad since last in Canada, is the most obvious and dominant factor increasing the risk.

It is very difficult to quantify the risks more than that, although in general the risk probably goes up a lot if the PR has been abroad four years since landing and it is getting close to the date the PR card expires.

PRs for more than five years: This does not appear to be your situation, but if it is the risks are likely higher, and for such a PR who has been outside Canada four plus years since last here, odds of inadmissibility proceedings are most likely quite high.

Are they lenient, in general? and if so, which port of entry was that at?​

Depends on what you mean by "lenient." In general terms CBSA appears to be very lenient with many PRs in breach of the RO. But that might be comparable to saying law enforcement is lenient with speeders driving ten to fifteen km over the speed limit. Thirty km over is a different story. Falling short of meeting the RO by one or four months is one thing. Falling short by four hundred, approaching five hundred days, that's another.

It appears that the biggest factor for PRs in breach by more than a year is whether they are waived through at the PIL (Primary Inspection Line), be that the booth at a roadway border crossing, or the kiosk at some bigger airports. This is where having and presenting a valid PR card probably makes the most difference. The vast majority of PRs presenting a valid PR card are not asked questions about RO compliance. For obvious reasons: nearly all of them, most of the time, are living in Canada, returning from travel abroad, and not even close to being in breach of the RO.

So what triggers a Secondary immigration referral and RO compliance questioning? Again, any PR in breach is at risk. The bigger the breach, the bigger the risk. Efforts to quantify the odds any more precisely tend to be guessing.

For a PR who was last in Canada four or more years ago, being waived through at the PIL eliminates the risk of inadmissibility proceedings. Which leads to the situation you described: if they stay two years without triggering a RO examination (no travel abroad, no PR card application), that will cure the RO breach and they can then apply for a PR card without risk.

But if there is a Secondary immigration referral and RO compliance questioning, we cannot say with certainty but it is very likely that size of breach makes it quite likely the PR will encounter inadmissibility proceedings resulting in a Removal Order UNLESS they have a good H&C case explaining why they did not return to Canada sooner.

There are no indications that any Port-of-Entry is better than another on any given day.

Even if the officer and the further process determines me to be ineligible to continue as PR, would I be allowed to live out my rest of the time period on the card inside the country or will I be sent back on short notice?​

Worst case scenario is being issued a Removal Order. This happens when a second officer reviews the 44(1) Inadmissibility Report and determines (1) it is valid in law (meaning there is a RO breach), and (2) there are not sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep PR status despite the breach. This Removal Order is NOT immediately enforceable, so the PR is then allowed to proceed into Canada.

That decision terminates PR status, taking effect when the Removal Order becomes enforceable. (So no, the expiration date on the PR card does not determine how long the PR can stay in Canada.)

The PR has thirty days to appeal. If there is no appeal, the Removal Order becomes enforceable thirty days after it was issued. So that is the date the individual is no longer a PR but becomes a Foreign National (FN). The Removal Order then typically allows the FN up to thirty more days to leave Canada. So, if there is no appeal, the individual can typically stay in Canada for up to sixty days after being issued the Removal Order at the PoE.

If the PR makes an appeal within thirty days, the Removal Order remains unenforceable as long as the appeal is pending. The PR continues to have PR status pending the appeal, and thus can work in Canada, continue to travel in and out of Canada, and if the appeal lasts long enough, after the PR card expires the PR will be entitled to a one-year PR card . . . again, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Hello thanks for the great info. can you please tell me, how can you find out if you PR card is still valid? or what would make it invalide?
I got mine in 2018.

BTW do i need to personally have the card on me when returning to canada?

thanks

 

[bricksonly]

Hello thanks for the great info. can you please tell me, how can you find out if you PR card is still valid? or what would make it invalide?
I got mine in 2018.

BTW do i need to personally have the card on me when returning to canada?

thanks

1. Expiry date is printed on the PR card.
2. If you take commercial transition to enter Canada, you need a PR card with you (works like Visa), otherwise you won't be allowed to board. However, you don't need a PR card if you enter Canada by private transition, mostly private vehicle through a land entry. Private ship, airplane...yes...only if no one stops you from boarding...and it's legal

 

[dpenabill]

The date a PR card expires is NOT relevant when calculating whether a PR is in compliance with the RO.

However, it can have a big influence on how things go when a PR in breach of the RO returns to Canada.

The first of these statements is well-established conventional wisdom. The latter is about practical distinctions and decisional-points in Port-of-Entry screening. Whether there is a referral to Secondary immigration makes a huge difference.

how can you find out if you PR card is still valid?
BTW do i need to personally have the card on me when returning to canada?

As @bricksonly commented:

Date the PR card expires is printed on the PR card itself.

To board a flight to Canada a PR must present a valid PR card (or obtain a PR Travel Document to present to the airline).

No particular document is necessary at the Port-of-Entry, but of course the traveler must establish their identity sufficiently to also document their PR status. To establish status at the PoE (if for example crossing the border by land from the U.S.), a valid PR card is best, but an expired PR card will usually work almost as well (but does NOT work for getting on a plane coming to Canada); CoPR or Canadian identification can help.

That said, the PR card is NOT relevant to whether or not a PR is inadmissible (subject to being issued a Removal Order and losing PR status).

Leading to . . .

An Effort to Make Sense of Many Tangents; Distinctions and Connections:
(It may take awhile to illuminate the reason for a deep dive here, but I will get there; apologies in advance for some repetitiveness, some of which is for emphasis, most in an effort to be definitively clear.)

First, for clarity:

Understand that it's a rolling 5-year window/obligation. What is not clear to me, is if/why a PR that presents themselves at CBSA inspection, that has at least 730 days remaining on their valid PR Card, would encounter any real problems. Even if they had been outside of Canada for 2-1/2, but < 3 years, for example, they could still meet the R.O. if they understand what their math is and what's needed to meet the R.O. before the card expires.

Not worth belaboring the point, since I don't have a dog in the fight. LOL!

Actually the point is very much worth belaboring. It is important for anyone offering responses to questions about RO compliance to recognize and understand that for purposes of calculating Residency Obligation compliance, the date a PR card expires is NOT relevant.

You actually posted the explanation yourself, after asking

If a PR has successfully renewed their PR Card and then leaves Canada for...say 2-1/2 years, how could they be determined to be out of compliance?

You then quoted the key reason from an operational manual:

An officer is not permitted to consider just any five-year period in the applicant’s past, but must always assess the most
recent five-year period preceding the receipt of the application.

(Note: this is taking the quote somewhat out of context. In the manual this is stated as an explanation for why a breach in the past is not relevant. It nonetheless equally explains why being in compliance in the past, such as when a PR card application was processed resulting in a new card being issued, is not relevant: what matters, what is calculated, is the number of days IN Canada within the previous five years. Additionally, while that quote is from an overseas processing operational manual, and is for visa officers processing PR TD applications in visa offices abroad, the same principle applies to an application for a new PR card, and to an application for authorization to enter Canada (that is, in screening at a PoE when the PR is returning to Canada): RO compliance is calculated based on presence during "the most recent five-year period preceding" the date the application is made. The date a PR card was issued, or the date it expires, is NOT relevant.)​

Which means, among other things, an officer screening (for RO compliance) the returning PR at the PoE is not assessing the same five year time period that was assessed when IRCC processed the PR card application more than two years previous.

Reminder: NOT all returning PRs are questioned about RO compliance. In fact the vast majority are not, let alone subject to close questioning about it. For PRs presenting a valid PR card but who are not in RO compliance, there is a huge difference in how things go depending on whether they are waived through following preliminary screening or they are specifically examined as to RO compliance.​

In regards to RO compliance itself, @Besram nailed it precisely, in responding to the question posed by @Ponga

Q: If a PR has successfully renewed their PR Card and then leaves Canada for...say 2-1/2 years, how could they be determined to be out of compliance?​

​

A: Because it depends on when exactly the stays in Canada and absences occurred.​

This is widely understood. Well understood. (So, again, please forgive me for belaboring it; I just think it is worth making this clear with certainty.) Whether a PR is in compliance with the RO on any given day is a question of fact based on the number of days in Canada within the last five years or, for a *new* PR (PR who has landed within the last five years) the number of days in Canada since landing PLUS the number of days left on the calendar to the fifth year anniversary of landing.

Leading to . . . another post . . .

 

[dpenabill]

. . . as continued . . .

The date a PR card expires is NOT relevant when calculating whether a PR is in compliance with the RO.

However, it can have a big influence on how things go when a PR in breach of the RO returns to Canada.

It may seem a trite exercise to dig into a detailed scenario to illustrate this. But I hope doing so more fully illuminates just how irrelevant the expiration date of the PR card is, when calculating RO compliance, but how influential it might be otherwise. And a situation somewhat similar to that described by @sayadil potentially offers such an example. Consider:

PR-Harlan landing date June 2018; PR card issued August 2018; PR card expires August 2023​

PR-Harlan spends 680 days in Canada between June 2018 and June 2020​

June 2020 PR-Harlan leaves Canada for extended period of time; next returns to Canada February 2023​

PR card application made April 2023; RO credit 737 days​

New PR card issued July 2023, expiration date July 2028​

PR-Harlan spent total 119 days in Canada in 2023 before leaving July 2023​

In this scenario if PR-Harlan next returns to Canada in December 2023, he will be in breach of the RO when he arrives. The extent of the breach will be relatively small. Hard to assess how much risk there is here.

If PR-Harlan does not return for nearly 2 1/2 years, say in September 2025, he will not only be in breach of the RO when he arrives, but in breach by a lot . . . by more than 600 days. In fact, upon arrival at the PoE in September 2025, PR-Harlan will only have 119 days credit toward meeting the RO. His PR card does not expire until July 2028, but being so far in breach of the RO there is a real risk PR-Harlan will suffer RO compliance enforcement, and depending on the reasons for his absence (depending on whether there are sufficiently favourable H&C considerations), potentially issued a Removal Order upon arrival.

Whether or not that happens, however, will first depend on whether he is waived through during preliminary screening. His presentation of a PR card still valid for nearly three more years might very well be a key factor in why he is waived through.

If he is not waived through the PIL screening, his risks go up dramatically. If for some reason the PIL screening results in a referral to Secondary immigration, and RO compliance questioning, the fact his PR card is still valid for nearly three more years does NOT help at all. The fact that he has only been in Canada 119 days within the preceding five years will be the biggest factor. And, again, absent some good H&C factors, the risk of losing PR status in this scenario is probably very high.

So, let's revisit the question one more time (yeah, sorry, more repetition):

If a PR has successfully renewed their PR Card and then leaves Canada for...say 2-1/2 years, how could they be determined to be out of compliance?​

If the PR is questioned about RO compliance and they have only been in Canada 119 days during the preceding five years, they are out of compliance. By a lot. The risk of losing PR status is probably high if not very high. Date the PR card expires is not relevant.

What is far less certain is whether they will in fact be questioned about RO compliance. Most PRs are not questioned about RO compliance when they arrive at the PoE. A PR presenting a valid PR card that does not expire for more than two more years is probably more likely to be waived through preliminary screening than not. UNLESS. Unless something triggers a referral and RO compliance questioning. (It is worth noting that generally there tends to be quite a few indicators suggesting a potential RO compliance issue when a PR is in breach of the RO by a lot -- it tends to show, one might say, when someone is not settled and permanently living in Canada.)

There are many discussions here, in numerous topics, about what factors will influence how it goes at the PoE. For PRs in breach but able to present a valid PR card, it is very much a two-pronged question:

-- what will trigger a Secondary immigration examination, and if that happens​

-- what will most influence whether RO enforcement results in a Removal Order​

There is much overlap in the factors. The length of the PR's most recent absence, for example, can be an influential factor in what triggers a referral to Secondary, and also a factor in determining whether to issue a Removal Order. Extent of Canadian ties likewise.

But the expiration date of the PR card is different. It can be a big factor influencing whether the PR is waived through preliminary screening or referred for RO compliance questioning. In contrast, it is NOT a factor, not at all, in calculating RO compliance.

Note Regarding Math and Whether a PR "could still meet the RO."

It makes sense to refer to the number of days needed "to meet the RO" for a PR in breach who has been fortunate enough to be waived into Canada without encountering inadmissibility proceedings, AND is STAYING in Canada. In this context it is about how many days the PR needs to stay in order to have spent at least 730 days in Canada within the previous five years, and thus meet the RO.

I realize this language is very commonly used in regards to soft-landing PRs evaluating (doing the math) when they need to make the move to Canada to avoid losing PR status. To my view this is unfortunate, since I think this way of phrasing things is confusing if not outright misleading. To avoid risk of inadmissibility enforcement, PRs, including those within their first five years after landing, need to come to Canada while they still "meet the RO."

There is no math pursuant to which a PR abroad "could still meet the RO" based on when they arrive in Canada. They either meet the RO when they arrive or they are in breach. For some, those cutting-it-close, it might be important to do the math in regards to how many days they need to stay in Canada in order to avoid being in breach when they leave. The @sayadil situation illustrates this.

 

[VJ@1981]

. . . as continued . . .

The date a PR card expires is NOT relevant when calculating whether a PR is in compliance with the RO.

However, it can have a big influence on how things go when a PR in breach of the RO returns to Canada.

It may seem a trite exercise to dig into a detailed scenario to illustrate this. But I hope doing so more fully illuminates just how irrelevant the expiration date of the PR card is, when calculating RO compliance, but how influential it might be otherwise. And a situation somewhat similar to that described by @sayadil potentially offers such an example. Consider:

PR-Harlan landing date June 2018; PR card issued August 2018; PR card expires August 2023​

PR-Harlan spends 680 days in Canada between June 2018 and June 2020​

June 2020 PR-Harlan leaves Canada for extended period of time; next returns to Canada February 2023​

PR card application made April 2023; RO credit 737 days​

New PR card issued July 2023, expiration date July 2028​

PR-Harlan spent total 119 days in Canada in 2023 before leaving July 2023​

In this scenario if PR-Harlan next returns to Canada in December 2023, he will be in breach of the RO when he arrives. The extent of the breach will be relatively small. Hard to assess how much risk there is here.

If PR-Harlan does not return for nearly 2 1/2 years, say in September 2025, he will not only be in breach of the RO when he arrives, but in breach by a lot . . . by more than 600 days. In fact, upon arrival at the PoE in September 2025, PR-Harlan will only have 119 days credit toward meeting the RO. His PR card does not expire until July 2028, but being so far in breach of the RO there is a real risk PR-Harlan will suffer RO compliance enforcement, and depending on the reasons for his absence (depending on whether there are sufficiently favourable H&C considerations), potentially issued a Removal Order upon arrival.

Whether or not that happens, however, will first depend on whether he is waived through during preliminary screening. His presentation of a PR card still valid for nearly three more years might very well be a key factor in why he is waived through.

If he is not waived through the PIL screening, his risks go up dramatically. If for some reason the PIL screening results in a referral to Secondary immigration, and RO compliance questioning, the fact his PR card is still valid for nearly three more years does NOT help at all. The fact that he has only been in Canada 119 days within the preceding five years will be the biggest factor. And, again, absent some good H&C factors, the risk of losing PR status in this scenario is probably very high.

So, let's revisit the question one more time (yeah, sorry, more repetition):

If a PR has successfully renewed their PR Card and then leaves Canada for...say 2-1/2 years, how could they be determined to be out of compliance?​

If the PR is questioned about RO compliance and they have only been in Canada 119 days during the preceding five years, they are out of compliance. By a lot. The risk of losing PR status is probably high if not very high. Date the PR card expires is not relevant.

What is far less certain is whether they will in fact be questioned about RO compliance. Most PRs are not questioned about RO compliance when they arrive at the PoE. A PR presenting a valid PR card that does not expire for more than two more years is probably more likely to be waived through preliminary screening than not. UNLESS. Unless something triggers a referral and RO compliance questioning. (It is worth noting that generally there tends to be quite a few indicators suggesting a potential RO compliance issue when a PR is in breach of the RO by a lot -- it tends to show, one might say, when someone is not settled and permanently living in Canada.)

There are many discussions here, in numerous topics, about what factors will influence how it goes at the PoE. For PRs in breach but able to present a valid PR card, it is very much a two-pronged question:

-- what will trigger a Secondary immigration examination, and if that happens​

-- what will most influence whether RO enforcement results in a Removal Order​

There is much overlap in the factors. The length of the PR's most recent absence, for example, can be an influential factor in what triggers a referral to Secondary, and also a factor in determining whether to issue a Removal Order. Extent of Canadian ties likewise.

But the expiration date of the PR card is different. It can be a big factor influencing whether the PR is waived through preliminary screening or referred for RO compliance questioning. In contrast, it is NOT a factor, not at all, in calculating RO compliance.

Note Regarding Math and Whether a PR "could still meet the RO."

It makes sense to refer to the number of days needed "to meet the RO" for a PR in breach who has been fortunate enough to be waived into Canada without encountering inadmissibility proceedings, AND is STAYING in Canada. In this context it is about how many days the PR needs to stay in order to have spent at least 730 days in Canada within the previous five years, and thus meet the RO.

I realize this language is very commonly used in regards to soft-landing PRs evaluating (doing the math) when they need to make the move to Canada to avoid losing PR status. To my view this is unfortunate, since I think this way of phrasing things is confusing if not outright misleading. To avoid risk of inadmissibility enforcement, PRs, including those within their first five years after landing, need to come to Canada while they still "meet the RO."

There is no math pursuant to which a PR abroad "could still meet the RO" based on when they arrive in Canada. They either meet the RO when they arrive or they are in breach. For some, those cutting-it-close, it might be important to do the math in regards to how many days they need to stay in Canada in order to avoid being in breach when they leave. The @sayadil situation illustrates this.

A very detailed info indeed, When I enter Canada on 28th April I would have 1089 days of absence from Canada and 736 days of presence of Canada. So I guess I should be ok to apply for my renewal of the PR. Right ??

Though meeting the RO for the 2nd term of PR card duration might be still up in airs.