QUESTION RE: Risk posed to PR IN COMPLIANCE with RO, but very close margins

[747-captain]

Hey Everyone!

I have scoured the forums for my unique situation, but not found an answer. Most questions concern PRs who have either an EXPIRED PR and have violated their RO, or they have a VALID PR and have violated their RO.

But what happens when someone is still in compliance with their RO, but have cut their margins extremely close and stil have the need to travel?? Do they get pulled into secondary everytime?? Do they get reported to IRCC simply on the basis of suspicion, even though they might be in full compliance? (recall that CBSA/IRCC do not have proper entry/exit records to accurately determine this).

The following thread, and posts by dpenabill (I've included excerpts below) come awfully close to touching on this, but I'm still left totally confused.

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/not-meeting-residency-obligation-travelling-to-canada.530124/page-2

Caution: for a PR who is NOT in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation the chances of being examined and reported really depend on the particular PR and some key factors. Make no mistake, any PR not in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation is at risk for being reported upon arrival at a Port-of-Entry, and for most in this situation that risk is significantly higher than a "very little chance" regardless of the PR card validity dates.

Historically this has not been the case. Risks, including for those PRs carrying and presenting a valid PR card, increased dramatically around 2011-2012 or so, and they continue to gradually increase as screening, records, technology, and information sharing, are enhanced.

The biggest factor is whether there are indicators or clues which are more or less likely to trigger a referral to Secondary. Once in Secondary, how it goes will depend a great deal on the traveler's response to particular questions in conjunction with information otherwise apparent to the examining officer, and that will have a far bigger impact on the chances of being reported than how much longer the PR card is valid for.

Note: for returning PRs there is some random chance of a referral to Secondary and some examination as to compliance with the PR RO. Probability of this is very low. Most PR referrals to Secondary for PR RO examination are criteria-based.

Overall, PRs with a valid PR card are presumed to have valid status and thus are not likely to be referred to Secondary for an examination regarding compliance with the PR RO UNLESS something triggers questions about PR RO compliance.

For some PR-travelers returning to Canada, the expiration date on their PR card might be a factor which is considered in deciding whether to make a Secondary referral (for PR RO compliance assessment) but there are many other factors which will loom far, far larger, and have more influence on what the probability of a Secondary referral is.

In this context it is worth noting that a new PR (an immigrant who has been a PR for less than five years) whose PR card indicates that less than THREE years have elapsed since landing CANNOT possibly be in breach of the PR RO. While the PR card is typically issued some time after the landing date, a new PR's card valid for another two plus years will thus, ordinarily, indicate no potential PR RO issues and there is indeed "very little chance" of a PR RO compliance examination let alone being reported.

Not necessarily so for a PR carrying a PR card valid for just another 1.5 years. For a PR carrying a PRC valid for just another 1.5 years, the chances of a RO compliance examination in Secondary, and being Reported, will depend far more on such things as:

• how long the PR has been abroad since last time in Canada
• impression or appearance that PR is visiting rather than returning to ordinary place of residence
• impression or appearance that PR is just now moving to Canada, thus indicating the PR has been living abroad
• any other factors or circumstances which raise a question about how much time the PR has been spending in Canada, including pattern of entries into Canada, including any previous flags or FOSS notes, especially as to RO compliance

A decade ago it appeared to be true that a PR carrying a PR card valid for a year or more still had very little chance of being reported at a Port-of-Entry. That changed during the reign of Harper and CBSA and CIC efforts to elevate PR RO enforcement in conjunction with more thorough screening of all travelers generally, including PRs particularly. There is little sign that under the current Liberal government that CBSA or IRCC has mitigated let alone abated the escalation of enforcement.

SUMMARY: the biggest risk factor for being reported is whether the traveler is likely to be waived through the PIL OR referred to Secondary. While the PR card expiration date may be a factor in the risk of being referred to Secondary, other factors have more influence. Once a RO compliance assessment is in progress in Secondary, the expiration date on the PR card will be largely irrelevant and other factors will almost certainly dictate whether the PR is reported or not.

Here's my situation in a nutshell:

I did my "landing" Feb. 23, 2016 and stayed in Canada for 10 days before returning to California to live (So, I have these 10 days "in my bag" + 1095 days allowed by the rules in effect). I was planning to return to Canada permanently sometime in September or October of 2018, leaving me a very good buffer of about 5-ish months in addition to the 730-day requirement.

But stuff happens, and I now expect to permanently move sometime between 30th Dec 2018 and 1st week of Jan, 2019, giving me a much smaller, but still decent-ish 2 months buffer.

Another thing to keep in mind: My PR card is valid to JUNE 15, 2021 (approx. 4 months BEYOND my initial 5-year period).

But here's the catch: I will still need to visit my family back in the US at least every 2 months, each time for about 5 or 6 days. This situation creates 2 problematic issues:

i) As I keep visiting and returning, my "buffer" will likely be completely used up, and may even put me out of compliance towards the VERY END of the 5-year period. (Of course, if this happens, I will not set foot outside Canada, by staying an extra month in Canada at that point, till I'm "back in compliance". Hopefully, I'm making sense to people doing the math on this )

For instance:
6 visits/year >>> 12 total visits x 6 days/visit = 72 total days.
So my last visit might put me out of compliance, but of course, I will simply forego that visit and stay an extra month in Canada.

ii) The likelihood of being put into secondary review when I renew my PR card is very high. I could possibly mitigate this, by WAITING an extra 2 months (recall that my PR card does have an extra 4 months of validity anyways).

Even though I've got a decent idea on the subject, by reading expert members thoughts on here, including dpenabill's detailed explanations on "cutting it close, and its consequences", I'm still left with some confusion and a number of questions regarding my situation:

a) How do CBSA officers know that someone is "out of compliance" (in a situation like mine), since they don't really have accurate records of a person's arrival / departure?

In fact, I'm going to be in compliance, all the time, even though I'm cutting it very close!

b) Can they report me to IRCC on one my travels? On what basis would they do that? Randomly? What happens then? Would I be asked to prove my compliance in some way? Would they put me in proceedings even though I've been perfectly in compliance all the time?!!!! I'm totally confused!!

c) I will need to continue traveling to the US after the initial 5-year period. If my PR card renewal does get put into secondary and takes forever to get renewed, can I still travel on my expired card by land to the US and back? (keeping in mind that I now have a whole new 1095 days available to me again). I'm more concerned with the PRACTICAL implications (like what CBSA might do with you at the border, and what the consequences of negative action on their part might result in).

Thank You everyone for taking the time to read this and your responses are very much appreciated!

 

[shannon388]

a) based on suspicion. Someone with 800 days or less could be easily candidate for secondary...
b) They don't know with precision - although this might change when Canada records exits too. It is possible to have to prove your compliance in secondary.
c) yes, you can drive across the border. CBSA doesn't deny you entry to Canada until PR is revoked.
You don't have a brand new 1095 days budget, the 5 years will be rolling back from the current day after the initial 5 years...

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Hey Everyone!

I have scoured the forums for my unique situation, but not found an answer. Most questions concern PRs who have either an EXPIRED PR and have violated their RO, or they have a VALID PR and have violated their RO.

But what happens when someone is still in compliance with their RO, but have cut their margins extremely close and stil have the need to travel?? Do they get pulled into secondary everytime?? Do they get reported to IRCC simply on the basis of suspicion, even though they might be in full compliance? (recall that CBSA/IRCC do not have proper entry/exit records to accurately determine this).

The following thread, and posts by dpenabill (I've included excerpts below) come awfully close to touching on this, but I'm still left totally confused.

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/not-meeting-residency-obligation-travelling-to-canada.530124/page-2



Here's my situation in a nutshell:

I did my "landing" Feb. 23, 2016 and stayed in Canada for 10 days before returning to California to live (So, I have these 10 days "in my bag" + 1095 days allowed by the rules in effect). I was planning to return to Canada permanently sometime in September or October of 2018, leaving me a very good buffer of about 5-ish months in addition to the 730-day requirement.

But stuff happens, and I now expect to permanently move sometime between 30th Dec 2018 and 1st week of Jan, 2019, giving me a much smaller, but still decent-ish 2 months buffer.

Another thing to keep in mind: My PR card is valid to JUNE 15, 2021 (approx. 4 months BEYOND my initial 5-year period).

But here's the catch: I will still need to visit my family back in the US at least every 2 months, each time for about 5 or 6 days. This situation creates 2 problematic issues:

i) As I keep visiting and returning, my "buffer" will likely be completely used up, and may even put me out of compliance towards the VERY END of the 5-year period. (Of course, if this happens, I will not set foot outside Canada, by staying an extra month in Canada at that point, till I'm "back in compliance". Hopefully, I'm making sense to people doing the math on this )

For instance:
6 visits/year >>> 12 total visits x 6 days/visit = 72 total days.
So my last visit might put me out of compliance, but of course, I will simply forego that visit and stay an extra month in Canada.

ii) The likelihood of being put into secondary review when I renew my PR card is very high. I could possibly mitigate this, by WAITING an extra 2 months (recall that my PR card does have an extra 4 months of validity anyways).

Even though I've got a decent idea on the subject, by reading expert members thoughts on here, including dpenabill's detailed explanations on "cutting it close, and its consequences", I'm still left with some confusion and a number of questions regarding my situation:

a) How do CBSA officers know that someone is "out of compliance" (in a situation like mine), since they don't really have accurate records of a person's arrival / departure?

In fact, I'm going to be in compliance, all the time, even though I'm cutting it very close!

b) Can they report me to IRCC on one my travels? On what basis would they do that? Randomly? What happens then? Would I be asked to prove my compliance in some way? Would they put me in proceedings even though I've been perfectly in compliance all the time?!!!! I'm totally confused!!

c) I will need to continue traveling to the US after the initial 5-year period. If my PR card renewal does get put into secondary and takes forever to get renewed, can I still travel on my expired card by land to the US and back? (keeping in mind that I now have a whole new 1095 days available to me again). I'm more concerned with the PRACTICAL implications (like what CBSA might do with you at the border, and what the consequences of negative action on their part might result in).

Thank You everyone for taking the time to read this and your responses are very much appreciated!

Hi

You should know that the expiry date of your PR card is completely irrelevant.

a. They look at your entries/exits and ask questions.

b. Yes, they can report you if they suspect you are in violation of the RO. You would then need to appeal to IRCC with proof that you meet the RO in order to keep your PR status.

c. The RO is a rolling obligation. Once you have been a PR for more than 5 years, on any given day, you must have at least 730 days in Canada in the previous 5 years. As you will be so close to the cut-off, your app will almost certainly be sent to secondary. You can still enter Canada after your card expires and CBSA can still report you if they think you are in violation of the RO.

 

[jameskutty]

Hey Everyone!

I have scoured the forums for my unique situation, but not found an answer. Most questions concern PRs who have either an EXPIRED PR and have violated their RO, or they have a VALID PR and have violated their RO.

But what happens when someone is still in compliance with their RO, but have cut their margins extremely close and stil have the need to travel?? Do they get pulled into secondary everytime?? Do they get reported to IRCC simply on the basis of suspicion, even though they might be in full compliance? (recall that CBSA/IRCC do not have proper entry/exit records to accurately determine this).

The following thread, and posts by dpenabill (I've included excerpts below) come awfully close to touching on this, but I'm still left totally confused.

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/not-meeting-residency-obligation-travelling-to-canada.530124/page-2



Here's my situation in a nutshell:

I did my "landing" Feb. 23, 2016 and stayed in Canada for 10 days before returning to California to live (So, I have these 10 days "in my bag" + 1095 days allowed by the rules in effect). I was planning to return to Canada permanently sometime in September or October of 2018, leaving me a very good buffer of about 5-ish months in addition to the 730-day requirement.

But stuff happens, and I now expect to permanently move sometime between 30th Dec 2018 and 1st week of Jan, 2019, giving me a much smaller, but still decent-ish 2 months buffer.

Another thing to keep in mind: My PR card is valid to JUNE 15, 2021 (approx. 4 months BEYOND my initial 5-year period).

But here's the catch: I will still need to visit my family back in the US at least every 2 months, each time for about 5 or 6 days. This situation creates 2 problematic issues:

i) As I keep visiting and returning, my "buffer" will likely be completely used up, and may even put me out of compliance towards the VERY END of the 5-year period. (Of course, if this happens, I will not set foot outside Canada, by staying an extra month in Canada at that point, till I'm "back in compliance". Hopefully, I'm making sense to people doing the math on this )

For instance:
6 visits/year >>> 12 total visits x 6 days/visit = 72 total days.
So my last visit might put me out of compliance, but of course, I will simply forego that visit and stay an extra month in Canada.

ii) The likelihood of being put into secondary review when I renew my PR card is very high. I could possibly mitigate this, by WAITING an extra 2 months (recall that my PR card does have an extra 4 months of validity anyways).

Even though I've got a decent idea on the subject, by reading expert members thoughts on here, including dpenabill's detailed explanations on "cutting it close, and its consequences", I'm still left with some confusion and a number of questions regarding my situation:

a) How do CBSA officers know that someone is "out of compliance" (in a situation like mine), since they don't really have accurate records of a person's arrival / departure?

In fact, I'm going to be in compliance, all the time, even though I'm cutting it very close!

b) Can they report me to IRCC on one my travels? On what basis would they do that? Randomly? What happens then? Would I be asked to prove my compliance in some way? Would they put me in proceedings even though I've been perfectly in compliance all the time?!!!! I'm totally confused!!

c) I will need to continue traveling to the US after the initial 5-year period. If my PR card renewal does get put into secondary and takes forever to get renewed, can I still travel on my expired card by land to the US and back? (keeping in mind that I now have a whole new 1095 days available to me again). I'm more concerned with the PRACTICAL implications (like what CBSA might do with you at the border, and what the consequences of negative action on their part might result in).

Thank You everyone for taking the time to read this and your responses are very much appreciated!

I had your exact same situation. I moved permanently from the US to Canada when I had 2 years and 5 months remaining (i.e., 2 years and 7 months after I landed).

After I moved to Canada for good, with a 5 month buffer, like you - stuff happened and I had to travel. I was out of the country for a additional 3 months before the 5th anniversary of my landing, which is also when my card expired. I applied for card renewal with about 750 days (in Jan 2018), before my card expired. It did not go into secondary review and got approved. I did not send anything other than what the application package asked for. If one were to go by the stuff that gets written in these pages, I guess mine was "cutting it close" or whatever.

So take heart. Do not fail to meet your residency obligation, but do not loose sleep over it either.

 

[dpenabill]

Hey Everyone!

I have scoured the forums for my unique situation, but not found an answer. Most questions concern PRs who have either an EXPIRED PR and have violated their RO, or they have a VALID PR and have violated their RO.

But what happens when someone is still in compliance with their RO, but have cut their margins extremely close and stil have the need to travel?? Do they get pulled into secondary everytime?? Do they get reported to IRCC simply on the basis of suspicion, even though they might be in full compliance? (recall that CBSA/IRCC do not have proper entry/exit records to accurately determine this).

The following thread, and posts by dpenabill (I've included excerpts below) come awfully close to touching on this, but I'm still left totally confused.

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/not-meeting-residency-obligation-travelling-to-canada.530124/page-2



Here's my situation in a nutshell:

I did my "landing" Feb. 23, 2016 and stayed in Canada for 10 days before returning to California to live (So, I have these 10 days "in my bag" + 1095 days allowed by the rules in effect). I was planning to return to Canada permanently sometime in September or October of 2018, leaving me a very good buffer of about 5-ish months in addition to the 730-day requirement.

But stuff happens, and I now expect to permanently move sometime between 30th Dec 2018 and 1st week of Jan, 2019, giving me a much smaller, but still decent-ish 2 months buffer.

Another thing to keep in mind: My PR card is valid to JUNE 15, 2021 (approx. 4 months BEYOND my initial 5-year period).

But here's the catch: I will still need to visit my family back in the US at least every 2 months, each time for about 5 or 6 days. This situation creates 2 problematic issues:

i) As I keep visiting and returning, my "buffer" will likely be completely used up, and may even put me out of compliance towards the VERY END of the 5-year period. (Of course, if this happens, I will not set foot outside Canada, by staying an extra month in Canada at that point, till I'm "back in compliance". Hopefully, I'm making sense to people doing the math on this )

For instance:
6 visits/year >>> 12 total visits x 6 days/visit = 72 total days.
So my last visit might put me out of compliance, but of course, I will simply forego that visit and stay an extra month in Canada.

ii) The likelihood of being put into secondary review when I renew my PR card is very high. I could possibly mitigate this, by WAITING an extra 2 months (recall that my PR card does have an extra 4 months of validity anyways).

Even though I've got a decent idea on the subject, by reading expert members thoughts on here, including dpenabill's detailed explanations on "cutting it close, and its consequences", I'm still left with some confusion and a number of questions regarding my situation:

a) How do CBSA officers know that someone is "out of compliance" (in a situation like mine), since they don't really have accurate records of a person's arrival / departure?

In fact, I'm going to be in compliance, all the time, even though I'm cutting it very close!

b) Can they report me to IRCC on one my travels? On what basis would they do that? Randomly? What happens then? Would I be asked to prove my compliance in some way? Would they put me in proceedings even though I've been perfectly in compliance all the time?!!!! I'm totally confused!!

c) I will need to continue traveling to the US after the initial 5-year period. If my PR card renewal does get put into secondary and takes forever to get renewed, can I still travel on my expired card by land to the US and back? (keeping in mind that I now have a whole new 1095 days available to me again). I'm more concerned with the PRACTICAL implications (like what CBSA might do with you at the border, and what the consequences of negative action on their part might result in).

Thank You everyone for taking the time to read this and your responses are very much appreciated!

To be clear: I am NOT an expert. Not by a long shot.

A lot of my posts related to this subject address RISKS. And thus a lot of what I focus on are various factors which can influence the nature and extent of the risks, ranging from the probability of non-routine procedures like secondary examinations (whether in the process of entering Canada at a PoE or in the process of applying for a new PR card), to the range of potential consequences.

I offer such information as I have discerned, gathered, compiled, or analyzed, hoping others can use the information to make more informed decisions for themselves. I am not qualified to apply this information to any individual's specific situation: that is, I cannot offer personal advice. Ultimately each individual has to proceed according to his or her own best judgment, according to the facts and circumstances in his or her own situation. And, importantly, according to his or her own priorities, and according to his or her own needs.

I largely concur in the observations offered by @shannon388, @canuck_in_uk, and @jameskutty, noting however that the personal experience shared by @jameskutty obviously does NOT indicate much more than one end of the spectrum about how things can go.

I can add that two or five months is NOT likely to change much in terms of the degree of scrutiny encountered. Particularly when it comes to whether the PR card application is referred for Secondary Review.

A key factor in the anecdotal experience reported by @jameskutty might be the appearance or impression of being actually settled permanently in Canada. That appearance can probably tip the scales toward less scrutiny, less skepticism. An impression or appearance the other way will likely increase the risk of elevated scrutiny.

If your circumstances as perceived by a CBSA officer at the PoE, or by a processing agent handling the PR card application, suggest the possibility of a PR Residency Obligation compliance problem, what matters then is what the evidence shows. The burden of proof is on the PR.

I don't think anyone can forecast for sure whether you will encounter one or many referrals to Secondary when you arrive at the PoE returning to Canada. You might. You might not. In other posts I have more specifically outlined numerous risk factors, that is factors which increase the chances a PIL officer will refer the traveler to Secondary, and once referred to Secondary, the chances of being challenged or reported as to PR RO compliance.

Eventually, if it is clear you are settled and living in Canada, regular trips in and out of Canada should help and should lead CBSA to NOT have concerns about PR RO compliance. So how it goes may depend more on how it goes early on, when your more lengthy absence is recent.

Thus, for example, once you have a Canadian drivers license, an established household in Canada, employment in Canada, a paper and digital trail of a life being lived in Canada, there should be no problem. As long as you are cutting-it-close prior to that, best to be prepared to prove your dates in Canada as best you can.

 

[jameskutty]

I'd think that when IRCC makes it's determination of whether an individual fulfills his residency obligation (as a PR one has a residency obligation), the said determination is based on objective and factual evidence and not subjective appearances or impressions. No? If the latter were true, then there would exist in this country individuals who are above the law, who can release a PR from an obligation per subjective criteria - which obviously is not true.

The reason why I offered my "anecdotal experience" is because the vast majority of other "anecdotal experience" on the internet trends on the negative side, and understandably so, because it is when one needs help, when we come to forums like these.

While it is true that the CBSA or IRCC does not collect exit data, it is also true that CBSA and the United States CBP share information, which therefore means that while Canada does not collect exit data, the US does collect entry data when one travels from here to there. This might not be the case with other countries. But... does IRCC need exit data to track an individual living in Canada? Really? If nothing think of the digital trail a person leaves - even as we are doing so right now, on this forum.

If you do fulfill your residency obligation, but just so, is there a higher chance of extra scrutiny. Yes. But can that be quantified? No. Would staying 830 days guarantee no extra scrutiny? Would a 1000 do? Do everyone who just renewed around 730 days be scrutinized ? The only ones who likely have that sort of analytical data is the CBSA themselves, not me, not anyone else, who do not have access to proper sample data. We however can use our God given intellects to get an idea.

On a different note, when you plan a 5 month (or 2 or 10) buffer, should you include expected foreign trips in that buffer? Personally I din't - most of my buffer was for contingency.

 

[shannon388]

>I'd think that when IRCC makes it's determination of whether an individual fulfills his residency obligation (as a PR one has a residency obligation), the said determination is based on objective and factual evidence and not subjective appearances or impressions.
No? If the latter were true, then there would exist in this country individuals who are above the law, who can release a PR from an obligation per subjective criteria - which obviously is not true.

That's partially correct. IRCC makes its determination on hard proofs. If you have 730 days, you will keep PR.
But CBSA might report potential RO noncompliance based on "risk factors".
Like most law enformecent there will be "lucky" individuals getting away with breaking it. You can find examples on this forum where peope have failed to meet RO in the past, but IRCC/CBSA just didn't report, and they stayed in Canada for enough time, and are now in compliance with RO.
There is also a grayish area: whether non compliance with RO on some grounds (e.g. H&C) leads to PR revoking, or whether an appeal is succesful, can have subjective considerations. In more complicated cases the law is not black and white, but takes into account a full array of factors.

On a sidenote, since Canada is collecting exit data since 2016, it might be possible that after 2019-2020 the RO is determined (and immediately reported) by computers.

 

[vensak]

If you are just above meeting RO, than exactly those subjective observations will be the difference to land in the secondary review or not.

5 years is a rolling requirement so additional alert can be with people, who stayed some time at the beginning (let say 3 months +) and then they left for whatever reason and they have returned barely meeting their RO. If there are more frequent absences now (for example regular travelling that is not Canadian job related), it can be expected that they might not meet residency now.
And a secondary review can be short or long.

In his specific case, it will be rather easy for them to track his all exits and entrances. It is because he will be leaving to USA. And USA does have entrance and exit follow up and they do share the information with Canada.

Also to be noted, once Canada will start tracking the exits (bill C-21), the loophole will be closed. But it will also be easier to justify that you do meet RO.

 

[evdm]

I think you've been provided a lot of useful information in this thread already. Please forgive me if this has already been stated, but the onus will be on you to show your compliance with the residency obligation.

If ever there's a question as to your compliance, you will have to gather and submit the evidence to show you have met the 730 days in Canada requirement, going back 5 years from any given day. If there's a suspicion of not being in compliance, and you are reported steps will be taken to revoke your PR status and it will be up to you to show that their suspicion is incorrect. There will be very little benefit of the doubt for you.

Make sure you keep detailed logs of every visit and every trip (even for a few hours across the border) outside of Canada and gather as much proof as possible to corroborate every day you claim you were in Canada. If you're flying, keep boarding passes. If you're driving out of the country, keep toll receipts and gas receipts that show you on the Canadian side of the border. Pay with your Canadian bank card. Plan medical appointments around the day of your return to Canada so you can get charts from the doctor detailing you were present at their offices. Anything you can think of to show your presence in Canada, for every day.

 

[dpenabill]

If you are just above meeting RO, than exactly those subjective observations will be the difference to land in the secondary review or not.

Exactly. Succinctly stated.

Which does not preclude my rather wordy longer explanation, below.

I'd think that when IRCC makes it's determination of whether an individual fulfills his residency obligation (as a PR one has a residency obligation), the said determination is based on objective and factual evidence and not subjective appearances or impressions. No? If the latter were true, then there would exist in this country individuals who are above the law, who can release a PR from an obligation per subjective criteria - which obviously is not true.

I agree. When IRCC makes a DETERMINATION as to PR Residency Obligation compliance.

What is key in this, however, is the difference between what a DETERMINATION IS BASED ON, versus what TRIGGERS elevated scrutiny, a referral for non-routine processing (such as a referral to Secondary at a PoE or a referral for Secondary Review of a PR card application), or a more or less SKEPTICAL approach in assessing the evidence and facts in the process of making that DETERMINATION.

Impressions and perceptions loom very large in the latter regard, in terms of what can or will TRIGGER elevated scrutiny or suspicions. CBSA officers are trained to see clues in people's demeanor, manner of speaking, body language, and in the subtle aspects of what they say. The first level of encounter is about whether to probe more deeply or even aggressively. The notorious hunch plays a rather significant role in this, but what many fail to grasp is that there really is some valid reasoning underlying what triggers a hunch, it is more criteria oriented and less intuition than many think. (Consider the highly regarded theories of Malcom Gladwell, a Canadian who explains what appears to be intuition is really the culmination of well-informed experience.)

A previously high ranking U.S. law enforcement officer recently said that just the fact a person gives information in addition to that which directly answers the question asked is perceived to be a sign of a guilty state of mind. Guilty of what, one might ask. And if the law enforcement officer does not already have an idea, that is precisely the question the officer is likely to ask . . . and to go looking for the answer. Elevated scrutiny triggered!

And therein lies the rub, the problem, the apprehension. What will trigger a referral to Secondary at the PoE? What will trigger a more aggressive examination as to PR Residency Obligation compliance? Yes, the outcome will depend on a largely objective assessment of the evidence, on conclusions of fact. What many, probably most are worried about and focused on, is the risk of a challenged examination, knowing that avoiding a non-routine examination reduces the risk of a negative outcome to very low, while in contrast encountering a confrontational or challenged examination is what poses real risks, the range of risks depending on things like strength of case or, even, the individual's persuasiveness.

All of which is to say there is a big difference between:
-- the risk of elevated scrutiny (secondary referrals et al), versus
-- the risk of a negative outcome when formally examined

The risk of a negative outcome is much lower if one can avoid the elevated scrutiny in the first place. (Thus, for example, there tends to be a rather stark contrast in risks for those who present a valid PR card versus those who do not, even though the validity dates of a PR card are NOT relevant in a calculation of PR RO compliance.)

That said, what those who are cutting-it-close and cognizant of their risks, of the odds they might encounter elevated or even skeptical scrutiny, are prudent to recognize, and prepare for, is that it may be too late to avoid high risks for elevated scrutiny. They can still attempt to mitigate or abate the risks of elevated or skeptical scrutiny (traveling to Canada sooner rather than later for example). And at the same time recognize they may not avoid the Secondary referral, for example, the PR RO compliance examination. In the meantime, the back-up plan is to be prepared to make their best case.

For the OP here, the best case is to have the evidence which will document compliance with the PR RO.

For those who are already in breach of the PR RO (the more common scenario discussed in this forum, for obvious reasons), the best case is to first document how much time they have actually spent in Canada, secondly to document their ties in Canada, and thirdly to document H&C reasons explaining why they did not sooner return to Canada.

. . . since Canada is collecting exit data since 2016, it might be possible that after 2019-2020 the RO is determined (and immediately reported) by computers.

This is NO mere side note. The extent to which CBSA border officers will see CLUES about potential PR RO compliance issues, readily apparent on their monitors, has definitely been increasing over the years. And, for example, the odds are now higher a CBSA officer (especially in Secondary) will spot misrepresentations about duration of last absence. This factors into both sides of the equation: into what might trigger elevated scrutiny, and the calculation of compliance itself.

Nonetheless, the two tiers of decision-making still loom very large: what triggers more intensive probing versus the assessment and calculations which take place when more intensive probing has been triggered. Anyone who considers fudging the information they give a CBSA or IRCC official should recognize that CBSA and IRCC now have better tools for identifying when a client is, let us say, stretching the truth.

Since the burden of proving compliance with the PR RO is always that of the PR, it is NOT as if CBSA or IRCC needs to gather their information to prove a PR has not . . . all they need, and indeed all they typically look for, is whether or not the PR is providing reliable credible information . . . and if they discern not, that is a problem, potentially a huge problem.

 

[bricksonly]

What I am thinking is any non-reasonable status of your stay in Canada will trigger a second review.

The days doesn't speak too much, 730 day is enough. If you claim self-employed or jobless for all your stay and tax very small number or zero, you are picked. They will always want to know: why you need to be a PR but not going to make a real living in Canada. How you support yourself by spending 2/5 of your life here but does nothing. This makes no sense. Canadian life is so hard, no general people can survive by working like this. If you are rich, that's reasonable: but why your tax return looks so poor. Or, you are joking, you make a false claim of your stay.

My experience is to make yourself a general people is the key to pass any check. Receive average income, get a normal job, pay general tax, claim reasonable vacation.

To make this, you will have to file tax return reasonably every year. Then, you will make a false employment history and position. Finally, you mark all your entry dates as the end of your vacation (please don't travel to US, they know). You have to have a false passport with fake stamps. Oh no, you can just PS the copy of your passport to remove and add some stamps instead. And of cause you will have very good number of days in Canada. This is a perfect PR. No issue. No one will have any interests to review your case secondarily.

I don't want you to cheat. But this is the simple logic.

 

[747-captain]

Thanks everyone for your detailed responses! They are all, indeed, very helpful and provide a wealth of information on actions to take, in order to preemptively minimize the risk of a secondary inspection, if that is even possible. But it never hurts to be extra cautious and vigilant. I, especially like evdm's suggestions for meticulously maintaining a wide variety of items that might constitute proof of residence. I will do just that!

jameskutty, it is encouraging to know that not absolutely everyone who renews their PR card, and is perceived as being in a "high risk" category, is automatically sent for a secondary review.

As most of you have pointed out, I believe that the best course of action, is to be EXTREMELY well prepared with HARD EVIDENCE, in the unfortunate event that I do get pulled into secondary, and more importantly, god forbid I get reported for a suspected violation. I'm hoping that my visits to the US, showing a pattern of travel "back and forth" every couple months, combined with the fact that the US does maintain records, will significantly reduce the chances of a bad outcome.

All that said, what worries me the most, and something I wasn't aware of, prior to reading the responses above, is that the burden of proof is on the PR to prove compliance. I'm at least hoping that there is some level of consistency, as to what they consider as acceptable "proof", in the unlikely event it comes to that.

What boggles my mind, is that I've seen numerous reports on this forum, albeit anecdotal in the grand scheme of things, that say that even after all the evidence pointed to the fact that the person had violated their RO, including an expired PR, an extremely long absence and the mathematical impossibility of fulfilling the RO obligation, they were simply "let go" without being reported. These individuals then simply spent 2+ years in Canada and then cured their breach.

At first glance, this appears to me as being an extremely inconsistent application of the enforcement, depending on the officer? No? How can it be that these instances are routinely reported, while it's possible for someone with only an "extremely vague possibility" of violation (like the aforementioned <800 days, for instance) to be picked on?

Nevertheless, it's truly heartening to know that they are now starting to keep meticulous records of exits as well as entries. This is exactly how it should be. This will really clamp down on those that are intent on "gaming the system", while not punishing those of us who plan on religiously complying with the rules, while at the same time taking advantage of what the rules allow us to do. I've always maintained that Canada's RO rules for permanent residents are very generous. But if the enforcement / implementation mechanisms for these are not "black and white", leaving huge swaths of grey areas, then the generosity of the rules don't mean much!

One lingering question I still have is: Now that the entry/exit records are being maintained (and let's say that, hypothetically, ALL RECORDS for such entries/exits are available), does that constitute definitive proof of compliance with the RO?

Thanks once again to all, for the responses and advice! Much appreciated.

 

[vensak]

Why is it inconsistent, because of different officers. Sometimes they had a good day and decided to be compassionate and sometimes it was just a big luck (something else was happening that took all attention of the officer).
Proof:
1. passport stamp (it is not always there - especially if you are commuting frequently or if you are a citizen of the other country)
2. List of entries or exits from the foreign authorities (this is a bit funny one, since Canada has for a rather long time technical means to track the exits. The do not collect more info than what is collected from entrance, so that should not be a problem, but the bill, also in advanced approval stage is now dormant).
3. Other means like flight tickets (again these are the bests as international flight do tend to track down your passport), train or bus tickets (if they are issued on your name)
4. Anything else supportive, like for example proof that you were working in Canada, studying in Canada.