+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

PR card Expires before the 730 days required

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,421
3,163
I have been meaning for some time to organize, compile, and present the observations I offer below. I, and others, have repeatedly expressed, in various ways, why cutting-it-close is precarious, why those PRs who are not well-settled and permanently living in Canada can encounter problems when there is a Residency Determination or PoE assessment of their compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

Ultimately, the best proof of compliance with the PR RO is strong evidence of having a permanent residence in Canada and a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, in conjunction with a complete and accurate declaration of all travel outside Canada which is, at the least, consistent with having settled permanently in Canada.

Proof of precisely 730 days, or a little more than that, even 800 or so days, can be difficult, and perhaps it can be extremely difficult. This is because PRs invariably need the benefit of a positive inference that they were in Canada on days in-between those solidly shown to actually be in Canada.

Without the benefit of such a positive inference, proving presence can be a very steep uphill climb. There is no definitive cut-off for when or why or who. Or even any clear criteria for how severely this affects a particular PR's case.

And ultimately the problem is that the PR who is not well-settled in Canada is likely to have a lot less documented evidence of time in Canada, and also be burdened with indications of strong ties abroad.

My sense is that many, many PRs grossly underestimate the risks involved when they cut-it-close.

Leading to the query posed here by fateh88


fateh88 said:
I have a query regarding PRO i.e. how to prove number of days to CIC. I have been in and out of the country because of family and business commitments. Been in Canada for about 500 days and need another good 230 days to fulfill the requirements ( my PR expires on march 2019).

My query is what documents do they need to see if i have completed 730 days, I have not been working on full time basis in Canada but i have been physically present in it. Is it mandatory that i should have been working to prove my stay? what other documents should i have to make sure they are aware that i have been present in Canada for these days.

Thank you!
First off, the expiration date on your PR card is NOT relevant. PR status itself does not expire.

The PR Residency Obligation is based on days in Canada within the previous five years, or if it has been less than five years since the date of landing, then compliance is based on the total number of days in Canada so far plus number of days remaining until the fifth year anniversary.

Secondly, cutting-it-close has risks, and this is especially so for those PRs with minimal long-term or residential ties in Canada. Attempts to establish the minimum threshold of days in Canada by patching together days spent in Canada which in turn relies on counting periods of time visiting (as opposed to permanently resident in Canada), or even which appear to be visiting (appearance matters), is precarious.

Since you are at the least past the third year anniversary of the date you landed, unless and until you are permanently settled in Canada, there is a risk your compliance with the PR RO could be challenged . . . and I do mean challenged, not just questioned . . . any time you are arriving at a Canadian PoE or you apply for something like a new PR card or a PR TD.

So far this does not answer your query. There is a reason for this. And this is something which seems to be at least widely underestimated, perhaps outright misunderstood, about enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation.

Unless and until a PR is actually well-settled in a permanent home in Canada, and particularly when the PR has spent more time abroad than in Canada, there is a significant risk any inferences about whether the PR was in Canada, or outside Canada, will lean toward inferring the PR was outside Canada.

The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences.

The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences.


What does this mean in practical terms? In terms of what it might take to prove presence?

The main thing to understand is that this means most PRs have minimal problems proving compliance with the PR RO.

If CBSA or IRCC does not perceive a reason to doubt or challenge the PR's reported dates of exit and entry, then ordinarily there is an inference that the PR was in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit. The days in between are credited toward meeting the PR RO. This is particularly so if the PR has an established home in Canada and readily verifiable activity in Canada, such as regular employment with a recognizable Canadian employer entailing work at a location in Canada.

In contrast, the absence of a permanent home in Canada in conjunction with an absence of a substantial work (or school or parenting children) history in Canada, is likely to at least invite questions, and in conjunction with a pattern of absences or travel which suggests the PR is not settled and living permanently in Canada, seriously risks a negative Residency Determination unless there is strong objective proof of the days spent in Canada.


Finally: as to the proof:

Well, not yet. What constitutes "proof" is a judgment, a conclusion.

The real question is what constitutes competent, convincing evidence of presence sufficient to persuade a decision-maker (CBSA officers at a PoE; visa officers processing a PR TD application; IRRC officers otherwise conducting a Residency Determination) the number of days a PR was present in Canada.

This varies, and varies a lot. For some, minimal proof is requested. For some, the burden of proof can be a high hurdle.

Which goes back to what I already outlined:
-- The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to persuade the decision-maker.
-- The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . again, meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to present.

In other words, it cannot be overemphasized that the most important evidence consists of what might be described as the three legs of a stool: evidence of a residence in Canada, evidence of work or other regular activity in Canada, and a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada.

Take out any one of the three legs, the stool tends to tip. For any weak or missing leg the PR needs alternative objective proof to prop up the stool. Take out two legs, that demands a real balancing act to keep the stool upright, a lot of alternative evidence to prop it up. Take out all these three legs, means finding something else entirely to prop the stool up.

The three key legs of evidence/proof are worth repeating with emphasis:
-- evidence of a residence in Canada
-- evidence of a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, and
-- a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada

All three are important. Dealing with a case for which any one of these is weak leads the discussion back to dates of entry and dates of exit, and that this can lead to the PR losing the benefit of an inference the PR was in Canada between entry and exit dates. Stripped of a positive inference that the PR was in Canada between the last known date of entry, and the next known date of exit, means that these dates (dates of entry and exit) only establish that the PR was in Canada those particular days. That is it. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR entered Canada. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR exited Canada. And that leaves all the days in-between to be proven as in Canada by some other evidence, at least enough evidence in-between to, in effect, force a decision-maker to infer other in-between days were in Canada (showing attendance at a job site in Canada four or five days a week for consecutive weeks will effectively force an inference the PR was also present during days off . . . and actually, solid proof of a particular activity on a particular date here and there through the course of a month should result in an inference the PR was present throughout the month).

Thus, to prove (to persuade the decision-maker to conclude) the PR was in Canada during the days in-between last entry and next exit, the PR needs to affirmatively present objective evidence of being in Canada a number of the days in-between date of last entry and next exit, as many of those days as possible. Not every day is necessary. Proof of being involved in an activity in Canada a day here and there in between dates of entry and exit will tend to confirm the PR was in Canada during that period of time.

But this can be difficult for anyone without a job or other regular activity which can be documented. Visits to doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, and such, can often be documented and thus these activities can fill in some of the days. It may be possible to get credible persons to submit letters or such which show dates when the PR was engaged in this or that community activity, or at the least to show the PR was regularly engaged in such or such activity over certain periods of time (for example: a member of clergy affirming the PR attended religious services regularly between such and such dates).

Financial transactions can be presented but these often carry little weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence. Credit card or ATM transactions carry minimal weight.

Testimonial statements from various people can help, recognizing that letters or such from family or friends are often not given much weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence.

Much of this kind of evidence is prone to inconsistencies actually undermining the PR's case. A letter from clergy attesting to the PR's regular attendance at religious activities which overlaps a period of time the PR was abroad can hurt more than it helps. Similarly for testimonials from family or friends. Credit card transactions are not worth much unless complete statements are provided (otherwise cherry-picking is suspected), and a credit card transaction abroad during a period of time the PR declared he was in Canada, or for that matter a transaction purported in Canada on a date the PR is indicated to be abroad, will tend to either negate the weight of this evidence altogether or, perhaps, be considered negative evidence.

In one case, a PR submitted attendance records for her children's presence in a pre-school, but those records indicated the children were present during a time the PR declared she and the children were abroad. This did not result in CIC (case was prior to change to IRCC) adding more days in Canada, but resulted in negative inferences about the PR's credibility, and thus was a factor supporting a negative outcome in her case. To my view it was apparent the pre-school made a simple error and while that could be a basis for not giving the school attendance records a lot of weight, it should not have been put on the other side of the scales to support a negative outcome. But it was, and this was upheld on appeal.

Information in a LinkedIn account which suggested the PR had employment abroad that was not disclosed by the PR (in the PR's work history, which the PR must provide including any employment abroad), has been a big negative factor in more than a few cases.


Summary; the point of all this:

The PR who is cutting-it-close should recognize that to keep PR status the first priority needs to be to get into Canada as soon as possible and settle permanently in Canada. That will in turn generate the kind of proof, the evidence, which will suffice, which will work.

Any other plan is risky. Relying on proof other than a combined triad of residence, activity (preferably work), and pattern of presence consistent with permanently residing in Canada, is highly risky.

There are a score of recent IAD decisions which illustrate that at least as of 2012 CBSA began more strictly screening returning PRs upon arrival at a PoE if it appeared the PR was not yet settled and living in Canada, and this includes many who were not only still within their first five years of landing, but some who were barely beyond the three year anniversary (thus PRs with PR cards still valid for another year, even nearly two years).

It takes those of us in the public some serious lag-time before we can clearly discern some trends. Given the lengthy appeal time, many of the IAD cases being published about PR RO breaches are three and even four years old. So we are only now obtaining clear, actual accounts of PoE examinations from 2012 and 2013. This makes it difficult to discern how things go today when a cutting-it-close PR arrives at a PoE, but there is no reliable indication that the trend toward elevated scrutiny and strict enforcement has abated.

Get to Canada. Do it soon. Establish a household in Canada. Get settled. That will generate the proof needed for future travel abroad and for the PR card application when the time for that comes.

Or roll the dice and see what comes up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canada11

fateh88

Full Member
Sep 2, 2013
40
1
Thanks for the detailed information. With the info i have few more queries.
1) Can i work part time and show them my paystubs and Tax documents to complete 730+ days for applying my renewal of PR card.
2) Can i get admission in short term courses in college, will it be counted as a proof.
3) I read on other posts that renewal is taking lot more time and most of the applications are forwarded for secondary review, which has a process of about 12 long months.
4) Say if i meet the requirements to renew the PR card. Do I have to be physically present while the renewal process is completed or can I leave Canada in that duration.

I intend to settle in Canada in coming future but I have better economic options back home (for the time being). Lots of things going on in mind and i don't want to loose my PR status. Please input your valuable views in this scenario.
Thank you sir/mam
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,421
3,163
fateh88 said:
Thanks for the detailed information. With the info i have few more queries.
1) Can i work part time and show them my paystubs and Tax documents to complete 730+ days for applying my renewal of PR card.
2) Can i get admission in short term courses in college, will it be counted as a proof.
3) I read on other posts that renewal is taking lot more time and most of the applications are forwarded for secondary review, which has a process of about 12 long months.
4) Say if i meet the requirements to renew the PR card. Do I have to be physically present while the renewal process is completed or can I leave Canada in that duration.

I intend to settle in Canada in coming future but I have better economic options back home (for the time being). Lots of things going on in mind and i don't want to loose my PR status. Please input your valuable views in this scenario.
Thank you sir/mam
My long post should help you to figure out for yourself the best course of action to take.

Any activity in Canada for which you can obtain objective documentation showing your presence at a location in Canada on a given date, is evidence of being in Canada on that date. The more such dates you have such evidence for, the stronger the case. The closer together those dates, the more they tend to show presence during the dates in-between. Whether this is school or work or some other activity.

Thus, for example, documentation which makes a general reference to working part-time over a period of several months does not help much. It does not show actual dates you were in Canada. Payslips and employer letter verifying actual dates of employment will . . . but of course this is also subject to whether or not the employer and the employer's documents are readily verifiable and credible. Paper from a friend or relative tends to carry a lot less weight than, say, payslips from a readily recognized corporate entity.

Mere enrollment in college courses, in the absence of other documentation to show activity and presence, tends to be weak evidence. If there is a definitive attendance record, showing the individual's attendance on particular dates, that makes this evidence much stronger. Again, for the PR cutting-it-close, best to have objective proof of actual engagement in an activity at a location in Canada on particular dates.

For PRs cutting-it-close, yes, the timeline for processing a PR card application can be a lot longer than the routine timeline.

There is nothing precluding a PR from traveling abroad any time. So yes, the PR can travel while the PR card application is in process. If the PR is living abroad, however, that can further complicate the processing, and IRCC might not complete processing until the PR has returned to Canada.

To board a flight back to Canada, however, the PR either needs a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document. To obtain a PR TD, a PR will need to submit enough documentation and information to convince a visa officer that the PR is in compliance with the PR RO. So here too, for the PR cutting-it-close it could be risky going abroad without a valid PR card.
 

dream16

Star Member
Dec 11, 2013
165
4
New York City
Category........
Visa Office......
New Delhi
NOC Code......
2171, 2174
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
14-05-2014
IELTS Request
Completed
File Transfer...
29-09-2014
Med's Request
11-10-2014
Interview........
Waived
LANDED..........
July 2015 (became PR)
dpenabill said:
I have been meaning for some time to organize, compile, and present the observations I offer below. I, and others, have repeatedly expressed, in various ways, why cutting-it-close is precarious, why those PRs who are not well-settled and permanently living in Canada can encounter problems when there is a Residency Determination or PoE assessment of their compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

Ultimately, the best proof of compliance with the PR RO is strong evidence of having a permanent residence in Canada and a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, in conjunction with a complete and accurate declaration of all travel outside Canada which is, at the least, consistent with having settled permanently in Canada.

Proof of precisely 730 days, or a little more than that, even 800 or so days, can be difficult, and perhaps it can be extremely difficult. This is because PRs invariably need the benefit of a positive inference that they were in Canada on days in-between those solidly shown to actually be in Canada.

Without the benefit of such a positive inference, proving presence can be a very steep uphill climb. There is no definitive cut-off for when or why or who. Or even any clear criteria for how severely this affects a particular PR's case.

And ultimately the problem is that the PR who is not well-settled in Canada is likely to have a lot less documented evidence of time in Canada, and also be burdened with indications of strong ties abroad.

My sense is that many, many PRs grossly underestimate the risks involved when they cut-it-close.

Leading to the query posed here by fateh88


First off, the expiration date on your PR card is NOT relevant. PR status itself does not expire.

The PR Residency Obligation is based on days in Canada within the previous five years, or if it has been less than five years since the date of landing, then compliance is based on the total number of days in Canada so far plus number of days remaining until the fifth year anniversary.

Secondly, cutting-it-close has risks, and this is especially so for those PRs with minimal long-term or residential ties in Canada. Attempts to establish the minimum threshold of days in Canada by patching together days spent in Canada which in turn relies on counting periods of time visiting (as opposed to permanently resident in Canada), or even which appear to be visiting (appearance matters), is precarious.

Since you are at the least past the third year anniversary of the date you landed, unless and until you are permanently settled in Canada, there is a risk your compliance with the PR RO could be challenged . . . and I do mean challenged, not just questioned . . . any time you are arriving at a Canadian PoE or you apply for something like a new PR card or a PR TD.

So far this does not answer your query. There is a reason for this. And this is something which seems to be at least widely underestimated, perhaps outright misunderstood, about enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation.

Unless and until a PR is actually well-settled in a permanent home in Canada, and particularly when the PR has spent more time abroad than in Canada, there is a significant risk any inferences about whether the PR was in Canada, or outside Canada, will lean toward inferring the PR was outside Canada.

The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences.

The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences.


What does this mean in practical terms? In terms of what it might take to prove presence?

The main thing to understand is that this means most PRs have minimal problems proving compliance with the PR RO.

If CBSA or IRCC does not perceive a reason to doubt or challenge the PR's reported dates of exit and entry, then ordinarily there is an inference that the PR was in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit. The days in between are credited toward meeting the PR RO. This is particularly so if the PR has an established home in Canada and readily verifiable activity in Canada, such as regular employment with a recognizable Canadian employer entailing work at a location in Canada.

In contrast, the absence of a permanent home in Canada in conjunction with an absence of a substantial work (or school or parenting children) history in Canada, is likely to at least invite questions, and in conjunction with a pattern of absences or travel which suggests the PR is not settled and living permanently in Canada, seriously risks a negative Residency Determination unless there is strong objective proof of the days spent in Canada.


Finally: as to the proof:

Well, not yet. What constitutes "proof" is a judgment, a conclusion.

The real question is what constitutes competent, convincing evidence of presence sufficient to persuade a decision-maker (CBSA officers at a PoE; visa officers processing a PR TD application; IRRC officers otherwise conducting a Residency Determination) the number of days a PR was present in Canada.

This varies, and varies a lot. For some, minimal proof is requested. For some, the burden of proof can be a high hurdle.

Which goes back to what I already outlined:
-- The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to persuade the decision-maker.
-- The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . again, meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to present.

In other words, it cannot be overemphasized that the most important evidence consists of what might be described as the three legs of a stool: evidence of a residence in Canada, evidence of work or other regular activity in Canada, and a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada.

Take out any one of the three legs, the stool tends to tip. For any weak or missing leg the PR needs alternative objective proof to prop up the stool. Take out two legs, that demands a real balancing act to keep the stool upright, a lot of alternative evidence to prop it up. Take out all these three legs, means finding something else entirely to prop the stool up.

The three key legs of evidence/proof are worth repeating with emphasis:
-- evidence of a residence in Canada
-- evidence of a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, and
-- a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada

All three are important. Dealing with a case for which any one of these is weak leads the discussion back to dates of entry and dates of exit, and that this can lead to the PR losing the benefit of an inference the PR was in Canada between entry and exit dates. Stripped of a positive inference that the PR was in Canada between the last known date of entry, and the next known date of exit, means that these dates (dates of entry and exit) only establish that the PR was in Canada those particular days. That is it. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR entered Canada. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR exited Canada. And that leaves all the days in-between to be proven as in Canada by some other evidence, at least enough evidence in-between to, in effect, force a decision-maker to infer other in-between days were in Canada (showing attendance at a job site in Canada four or five days a week for consecutive weeks will effectively force an inference the PR was also present during days off . . . and actually, solid proof of a particular activity on a particular date here and there through the course of a month should result in an inference the PR was present throughout the month).

Thus, to prove (to persuade the decision-maker to conclude) the PR was in Canada during the days in-between last entry and next exit, the PR needs to affirmatively present objective evidence of being in Canada a number of the days in-between date of last entry and next exit, as many of those days as possible. Not every day is necessary. Proof of being involved in an activity in Canada a day here and there in between dates of entry and exit will tend to confirm the PR was in Canada during that period of time.

But this can be difficult for anyone without a job or other regular activity which can be documented. Visits to doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, and such, can often be documented and thus these activities can fill in some of the days. It may be possible to get credible persons to submit letters or such which show dates when the PR was engaged in this or that community activity, or at the least to show the PR was regularly engaged in such or such activity over certain periods of time (for example: a member of clergy affirming the PR attended religious services regularly between such and such dates).

Financial transactions can be presented but these often carry little weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence. Credit card or ATM transactions carry minimal weight.

Testimonial statements from various people can help, recognizing that letters or such from family or friends are often not given much weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence.

Much of this kind of evidence is prone to inconsistencies actually undermining the PR's case. A letter from clergy attesting to the PR's regular attendance at religious activities which overlaps a period of time the PR was abroad can hurt more than it helps. Similarly for testimonials from family or friends. Credit card transactions are not worth much unless complete statements are provided (otherwise cherry-picking is suspected), and a credit card transaction abroad during a period of time the PR declared he was in Canada, or for that matter a transaction purported in Canada on a date the PR is indicated to be abroad, will tend to either negate the weight of this evidence altogether or, perhaps, be considered negative evidence.

In one case, a PR submitted attendance records for her children's presence in a pre-school, but those records indicated the children were present during a time the PR declared she and the children were abroad. This did not result in CIC (case was prior to change to IRCC) adding more days in Canada, but resulted in negative inferences about the PR's credibility, and thus was a factor supporting a negative outcome in her case. To my view it was apparent the pre-school made a simple error and while that could be a basis for not giving the school attendance records a lot of weight, it should not have been put on the other side of the scales to support a negative outcome. But it was, and this was upheld on appeal.

Information in a LinkedIn account which suggested the PR had employment abroad that was not disclosed by the PR (in the PR's work history, which the PR must provide including any employment abroad), has been a big negative factor in more than a few cases.


Summary; the point of all this:

The PR who is cutting-it-close should recognize that to keep PR status the first priority needs to be to get into Canada as soon as possible and settle permanently in Canada. That will in turn generate the kind of proof, the evidence, which will suffice, which will work.

Any other plan is risky. Relying on proof other than a combined triad of residence, activity (preferably work), and pattern of presence consistent with permanently residing in Canada, is highly risky.

There are a score of recent IAD decisions which illustrate that at least as of 2012 CBSA began more strictly screening returning PRs upon arrival at a PoE if it appeared the PR was not yet settled and living in Canada, and this includes many who were not only still within their first five years of landing, but some who were barely beyond the three year anniversary (thus PRs with PR cards still valid for another year, even nearly two years).

It takes those of us in the public some serious lag-time before we can clearly discern some trends. Given the lengthy appeal time, many of the IAD cases being published about PR RO breaches are three and even four years old. So we are only now obtaining clear, actual accounts of PoE examinations from 2012 and 2013. This makes it difficult to discern how things go today when a cutting-it-close PR arrives at a PoE, but there is no reliable indication that the trend toward elevated scrutiny and strict enforcement has abated.

Get to Canada. Do it soon. Establish a household in Canada. Get settled. That will generate the proof needed for future travel abroad and for the PR card application when the time for that comes.

Or roll the dice and see what comes up.
Thanks, do you see people walking in with expired PR's now and able to successfully renew their PR in their 7th year? For example, Indian citizen comes to CN, signs paperwork, collects PR, leaves to US next day and have NEVER lived in canada in next 5 years , so forget meeting any 730 day requirements in this scenario and then after 5 years (when date on PR card has ended), drives to Vancouver and enters CN and then lives there for 2 years and gets new PR card. This USED to be a common scenario.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,421
3,163
dream16 said:
Thanks, do you see people walking in with expired PR's now and able to successfully renew their PR in their 7th year? For example, Indian citizen comes to CN, signs paperwork, collects PR, leaves to US next day and have NEVER lived in canada in next 5 years , so forget meeting any 730 day requirements in this scenario and then after 5 years (when date on PR card has ended), drives to Vancouver and enters CN and then lives there for 2 years and gets new PR card. This USED to be a common scenario.
I doubt this has been a successful scenario all that often for many years, if ever. "Common," perhaps, somewhat, in terms of total number in effect getting away with it. But it is likely far more lost PR status if they remained outside Canada for three years or more at a time . . . at least since 2009 or so (when CIC began a concerted campaign to interdict fraud, especially those instances in which crooked consultants were facilitating phony addresses and employment).

There are numerous relatively recent IAD decisions reflecting rather strict enforcement of the PR RO, at least as of 2012 and 2013 (long appeal time results in a long lag in obtaining the more detailed, official reports of actual cases), including several cases showing what appears to be a strong trend toward issuing Removal Orders, at the PoE, even to PRs still well within their first five years of landing and possessing PR cards valid for another year plus.

I have seen some anecdotal reports of remarkable leniency at the PoE. There is little hint this is the usual outcome, even if the total is enough to characterize it as "common." Not much such leniency seen in response to applications for a PR Travel Document.

In general, overall, the trend has been toward more screening, elevated scrutiny, and stricter enforcement. Since there is a lag time in the appeal decisions, however, it is possible this peaked during the Harper government and has abated some since. If so, however, there is no indication it has abated by much.
 

rocko_sigma

Newbie
May 16, 2017
3
0
Hello advisors,
First off, thank you very much for all the help you've provided in this forum. It is greatly appreciated.

I've been reading several of your replies, and particularly dpenabill's long post earlier on this page.

My current situation is as follows:
- Landed on June 2nd, 2014; have a PR card expiring on 24 December 2019 (there's an added 6 months to PR card bc there were some issues/lag on their end in sending it to correct address)
- Since the land date, I've only been present in Canada twice for about 17 days (medical school interviews mostly), with my last entry and exit being at the end of this past March
- I just received my acceptance to University of Toronto's medical program, and will be moving back for good around mid-July this year.

I am aware that technically, for an entry in July 2017 I will have been out of Canada for about 3 years and 30 days. I cannot actually fly to Canada any earlier (say on 3 year anniversary of landing, June 2nd), because I'm currently in the U.S. and need to settle some things in my home country before I can head out. My question is (and I am aware you may not have an answer for it), would I face questioning at the PoE because I am a little over the 3 year anniversary? I am a bit anxious as I need to decide between an american medical school and UofT soon, and my preference is UofT. However, it'd be pretty disastrous to withdraw my U.S. offer and then not be allowed into Canada...

Any input would be greatly appreciated!
 

afma

Newbie
Jun 29, 2017
1
0
hi all
need your help
my husband had PR card since 2012, his PR will expire on 13th July 2017
he came to Canada 3 times each time stayed between 2 weeks to 3 months,
he didn't finish 730 days, and his PR will expire soon, can he travel to Canada with the nearly expired card by 6th July?

is it possible the officer doesn't allow him to enter ?
 

Bs65

VIP Member
Mar 22, 2016
13,187
2,420
hi all
need your help
my husband had PR card since 2012, his PR will expire on 13th July 2017
he came to Canada 3 times each time stayed between 2 weeks to 3 months,
he didn't finish 730 days, and his PR will expire soon, can he travel to Canada with the nearly expired card by 6th July?

is it possible the officer doesn't allow him to enter ?
as a PR still he entitled to enter even with a PR card expiring in near future but given he has not met residency then is possible will get reported leading to PR being revoked at some point subject to appeal.

Even should he not get reported he would need to stay for 2 years without leaving to reset the residency obligation during which time not advisable to apply for a new PR card as that could also flag his failed RO.
 

BOYX

Hero Member
May 5, 2017
436
221
Toronto, ON
Hello advisors,
First off, thank you very much for all the help you've provided in this forum. It is greatly appreciated.

I've been reading several of your replies, and particularly dpenabill's long post earlier on this page.

My current situation is as follows:
- Landed on June 2nd, 2014; have a PR card expiring on 24 December 2019 (there's an added 6 months to PR card bc there were some issues/lag on their end in sending it to correct address)
- Since the land date, I've only been present in Canada twice for about 17 days (medical school interviews mostly), with my last entry and exit being at the end of this past March
- I just received my acceptance to University of Toronto's medical program, and will be moving back for good around mid-July this year.

I am aware that technically, for an entry in July 2017 I will have been out of Canada for about 3 years and 30 days. I cannot actually fly to Canada any earlier (say on 3 year anniversary of landing, June 2nd), because I'm currently in the U.S. and need to settle some things in my home country before I can head out. My question is (and I am aware you may not have an answer for it), would I face questioning at the PoE because I am a little over the 3 year anniversary? I am a bit anxious as I need to decide between an american medical school and UofT soon, and my preference is UofT. However, it'd be pretty disastrous to withdraw my U.S. offer and then not be allowed into Canada...

Any input would be greatly appreciated!
To keep it as simple as possible, you are guaranteed entry in Canada.
 

userpg

Star Member
Feb 21, 2015
142
2
Category........
Visa Office......
Warsaw
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
06-05-2015, received by CIC: 15-05-2015
AOR Received.
18-06-2015
File Transfer...
SA: 15-07-2015, AOR2: 06-08-2015
Med's Done....
18-03-2015
Interview........
Waived
Passport Req..
24-09-2015
VISA ISSUED...
14-10-2015
LANDED..........
07-12-2015 :)
Hi guys. It has been a while since o visited this forum :) So much has changed in the last 2 years.

I got my PR in October 2015 and moved to Toronto in December 2015. Stayed and worek there for 10 months, until I received a business offer back home. Came to Poland in October 2016.
I am planning to move back to Toronto in April 2018 and wondering if I will have any problems at the border. My Canadian wife is with me here, in Poland. It is going to bea year and a half outside Canada.
As I red in previous posts, I know there is the 730 days rule but for now I tottaly moved out of Canada. I have nothing there right now (no job, no address, no business). Can it be a concern for the CBSA?

Second question, how do they check when a person left the country? I heard that there was no system tracking the people leaving the country.

Another question, I am planning to move to Canada. Hovewer, I am planning to keep my business opened here, in Poland so I will be travelling to Poland every 4-6 weeks (staying in Poland for 5-6 days each time). Can that be a concern to the CBSA and can it effect my future PR status?

PS. I just red:
'You may also count days outside of Canada as days that you meet the residency obligation in these situations:
Situation 1. Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada
You may count each day you accompanied a Canadian citizen outside Canada as long as this person is your spouse, common-law partner or parent (if you are a child under 19 years of age).
Proof needed
You must provide supporting documents to prove that:
  • The person you are accompanying is a Canadian citizen; and
  • You are the spouse, common-law partner or child of that person
My wife (a Canadian citizen) came back to Poland with me and just received a Temporary Resident status but she is not working at all right now so it's more like she is accompanying me, not that I am accompanying her.
Would the time spent with her here in Poland in tis case still count to my 730 days?
 
Last edited:

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,421
3,163
My wife (a Canadian citizen) came back to Poland with me and just received a Temporary Resident status but she is not working at all right now so it's more like she is accompanying me, not that I am accompanying her.
Would the time spent with her here in Poland in tis case still count to my 730 days?
As long as you and your Canadian citizen spouse are living together, those days count toward compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

While there are some situations in which who accompanied whom can be an issue, those are very particular circumstances with no apparent relevance to your situation.

Generally the reason for being abroad, who has the job or such, does NOT matter. And in particular, for a couple who were living together in Canada and who moved abroad and who are living together abroad, there should be no problem at all getting the credit.

Beyond that, it does not appear you need the credit anyway if you are returning to Canada after being abroad less than two years. During the first five years following the date of landing and becoming a PR, the PR can be abroad for up to 1094 days, that is three years minus a day. Not a good idea to cut-it-close, anywhere near close. But up to two years is fine . . .
. . . in any event, living with a Canadian citizen spouse counts, so you should have no PR RO problems or issues (but yes, pay attention to what the instructions say about providing documentation to prove the relationship and cohabitation).
 
  • Like
Reactions: userpg

PHCA

Hero Member
Aug 1, 2017
231
33
Calgary, AB
LANDED..........
2011
Nice thread here everyone!

I just want to ask because I saw that @Leon mentioned in early posts in this thread that a PR should avoid having any immigration contact while completing 730 days.. I have yet to complete my 730 days in October 30, 2017. My mom along with brothers and stepdad are coming for a visit this December and my mother asked for my address here in Calgary when she was applying for tourist visa in Manila, I think a couple of weeks ago. Now having read that I should avoid any immigration contact.. though I am not sponsoring them whatsoever.. am I going to be in trouble as they mentioned me as relative in Canada in their tourist visa application?

I just want to make sure I will have no problems with immigration, please please advise! Thank you.
 

PHCA

Hero Member
Aug 1, 2017
231
33
Calgary, AB
LANDED..........
2011
Nice thread here everyone!

I just want to ask because I saw that @Leon mentioned in early posts in this thread that a PR should avoid having any immigration contact while completing 730 days.. I have yet to complete my 730 days in October 30, 2017. My mom along with brothers and stepdad are coming for a visit this December and my mother asked for my address here in Calgary when she was applying for tourist visa in Manila, I think a couple of weeks ago. Now having read that I should avoid any immigration contact.. though I am not sponsoring them whatsoever.. am I going to be in trouble as they mentioned me as relative in Canada in their tourist visa application?

I just want to make sure I will have no problems with immigration, please please advise! Thank you.
ANYONE? PLEASE ADVICE... I AM GETTING SO ANXIOUS AND MY MOTHER SEEM TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION
 

jyoti99

Member
Aug 7, 2017
10
1
Hi Folks,
I'm applying for my PR renewal. My PR card expires in 2 months.
I have been in Canada for the past 5 years. However, I was unemployed for most of the period (I worked only for 2 months). Do you think my application will go to secondary review ? Please share your experience.

Much appreciated
Jyoti
 

Coolnadz

Star Member
May 27, 2014
101
2
Hello

My parents PR card will expire in this August and uptill now they have only lived here for 10 months. Living here for continuely 02 years is the only option to renew their PR card but due to some urgenecy they want to go back to home country before this winter. Now my question are

what are our options to renew their PR card
if they overstay here once their PR will it impact their renewal application