Is end of 5 yr after landing is the same as expiry date on the first PR card (issued after landing)?
NO. Date on PR card is NOT relevant in calculating the PR's compliance with the Residency Obligation.
Can CBSA officer deny entry to Canada based on belief that residency requirement is not going to be met?
A PR is statutorily entitled to enter Canada, even if deemed Inadmissible due to a breach of the RO.
However, PoE officials can issue the PR a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility based on a determination there has been a breach of the RO. If this happens, the PR is usually then interviewed by another officer who decides whether or not to issue a Departure Order. If issued, the Departure Order is not immediately enforceable, so the PR is still entitled to enter Canada. PR can then appeal and stay in Canada pending the appeal . . . but if the PR loses the appeal, the original Departure Order becomes enforceable, meaning PR status is terminated. (If Departure Order is not appealed it becomes enforceable after 30 days and PR status is lost, terminated.)
I believe this can only be possible 2 years before PR card expiry but not before?
Again, expiration date on the PR card is NOT relevant.
But, so long as it has been less than three years since the DATE of LANDING, it is NOT possible for the PR to have yet been absent for more than 1095 days within the first five years, so there is NO question of fact about RO compliance, the PR is still in compliance.
Which leads to more general observations about the RO.
PRACTICAL APPROACH TO CALCULATING RO COMPLIANCE:
To my view, it is easier to keep track of days absent. During the first five years, from the DATE of LANDING, a PR is in compliance with the RO as long as the PR has NOT BEEN OUTSIDE CANADA for more than 1095 days. No need to calculate days present so far plus days left on the calendar to the fifth year anniversary. Just add up total days absent so far and if that total goes past 1095 days the PR is in breach of the RO, thus Inadmissible and subject to being reported and issued a Departure/Removal Order.
CAUTION: There are formal and practical RISKS if the PR is cutting-it-close. Scores of PRs underestimate the RISKS and many of them end up here, in this forum, telling tales of woe.
In any event, so long as the PR is NOT outside Canada for 1096 days or more during the first five years, the PR is in compliance with the RO. As of the day the PR is outside Canada for more than 1095 days during the first five years, the PR is in BREACH and Inadmissible.
EXAMPLE:
Thus, for example, a PR who LANDED and became a PR July 23, 2017 knows that the fifth year anniversary of that date is July 23, 2022. And as long as the total number of days absent up to that date does not exceed 1095, the PR is in compliance with the RO.
In contrast, if at any time between July 23, 2017 and July 23, 2022, the PR has been outside Canada a total number of days exceeding 1095, the PR is in breach of the RO as of the day the absences exceed 1095 (well, with allowance for additional leap year days). Which cannot happen before July 23, 2020.
Leading to some observations about the PoE experience:
Why not just mention 2/5 years requirement or why did CBSA officer bother to explain any of it at all (since the PR card was made less than 2 years ago which means that there is still plenty of time to meet the 730 days obligation)
I cannot interpret what was actually said during the PoE interview.
My guess, however, is that given the lengthy absence from Canada the PoE officers were making an effort to be sure she understood the PR Residency Obligation, perhaps in practical terms as well as the formal description of the RO. Giving her a caution of sorts, NOT in a negative sense but in a
you-should-know-and-understand sense.
Those who have been addressing issues about how the RO works for years, including many forum participants but also including individuals like CBSA PoE officers handling immigration matters, fully understand what is meant by a 2/5 rule (presence for 2 years in 5), or what is meant when it is said that a PR needs to be present in Canada at least 730 days within the last five years, or for a new PR 730 days within the first five years.
BUT as queries in this forum amply illustrate, scores and scores of PRs fail to grasp what this means in practical terms.
Which leads back to my guess, that the PoE officers were trying to be sure she understands the RO in practical terms and as it applies to her. FOR HER BENEFIT. In particular, it is possible the language barrier triggered both more scrutiny AND then concern she understand the RO. The latter especially since it is clear she has NOT yet settled in Canada.
And, indeed, since she has been OUTSIDE Canada approximately FIVE times as much as she has been in Canada, absent from 2017 to 2019 (total absence significantly longer than a year), offering some cautionary advice was prudent. Note, for example, if she is again absent for another 15 months (some period longer than a year), she will be running perilously close to a breach of the RO. That is, the "one year" caution may have been prospective, a practical caution taking into consideration that she had already been absent well more than a year.
As I noted above,
cutting-it-close has real RISKS. Formal risks and practical risks. Again, scores of PRs fail to adequately take the RISKS into account. Some encounter problems proving that they have been actually present in Canada enough to meet the RO, which can be aggravated by the reasonable inference that the PR was outside Canada any days the PR does not affirmatively document having been in Canada, which is a reasonable inference if the PR has been outside Canada more than in Canada. (If there is any uncertainty as to where an individual was on a given occasion, obviously it is reasonable to infer they were more likely to have been where they were most of the time, so for a PR who has been outside Canada most of the time, this can raise the bar in terms of proving actual presence.)
Obviously the father-in-law is likely to be cutting-it-close as well, perhaps more so.
The PLAN is fine but only so long as that is how things actually go. But in real life
STUFF-HAPPENS. I cannot begin to count how many stories have been told in this forum of similar plans and then
STUFF-HAPPENS.
And of course the longer either of them is outside Canada, the less flexibility there will be later . . . again,
STUFF-HAPPENS, and once the PR is into the latter part of the first five years (between the third and fifth year anniversary of landing), the PR has the burden of proof, the burden of proving actual physical presence in Canada a sufficient number of days to be in compliance with the RO . . . and here again, the extent of absences can loom large, the more the PR having been abroad the more a
total-stranger-bureaucrat is likely to question if not outright doubt the PR's claims about days in Canada.
PR card is merely a travel document.
For clarity (a technical, minor quibble): the PR card is NOT a Travel Document, even though many refer to it as such because its primary use is to facilitate a PR's travel back to Canada.
The PR card is a "STATUS document." See Section 31 IRPA
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#h-21
Note, for example, the status document is contrasted, in subsections 31(1) and 31(2), with a PR Travel Document in subsection 31(3), the latter to be issued to qualified PRs ABROAD.
As I noted, this is a fairly technical, minor quibble, but significant in the sense that a PR card alone will NOT suffice for international travel, as it is NOT a Travel Document. With rare exception, for example, a PR must present an actual valid Travel Document (typically but not necessarily a passport) in ADDITION to a PR card in order to board a flight headed to Canada.
