Applying for PR card renewal 6 months in advance

[dpenabill]

i got your point, please dont get annoyed by my questions i just want to know what is better for me at the moment. what you suggest me to do ? should i travel in Dec and after returning in Jan, i apply for the PR renewal in Feb?

Generally I have no emotive reaction to questions (with some exceptions, in rather obvious contexts). The chiding, and it was just a bit so, was mostly for emphasis. Sorry if I seemed annoyed. I wasn't.

As for offering a suggestion . . . to be clear, I do not offer advice. Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish a "suggestion" from "advice." But many times a general suggestion is well warranted and well founded. For soft-landing PRs, for example, it is a very good suggestion that they come to Canada well within enough time to meet their PR Residency Obligation; that is, that they not wait until they can barely meet the RO.

Specific suggestions relative to particular actions and dates, in contrast, is more like advice. Even in this regard, if the suggestion or advice is sufficiently rooted in general knowledge and its rather obvious application, that is OK. For example, advising a PR who is not in compliance with the RO that he or she should NOT go abroad, or not apply to sponsor a family member . . . at least, not until the PR is back in compliance with the RO . . . is fair advice anyone can reasonably offer.

So I can offer some general observations about traveling abroad or about when to not apply for a new PR card, but I am NOT qualified to specifically advise you about a particular trip or when to specifically make your application for a new PR card.

REMEMBER . . . those of us, including me, who respond to questions in this forum should NOT, NOT in any way, be considered experts. Most of us, including me, are NOT qualified to give personal advice. And it should be assumed no one here is qualified to give personal advice, particularly since even if they are (say, for example, someone posting here is a lawyer or authorized consultant), this is NOT a proper venue for giving any such advice.

I am making this reminder here in large part because the responses you have so far obtained, here and in the other topic, should be sufficient for you to evaluate the information, assess what is relevant and useful, and make these decisions for yourself, based on YOUR personal best understanding of the rules, the procedures, and YOUR personal situation.


For now some further reminders:

(1) what to consider in regards to traveling abroad is a question separate and apart from the question about when to apply for a new PR card​

​

(2) there is an important distinction in what meets technical requirements versus what involves a RISK of adverse consequences, and in regard to this in particular,​

​

(3) the distinction between a RISK of losing PR status versus the RISK of lengthy delays in processing, such as how long it might take to be delivered a new PR card, is a critical distinction​

As long as you are present in Canada, and staying in Canada, then being in compliance with the RO, and actually even just being close to being in compliance with the PR RO, means there is a very low risk the PR card application will be denied or result in a decision that would terminate PR status. But depending on circumstances, including presence history, there may be a RISK of non-routine processing delaying how long it takes to be issued a new PR card, potentially including Secondary Review which can delay how long it takes by a YEAR or so.

Whether you should travel abroad in the meantime, while you still have a currently valid PR card, and plan to return to Canada while your current card is still valid, is again a separate question. As long as you are in compliance with the RO and are carrying a valid PR card, here too there is at most only a LOW risk of being reported upon arrival at the PoE when returning to Canada . . . that risk depending some on how apparent your accounting of days in Canada is accurate . . . with factors like how short the trip is (meaning how obvious it is you only recently left what appears to be your settled home in Canada) tending to lower the risks. That said, there are other risks, typically low risks, like the risk of losing your PR card while abroad and having to apply for a PR TD, or the risk of this or that event causing a serious delay in your return to Canada. Obviously, ONLY YOU can fully take into account all the various circumstances of your life and reasonably assess the risks, and only YOU can judge what degree of risk is acceptable for YOU.


In Regards to Applying For a New PR card February, 2021:

So, I cannot suggest, let alone advise you to do this or not. Although, in a very general sense, to my view the longer you can wait to make this application the less risk there will be of a referral to Secondary Review, or even if there is SR, the longer you wait the better your chances the delay could be shorter.

Again, there is a big difference in the kind of risks to consider. A very low or NO risk that the application will be denied. But, given cutting-it-close, a substantial risk of non-routine processing delays, potentially the rather long delay involved if the application is referred for SR.

Risk the application will be denied: There should be NO risk the application will be denied. Actually, there is rarely any risk that a PR card application will be denied and that risk is most likely limited to PRs who are abroad, not in Canada. In following these things for a decade plus, and reading official decisions in cases going back well before that, I can recall very, very few instances in which a PR card application has been denied . . . but, ironically, one of those instances is reported in this forum just TODAY.

My family and I were living out of Canada for the last 4 years. They denied the renewal for PR even though my wife's company is a Canadian company overseas.

[Side note: PRs IN Canada who apply for a new card when short of the RO, or who are perceived to be short, are typically subject to a local office RO determination and if still short at the time of their RO examination or interview, then issued a Removal Order, unless their H&C reasons persuade IRCC to allow them to keep status. If the PR is outside Canada, or perceived to likely be outside Canada, IRCC typically flags the PR's GCMS and waits for the PR to either apply for a PR Travel Document or arrive at a PoE to enter Canada, these triggering a RO examination which will result in either the PR TD application being denied, thus terminating status unless this is successfully appealed, or being issued a 44(1) Report and Departure Order at the PoE unless sufficient H&C reasons are presented.]

Risk of Non-routine Processing and Delays: Unfortunately, you have been cutting-it-close and enough so there is a fair to substantial risk of SR. Even if you wait beyond the date your current card expires. However, this is not a fixed or static risk. The longer you wait to apply, it is likely the lower your risk of SR. For PRs who are clearly well-settled PERMANENTLY in Canada, it appears the risk of SR can be quite a bit lower even though their margin over the minimum (730 days within five years) is not a lot. But of course the longer you are IN Canada by the time you make the application, not only does that give you a bigger margin over the minimum, but the more it can bolster the perception you are well-settled in Canada permanently. Employment history can be a significant factor in this.

Which brings up another topic and post made just today.

The Immigration Consultant generally advise you to have more than 1095 days of stay to show for your RO.

I have NOT seen any such advice before. It is not a surprise (other than it being a surprise that a PR who is in compliance with the RO would be consulting with a professional "Immigration Consultant" about when to apply for a new PR card). It more conservative than what I've seen posted in this forum. More conservative than what I have suggested, except to the extent it is consistent with my oft repeated view that anything less than 900 days within the preceding five years is cutting-it-close. BUT IT DOES MAKE SENSE. Because the source of this is not clearly credible, I cannot quote this without reservation or qualification. But again, it makes sense.

 

[armoured]

[The Immigration Consultant generally advise you to have more than 1095 days of stay to show for your RO.]

I have NOT seen any such advice before. It is not a surprise (other than it being a surprise that a PR who is in compliance with the RO would be consulting with a professional "Immigration Consultant" about when to apply for a new PR card). It more conservative than what I've seen posted in this forum. More conservative than what I have suggested, except to the extent it is consistent with my oft repeated view that anything less than 900 days within the preceding five years is cutting-it-close. BUT IT DOES MAKE SENSE. Because the source of this is not clearly credible, I cannot quote this without reservation or qualification. But again, it makes sense.

I'm going to risk (mildly) disagreeing on whether the advice to have more than 1095 days makes sense.

First, though, I suspect that there was a misunderstanding about this advice - either in exact wording or context or whether more than one immigration consultant ever in fact said it. Or most likely, someone heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard something from a consultant, and the original intent or context was different.

Here's my main reason: anyone with more than 1095 days would be better advised to apply for (prepare to apply for) citizenship. There may be some corner cases, but I fail to see a good reason to recommend 1095 days rather than (for example) your 900 days just to apply for a new PR card - unless it was really directed at citizenship, removing the necessity of the PR card entirely.

Of course, a buffer over the required 730 days makes sense; but at some point, there is a diminishing returns aspect - the added benefit of the last additional buffer days is less than the first. Your 900 days rule-of-thumb is a reasonable compromise; a PR at 1050 days is likely (or should) already be looking at getting to the citizenship residency bar (plus a buffer).

Again, there may be more complex or corner cases where more days removes any doubt (PRs counting on days accompanying spouses abroad? just as an example) and where the advice makes some sense - context of advice does matter. But probably not for most applicants.

In fact, I wonder if the "general advice" was intended more to suggest/push PRs in the direction of qualifying for citizenship application, and some misunderstanding was introduced in the passing on of this info.

Just an opinion.

 

[dpenabill]

I'm going to risk (mildly) disagreeing on whether the advice to have more than 1095 days makes sense.

First, though, I suspect that there was a misunderstanding about this advice - either in exact wording or context or whether more than one immigration consultant ever in fact said it. Or most likely, someone heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard something from a consultant, and the original intent or context was different.

Here's my main reason: anyone with more than 1095 days would be better advised to apply for (prepare to apply for) citizenship. There may be some corner cases, but I fail to see a good reason to recommend 1095 days rather than (for example) your 900 days just to apply for a new PR card - unless it was really directed at citizenship, removing the necessity of the PR card entirely.

Of course, a buffer over the required 730 days makes sense; but at some point, there is a diminishing returns aspect - the added benefit of the last additional buffer days is less than the first. Your 900 days rule-of-thumb is a reasonable compromise; a PR at 1050 days is likely (or should) already be looking at getting to the citizenship residency bar (plus a buffer).

Again, there may be more complex or corner cases where more days removes any doubt (PRs counting on days accompanying spouses abroad? just as an example) and where the advice makes some sense - context of advice does matter. But probably not for most applicants.

In fact, I wonder if the "general advice" was intended more to suggest/push PRs in the direction of qualifying for citizenship application, and some misunderstanding was introduced in the passing on of this info.

Just an opinion.

Well, to be clear, I explicitly am NOT quoting this "consultant" advice without reservation or qualification. That is, I reference it with BOTH some reservation, as to the credibility of the source, and with qualification given, indeed, how conservative it is.

That said . . . this makes sense if it derives from an immigration consultant's advice regarding soft-landings in general. That is, and I suspect this may indeed be the case, this reference to consultants "generally advise you to have more than 1095 days of stay to show for your RO," may not be about when to apply for a new PR card BUT RATHER general advice upfront to soft-landing PRs that they should plan to get to Canada to live IN TIME to spend 1095 days IN Canada before their first PR card expires.

And that is the conventional wisdom often articulated in this forum: it is OK to do a soft-landing, return to home country, and plan to make the trip to actually settle in Canada later . . . after settling affairs in the home country, completing employment or career matters, better preparing financially to make the move, and so on. BUT BETTER to plan to do this, to get to Canada to live, within TWO years or less . . . that is, in essence, in time to be in Canada 1095 days before needing to apply for and obtain a new PR card.

Of course I should not try to second-guess what the consultant meant. So I can only quote the consultant's advice with some reservation and qualification. But I do think it helps put things in better context . . . this forum is rife with scores of anecdotal reports from PRs who rush to make it to Canada to settle barely before the third anniversary of the day they landed. With logistical risks which might delay the move and result in their breach of the Residency Obligation. And even if they make it to Canada just in time, they are then in effect stuck IN Canada, no leeway for even brief holidays abroad, for at least the next two years . . . with the prospect that given cutting-it-so-close their application for a new PR card will get bogged down in non-routine processing, potentially SR and an additional YEAR before they get a new card, recognizing that without a valid PR card even brief holidays abroad could be risky and involve the inconvenience of having to apply for and obtain a PR TD.

 

[armoured]

Well, to be clear, I explicitly am NOT quoting this "consultant" advice without reservation or qualification. That is, I reference it with BOTH some reservation, as to the credibility of the source, and with qualification given, indeed, how conservative it is.

That said . . . this makes sense if it derives from an immigration consultant's advice regarding soft-landings in general. That is, and I suspect this may indeed be the case, this reference to consultants "generally advise you to have more than 1095 days of stay to show for your RO," may not be about when to apply for a new PR card BUT RATHER general advice upfront to soft-landing PRs that they should plan to get to Canada to live IN TIME to spend 1095 days IN Canada before their first PR card expires.

And that is the conventional wisdom often articulated in this forum: it is OK to do a soft-landing, return to home country, and plan to make the trip to actually settle in Canada later . . . after settling affairs in the home country, completing employment or career matters, better preparing financially to make the move, and so on. BUT BETTER to plan to do this, to get to Canada to live, within TWO years or less . . . that is, in essence, in time to be in Canada 1095 days before needing to apply for and obtain a new PR card.

Of course I should not try to second-guess what the consultant meant. So I can only quote the consultant's advice with some reservation and qualification. But I do think it helps put things in better context . . . this forum is rife with scores of anecdotal reports from PRs who rush to make it to Canada to settle barely before the third anniversary of the day they landed. With logistical risks which might delay the move and result in their breach of the Residency Obligation. And even if they make it to Canada just in time, they are then in effect stuck IN Canada, no leeway for even brief holidays abroad, for at least the next two years . . . with the prospect that given cutting-it-so-close their application for a new PR card will get bogged down in non-routine processing, potentially SR and an additional YEAR before they get a new card, recognizing that without a valid PR card even brief holidays abroad could be risky and involve the inconvenience of having to apply for and obtain a PR TD.

This is a generous and reasonable interpretation. But it interprets the context of the advice as being "how to plan ahead to be in RO compliance" (ex ante) rather than how many days recommended when applying for pr card renewal. The advice is fine but not really the context to hand.

Both valid contexts, of course. But it's a little like asking for advice on what to do as you missed your train, and someone says "leave earlier so you don't miss it!" (partly kidding with this analogy)

Agree that in general, the number of cases where this comes up indicates soft-landers underestimate the challenges of ro compliance. More bigger buffer is valid advice.