You only had to spend 2/5 years in Canada, the country you chose for “ permanent “ residence. That’s only 40%, that’s why there is no extension. It’s lenient as it, any more lenient and you might as well not have any rules . . .
It's very non-ideal. But where do you get this info? Your personal opinion or actual response from cic?
Reminder: The PR Residency Obligation is NOT a condition for keeping PR status. Thus, for example, it is NOT self-enforcing. Thus, for example, a breach does not automatically result in the loss of PR status. Nonetheless, the PR in breach of the RO is "inadmissible," and thus subject to the procedures prescribed for adjudicating inadmissibility, the termination of PR status, and consequences which follow from that.
The RO itself is fairly simple. How it applies and is enforced can tend to be complicated in some situations.
RE NO EXTENSION of Residency Obligation:
The PR Residency Obligation is prescribed by law. It is specifically spelled out in subsection 28(1) and 28(2)(a) in IRPA. See
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-274598
This can only be amended (changed) by an act of Parliament given Royal Assent. IRCC has NO AUTHORITY, NO POWER to revise or amend or change what is prescribed by law. Thus, IRCC has NO power to "extend" the number of days absent a PR is allowed under the law. Note, NOT even the Prime Minister can revise the law (without going through the legislative process involved in tabling and adopting a bill in Parliament).
Many provisions of law allow for some flexibility in application and implementation, or in enforcement. This gets complicated and ranges from what can be governed by regulation to what are powers delegated to agencies or departments of government, typically delegated to a particular "Minister." BUT again, the Residency Obligation itself is explicitly prescribed in the statute . . . so there is no changing the RO itself without going through the process of enacting legislation amending the law itself (zero chance of the RO being amended relative to Covid-19 considerations; and as
@Copingwithlife observed, since is it is so lenient, so flexible, there is very little, if any chance Parliament will be changing the law to make it any more lenient).
Even regulatory changes are a big deal, subject to a fairly rigorous procedure, including official notice and usually requiring a period of time for public comment. But the Residency Obligation itself is NOT governed by regulations since, again, it is specifically prescribed in Section 28 IRPA.
Note: IRCC can propose and adopt regulations which specify additional periods of time for which a PR, in effect, gets credit toward meeting the 730 days within five years obligation, that is in addition to those specified in subsection 28(2)(a)(ii) to (iv), such as the accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse abroad credit provided in 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA), as provided in 28(2)(a)(v); none have been proposed and there is no hint and very little likelihood, which I will explain further below, that there will be any regulations proposed to provide a Covid-related "credit" toward RO compliance.
RO ENFORCEMENT and RELIEF for BREACHES:
The Residency Obligation has a big escape valve, a relief valve, and that is the discretion granted to officers to allow a PR to keep PR status DESPITE a breach of the RO based on "humanitarian and compassionate considerations." This is prescribed in subsection 28(2)(c) IRPA; again, see
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-274598
We have not seen any formal let alone official announcements or notices, or otherwise publicized information, regarding any particular policies or practices related to specifically allowing relief due to the impact of Covid-19. I am NOT an expert, and cannot say for sure, but nonetheless I do NOT anticipate the publicizing of any formal policy or practice in this regard.
A specific, formal policy or practice is NOT necessary. The H&C relief valve allows for adequate consideration of ALL relevant factors, INCLUDING Covid-19 related considerations. Of course this involves INDIVIDUAL-specific determinations, based on the particular PR's individual-specific facts and circumstances.
Reminder: the purpose of the grant of PR status is so that the individual can settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada. There is a tendency to underestimate the importance of what the law intends based on what the law MAY ALLOW. This seems especially so relative to how some PRs approach the RO. Just because the law ALLOWS PRs to, in effect, live abroad more than they live in Canada (up to three years in a five-year period), does not mean the law is intended to facilitate such a lifestyle. And indeed, it is NOT intended to facilitate this, as IAD panels and the Federal Court have repeatedly stated the purpose of PR is to facilitate PERMANENT settlement IN Canada. The law generously ALLOWS extended absences in order to have a structure that will accommodate a wide, wide range of real life contingencies, including home country ties, immigrants might encounter.
Observations Regarding RO Enforcement Generally:
Caveat: While some RO H&C cases may be relatively simple or at least straight-forward, many are complicated and their outcome can be very difficult to forecast. These sorts of cases and relevant factors are discussed in many topics here. How it goes varies greatly. The variables are many. The dynamics, including how this or that factor can have an impact on the consideration of this or that other factor, can get very complicated.
BOTTOM-LINE in general: Any PR who has failed to comply with the RO is at RISK for losing status. While other factors can loom very large in individual cases, the most common big factor is the number of days IN Canada versus days ABSENT. Generally, the SOONER a PR returns to Canada, the better chance the PR has that he or she will be allowed to keep PR status DESPITE failing to comply with the RO.
There is no clear source, but it is also my impression there tends to be more leeway allowed PRs still within the first five years of when they landed . . . diminishing, of course, the closer to the fifth year anniversary they are. This is not so much due to a policy or practice, as such, but as a natural result of the way H&C factors apply in PR RO breach situations.
Probable Practice Re Covid-19; Practical Examples:
Another
CAVEAT: To be clear, once a PR is in breach of the RO there is NO guarantee that H&C considerations will be sufficient for the PR to keep status. A PR who fails to comply with the RO is, simply, at RISK for losing PR status.
Regarding the impact of Covid-19, there should be NO doubt, to the extent that Covid-19, and measures taken in regards to this pandemic, cause a delay in a PR's return to Canada, this will be taken into consideration. This will almost certainly be a significant factor in the H&C analysis for many PRs who fail to comply with their RO.
That is, I am very confident that
the impact of Covid-19 will be a positive factor tipping the scales in favour of allowing SOME PRs to keep their PR status DESPITE failing to comply with the RO.
But how so, to what effect, with what outcome in the particular case, that will VARY and vary widely, DEPENDING on the individual PR's situation. Which demands reiterating the caveat that there is NO guarantee. A lot can and in most cases will depend on many additional factors . . . which again tends to get very complicated (which, again, is discussed at-length, often in-depth, in many other topics here).
Again emphasizing the no guarantee caveat, some examples:
PR landed, and thus became a PR, in October 2017, in a "soft-landing," and as of the beginning of 2020 had spent just two weeks in Canada. If this PR has a valid PR card and travels to Canada before the end of this year, my guess is the PR's chances of NOT even being Reported upon arrival at a PoE are very good. Despite having been outside Canada for more than 1095 days since landing and thus being in breach of the RO.
In contrast, a PR who landed before 2015 and who as of March 1, 2020 had been outside Canada for over three years since the last time he or she was in Canada, probably has a much higher risk of being Reported and NOT allowed to keep status based on H&C relief, when he or she next arrives at a PoE.
The latter example aside, there is some indication that, PERHAPS, the PoE officials are NOT closely screening PRs for RO compliance these days, such that PERHAPS any PR with a valid PR card arriving at a PoE these days may have good odds of being waived into Canada. Seems likely that egregious cases, obvious cases, are still very much at RISK . . . but for many PRs, and especially those still within the first five years since landing, FOR NOW (with no idea how long this might last, assuming this is happening this way), my GUESS is that there are good odds of not being closely examined as to RO compliance at the PoE.
Overall, among the many, many factors which can influence how things actually go for a particular individual, among the more salient factors which are likely to have a significant impact --
-- the sooner the PR gets to Canada, the better
-- the longer the PR was abroad before the pandemic (before March 2020), and especially if the PR was already in breach of the RO before then, the less likely considerations for Covid-19 will save the PR's status
