Leaving with a two days buffer of PR obligation

[mira_johnson]

Dpenabill, Thank you for your very thorough response. Your observations, links and assumptions are all helpful.
You're providing me with a good perspective of that there might be a lack of flexibility in the law for border officers and IRCC to officially give exceptions such as extra days buffer from RO requirement. Covid or not covid. Still, border officials might show this flexibility in a non-official way by waiving a PR in breach of their RO through the borders while "looking away", since this would be a way to pretend they haven't seen it thus not needing to enforce the law?
I was actually going to ask if there was any way of getting a written pre-approval note in your file or a review of some sort by calling the CBCA border officers in advanced? I know the chances are slim particularly if there is, as you say, zero flexibility in the law.

Other comments in different threads imply that PRs try to stay "under the radar" away from IRCC by not applying to anything... what I need to know is why. Is it to not draw attention to their profile because IRCC are required to report if they realize a PR is in breach of RO, or are there certain applications involving the PR such as sponsorship, PR application which require the PR to not be in breach and thus trigger the report?
I have a case where a couple of immediate family members would need to visit me whereas one is in breach of their RO requirement of their PR just like me, and the other is in need of an extension of their visitor period (eTa) authorization. Neither is specifically about me, but since they are immediate family members of me could draw attention to "my profile". That is why I need to know the difference and the specifics of why one "should not apply for anything", regarding tips for how to not be reported. As Human and compassionate grounds seems to be a last resort for people?

As for human and compassionate grounds, if one was to appeal following a report, even if one succeeded, could it not put a future citizenship application in "jeopardy" or into a slow "non-routine" route?

I am not denying the fact that Canada is not being extremely flexible already by allowing "permanent" residents to stay abroad for such long periods. But canada is also a very multicultural country and accept dual and multiple citizens alike. So there's a part of me that think they must know that PRs might be living in other countries, sometimes permanently, as well. It would certainly be interesting reading what you referred to that the government have repeatedly mentioned about how permanent residents are suppose to permanently settle in Canada. We live in a very multicultural world and Canada is definitely on top of that list of countries that are welcoming multiculturism.

The most helpful would be if anyone could cite the relevant laws for PR RO obligations, breach, border control routines regarding PRs, IRCC routines etc. If I find them I will. I think there's a need of very specific accurate advice on this topic as people are taking such huge risks relating to this topic.

Thanks again.

 

[Besram]

The most helpful would be if anyone could cite the relevant laws for PR RO obligations, breach, border control routines regarding PRs, IRCC routines etc. If I find them I will. I think there's a need of very specific accurate advice on this topic as people are taking such huge risks relating to this topic.

Thanks again.

Many of the questions you are asking have been covered at length in this forum in other threads. You can find the relevant legislation by doing a simple Google Search.

I would also recommend reading some appeal cases about residency obligation and deportation orders due to residency obligation breaches on one of the legal case databases. Here is a starting point: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/nav/date/2020/

Finally, if you need reliable advice, you should invest in a consultation with an immigration professional (either a regulated immigration consultant or better yet, a lawyer who specializes in immigration law). Such a consultation would cost anywhere from $100-300 for an hour, and you would get definitive answers to your questions. The vast majority of forum members are NOT immigration professionals (myself included), so if you have a lot riding on it, pay for the advice.

Here is an example of a lawyer who seems to specialize in this kind of scenario:
https://www.matkowsky.ca/post/2018/06/10/what-to-do-if-my-pr-card-expired

Note I have no affiliation with them and have not used them. I just came across this article in my research and think it neatly summarizes the options.

 

[mira_johnson]

It would be interesting if there were data available about the number of reports for non-compliance with RO at ports of entry.

Failing that, self-reported cases here or other public sources (preferably with enough info for outsiders to get some idea whether these are covid/pre-covid compliance issues).

I can't claim to be sufficiently assiduous or attentive here to say - but I do not recall many cases of posters here bringing up being formally reported at border in the last several months. Further, hard to claim a sufficient pre-covid basis of comparison, either.

Mostly the cases I recall here in recent months have been PRTD applications - mostly with clear long-term RO compliance issues, and a handful of PRTD cases that were - from impression only - rather more clearcut cases decided favourably.

But that is nothing more than an impression. I assume any indication of how many cases proceeding to appeals etc will only become visible sometime in future yet.

Thank you. Another point that's interesting is how many of those who tried managed to remain in Canada for two years without being reported. To me, its quite the thriller movie

 

[scylla]

Thank you. Another point that's interesting is how many of those who tried managed to remain in Canada for two years without being reported. To me, its quite the thriller movie

Your perspective on this doesn't really make any sense. They are still permanent residents. There's nothing to report. They are legally entitled to live in Canada. It's pretty much the opposite of a thriller movie.

 

[dpenabill]

that there might be a lack of flexibility in the law for border officers and IRCC to officially give exceptions such as extra days buffer from RO requirement. Covid or not covid. Still, border officials might show this flexibility in a non-official way by waiving a PR in breach of their RO through the borders while "looking away", since this would be a way to pretend they haven't seen it thus not needing to enforce the law?

The obligation itself is not flexible. To comply requires 730 days IN Canada within the relevant five years. (Recognizing there are some "credits" that count days outside Canada as if in Canada, such as days accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse abroad.)

But to be clear, it is so lenient, actually rather generous, what it does is give the individual PR a great deal of flexibility . . . a PR can spend significantly more than half of his or her time abroad and still meet the RO.

And even though the Residency Obligation itself is fixed, the manner in which it is enforced is FLEXIBLE. This does NOT amount to officials "looking away."

As I noted, and others have as well, the nature and scope of RELIEF allowed for a failure to comply with the RO is a big subject and is discussed in depth in many topics here.

My repeated caution about the RISK of losing PR status for a PR if and when the PR is not in compliance is NOT intended to scare or to assert, let alone emphasize, that the RO is strictly enforced. In many respects there are, indeed, many situations in which officials are lenient or FLEXIBLE in how they enforce the RO, and this is on top of how much leeway, how much flexibility is already in the RO (again, allowing PRs the individual flexibility to spend up to three years in five abroad).

But for the PR who fails to meet the obligation, there is NO guarantee they will benefit from how much flexibility there is in the RO's enforcement. Leading to . . .

I was actually going to ask if there was any way of getting a written pre-approval note in your file or a review of some sort by calling the CBCA border officers in advanced? I know the chances are slim particularly if there is, as you say, zero flexibility in the law.

There is no way to get any pre-approval for a future breach of the RO. Remember, for example, one of the biggest factors, and in many cases the biggest factor, is how big the breach is . . . how many days IN Canada compared to days ABSENT from Canada . . . and this factor cannot be determined ahead of time.

Again, while the RO itself is fixed, there is actually quite a bit of flexibility in the law. In my previous post I focused on the flexibility inherent in how "H&C" reasons constitute a big relief valve. That was because a major element in the discussion has to do with how Covid-19 factors into things. And I am sure for many PRs that Covid-19 is quite likely to be a significant factor which tips the scales in favour of them keeping PR status despite falling short of the RO.

I referred to the waive-through-the-border scenario without focusing much on it or the factors which likely influence whether this happens or not. Canadian immigration officials are not generally engaged in gotcha-games. So there is indeed a good deal of flexibility in the way CBSA immigration officers approach RO enforcement regarding returning PRs. It is quite likely that a PR two days short, for example, or even two weeks, is NOT going to be subject to a formal RO compliance examination at the PoE, and thus very likely will be waived through.

But, in contrast, when a PR arrives at a PoE and it has clearly been more than three years since the last time he or she was even in Canada, so that it is obvious on the face of things the PR has NOT complied with the RO, border officials have a more compelling duty to screen the PR for inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO.

Lots of various scenarios in-between those two. And now Covid-19 has added another factor.

Again, this is just scratching the surface of all the variables. See discussions in other topics. Note, for example, even if the PoE screening officer finds the PR to be in breach of the RO, and issues the inadmissibility Report, the PR then gets a chance to persuade another officer that he or she should be allowed to keep PR status. Technically this is the H&C side but it usually, mostly, amounts to the PR presenting the reasons why he or she was abroad so long and should be allowed to keep PR status anyway. And even if that second officer issues the Removal or Departure Order, the PR is still entitled to enter Canada and can appeal, and remains a PR while the appeal is pending.

Lots and lots of avenues for flexibility in the way the RO is applied and enforced.

But the basic requirement itself, 730 days in Canada, is fixed.

It would be interesting if there were data available about the number of reports for non-compliance with RO at ports of entry.
. . . . .
Mostly the cases I recall here in recent months have been PRTD applications - mostly with clear long-term RO compliance issues, and a handful of PRTD cases that were - from impression only - rather more clearcut cases decided favourably.

For sure, we are operating with very limited data. The best we can do is map the few anecdotal reports against the past and in context of what we can learn from IAD decisions (and to some extent, some Federal Court decisions).

In most times it is fairly apparent that border officials are far less strict in their approach to RO enforcement than visa offices handling PR TD applications. My GUESS is that the divide will be bigger for awhile given the Covid-19 situation. There are reasons for the difference, not the least of which is the presumption that if a PR abroad does not possess a valid PR card, he or she does not have valid PR status. This, in turn, requires the visa office to formally consider RO compliance, meaning conduct a RO compliance examination. Border officials are primarily focused on who gets permission to enter Canada.

Worth noting that BEFORE Covid-19, the number of IAD cases involving PoE Reports had been increasing relative to the number of PR TD cases. Five to ten years ago, in contrast, the number of IAD cases involving denied PR TD applications way, way outnumbered the PoE Report cases. It very much appeared that there was a dramatic increase in border enforcement of the RO . . . apparently beginning around the last couple years that Harper was PM (as you noted, there is a big lag between Reports and when we see those cases in IAD decisions, and back then it was often well over a year approaching two).

 

[armoured]

You're providing me with a good perspective of that there might be a lack of flexibility in the law for border officers and IRCC to officially give exceptions such as extra days buffer from RO requirement. Covid or not covid. Still, border officials might show this flexibility in a non-official way by waiving a PR in breach of their RO through the borders while "looking away", since this would be a way to pretend they haven't seen it thus not needing to enforce the law?
...
Other comments in different threads imply that PRs try to stay "under the radar" away from IRCC by not applying to anything... what I need to know is why. Is it to not draw attention to their profile because IRCC are required to report if they realize a PR is in breach of RO, or are there certain applications involving the PR such as sponsorship, PR application which require the PR to not be in breach and thus trigger the report?
I have a case where a couple of immediate family members would need to visit me whereas one is in breach of their RO requirement of their PR just like me, and the other is in need of an extension of their visitor period (eTa) authorization. Neither is specifically about me, but since they are immediate family members of me could draw attention to "my profile". That is why I need to know the difference and the specifics of why one "should not apply for anything", regarding tips for how to not be reported.

You are asking questions that to a significant degree depend on specifics of your case. I'm still not clear what your 'buffer of two days' means. Are you currently in or out of compliance with the RO? By how much? When are you returning? Do you mean that you're in compliance (in Canada) you'll only have a buffer of two days for travel?

As noted elsewhere, some of your questions are hard to put in context or understand. Put roughly and simply, the residency is specific and fixed - minimum 730 days. There is no way to get exceptions in advance. BUT: officers are required by law to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds (with no or few public guidelines as to how this should be applied), and the process of removing PR status is lengthy and costly for government. So in practice especially at points of entry, officers have authority to make decisions about which cases are worth pursuing/reporting. Others here have posted extensively how flexible this tends to be in practice (very shot form: the less out of compliance the better; true extenuating circumstances taken into account; ties in Canada - habitual residence and immediate family in Canada - help; etc).

Once admitted to Canada without being reported ('waved through'), the PR who is out of compliance is in Canada legally and is a PR. They can work and do everything that other residents do. They are not in hiding from the authorities, they are not 'underground.' If they are in and remain in Canada, it actually doesn't matter for almost all purposes that the PR card has expired, the individual is still a PR.

When we say 'avoid interactions with IRCC', let's be clear: far and away the most important of these is leaving Canada and then returning. They are still out of compliance and when examined on re-entry may or may not benefit from the lenience the previous officer gave. That doesn't mean never travel - but it is not recommended; the same considerations above will apply on re-entry. There is a risk will be reported. (Note with expired PR card there are more issues that come up esp. boarding a flight without valid PR card may not be possible).

The other main issue for the resident-in-Canada-with-expired-PR-card in terms of 'being examined' (while in Canada) is attempting to sponsor a family member (spouse, child or parents). This does NOT mean the PR will be examined and removed from the country if e.g. someone applying for a TRV puts down 'visiting my third cousin.' The way to completely avoid any issues is ... to get back in compliance by residing in Canada.

I'm going to stop there as this now gets hypothetical and I'm not sure this applies to your case. Short form: if you are not yet out of compliance, return to Canada as soon as feasible (while still in compliance). If you are out of compliance now or expect to be when you return, give some details. If you are currently out of compliance by only a small bit, and really wish to return and reside in Canada, chances are decent you'll be admitted with no issues.

You will not get guarantees in advance of complete flexibility to travel without risk until you are back in compliance. Every re-entry while not in compliance bears some risk. Although the RO is by construction relatively flexible and lenient (two of five years presence is not that demanding), it is designed for residency in Canada, not 'maintain status indefinitely while habitually abroad.'

 

[armoured]

In most times it is fairly apparent that border officials are far less strict in their approach to RO enforcement than visa offices handling PR TD applications. My GUESS is that the divide will be bigger for awhile given the Covid-19 situation.

Yes, my presumption has been that they will be more flexible during covid (not least of which reasons because more likely that on appeal - where such occurs - that appeals board will take into account covid-related explanations).

And my impression is that there have been fewer/few reports of border officials reporting individuals for RO reasons of late. But that is only an impression (and I have possible confirmation bias of my presumption).

PRTDs: I primarily meant that my impression of late is cases mentioned by participants are mostly PRTD, not border reports. But again, impressions without valid timeframe comparisons.

I'd expect the more difficult covid-related cases will come well in future, after most covid travel restrictions lifted. Whatever current presumption / benefit of doubt granted those arriving saying could not return because of covid, at some point, that will tighten. Far too soon to say of course.

 

[amrelroby]

Dpenabill, Thank you for your very thorough response. Your observations, links and assumptions are all helpful.
You're providing me with a good perspective of that there might be a lack of flexibility in the law for border officers and IRCC to officially give exceptions such as extra days buffer from RO requirement. Covid or not covid. Still, border officials might show this flexibility in a non-official way by waiving a PR in breach of their RO through the borders while "looking away", since this would be a way to pretend they haven't seen it thus not needing to enforce the law?
I was actually going to ask if there was any way of getting a written pre-approval note in your file or a review of some sort by calling the CBCA border officers in advanced? I know the chances are slim particularly if there is, as you say, zero flexibility in the law.

Other comments in different threads imply that PRs try to stay "under the radar" away from IRCC by not applying to anything... what I need to know is why. Is it to not draw attention to their profile because IRCC are required to report if they realize a PR is in breach of RO, or are there certain applications involving the PR such as sponsorship, PR application which require the PR to not be in breach and thus trigger the report?
I have a case where a couple of immediate family members would need to visit me whereas one is in breach of their RO requirement of their PR just like me, and the other is in need of an extension of their visitor period (eTa) authorization. Neither is specifically about me, but since they are immediate family members of me could draw attention to "my profile". That is why I need to know the difference and the specifics of why one "should not apply for anything", regarding tips for how to not be reported. As Human and compassionate grounds seems to be a last resort for people?

As for human and compassionate grounds, if one was to appeal following a report, even if one succeeded, could it not put a future citizenship application in "jeopardy" or into a slow "non-routine" route?

I am not denying the fact that Canada is not being extremely flexible already by allowing "permanent" residents to stay abroad for such long periods. But canada is also a very multicultural country and accept dual and multiple citizens alike. So there's a part of me that think they must know that PRs might be living in other countries, sometimes permanently, as well. It would certainly be interesting reading what you referred to that the government have repeatedly mentioned about how permanent residents are suppose to permanently settle in Canada. We live in a very multicultural world and Canada is definitely on top of that list of countries that are welcoming multiculturism.

The most helpful would be if anyone could cite the relevant laws for PR RO obligations, breach, border control routines regarding PRs, IRCC routines etc. If I find them I will. I think there's a need of very specific accurate advice on this topic as people are taking such huge risks relating to this topic.

Thanks again.

You asked for advice from experience. Here is my experience, if your PR card is valid, the border officer will not check for RO unless something happens that raises his suspections. For example, if you tell them you were working/studying abroad or you were away from Canada for long time (years). I traveled a lot and I only got asked about RO once when I told them I was working outside Canada for over a year. The officer did not examine me much when I showed him that I am moving back for a new job. When i showed him my job offer he did not ask me any further questions and waived me through.
Similar situation happened with couple of my friends, luckily they always had proof of their ties to Canada with them, pay stubs, rent contract, school registration etc. In most cases the officer just want to make sure you are planning to live in Canada, if he is satisfied, he will not go further and count your days in the last five years to make sure you are in compliance with RO.
That is not a legal advice it is just what I noticed as a frequent traveller.

On the other hand if your PR card is expired, the chances of them asking questions about why you did not renew it and your RO compliance increases. But again if you have proof that you have established life Canada, it will increase your chance of being waived you through.

Regarding staying in Canada with expired PR card. Expired card do not cancel you residency. You can stay in Canada till you complete the 730 days and renew it. It is normal and nothing illegal about it. If your card expired and you are not in compliance with the 730 days RO, then it is preferable not to travel or you risk being issued removal order.

 

[mira_johnson]

Many of the questions you are asking have been covered at length in this forum in other threads. You can find the relevant legislation by doing a simple Google Search.

I would also recommend reading some appeal cases about residency obligation and deportation orders due to residency obligation breaches on one of the legal case databases. Here is a starting point: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/nav/date/2020/

Finally, if you need reliable advice, you should invest in a consultation with an immigration professional (either a regulated immigration consultant or better yet, a lawyer who specializes in immigration law). Such a consultation would cost anywhere from $100-300 for an hour, and you would get definitive answers to your questions. The vast majority of forum members are NOT immigration professionals (myself included), so if you have a lot riding on it, pay for the advice.

Here is an example of a lawyer who seems to specialize in this kind of scenario:
https://www.matkowsky.ca/post/2018/06/10/what-to-do-if-my-pr-card-expired

Note I have no affiliation with them and have not used them. I just came across this article in my research and think it neatly summarizes the options.

Thank you. I did read through several threads on this forum and opened this thread when in need of some extra reassurance. It may have sounded repetitive but, I was at the end of my line of PR and feeling rather desperate.
I also read the exact article you cited from an immigration lawyer. Smart idea about checking out the database for actual cases.

 

[mira_johnson]

Your perspective on this doesn't really make any sense. They are still permanent residents. There's nothing to report. They are legally entitled to live in Canada. It's pretty much the opposite of a thriller movie.

I understand they are still permanent residents and that's reassuring. But its still the silent scream "do not apply for anything!" and the term inadmissible PR that I struggle with

 

[scylla]

I understand they are still permanent residents and that's reassuring. But its still the silent scream "do not apply for anything!" and the term inadmissible PR that I struggle with

Sorry, I still don't understand.

They should not apply to renew their PR card until they meet the residency requirement. Also, they cannot sponsor a family member until then. However apart from that, they can apply for everything else and go about their life just like anyone else. They are still permanent residents. Tons of people here have done this successfully. It's very common-place.

Anyway, ultimately your choice what you do. If you find all of this too uncomfortable or risky or uncertain, then it may make sense to stay where you are now and not make the move to Canada. Good luck whatever you decide to do.

 

[mira_johnson]

The obligation itself is not flexible. To comply requires 730 days IN Canada within the relevant five years. (Recognizing there are some "credits" that count days outside Canada as if in Canada, such as days accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse abroad.)

But to be clear, it is so lenient, actually rather generous, what it does is give the individual PR a great deal of flexibility . . . a PR can spend significantly more than half of his or her time abroad and still meet the RO.

And even though the Residency Obligation itself is fixed, the manner in which it is enforced is FLEXIBLE. This does NOT amount to officials "looking away."

As I noted, and others have as well, the nature and scope of RELIEF allowed for a failure to comply with the RO is a big subject and is discussed in depth in many topics here.

My repeated caution about the RISK of losing PR status for a PR if and when the PR is not in compliance is NOT intended to scare or to assert, let alone emphasize, that the RO is strictly enforced. In many respects there are, indeed, many situations in which officials are lenient or FLEXIBLE in how they enforce the RO, and this is on top of how much leeway, how much flexibility is already in the RO (again, allowing PRs the individual flexibility to spend up to three years in five abroad).

But for the PR who fails to meet the obligation, there is NO guarantee they will benefit from how much flexibility there is in the RO's enforcement. Leading to . . .


There is no way to get any pre-approval for a future breach of the RO. Remember, for example, one of the biggest factors, and in many cases the biggest factor, is how big the breach is . . . how many days IN Canada compared to days ABSENT from Canada . . . and this factor cannot be determined ahead of time.

Again, while the RO itself is fixed, there is actually quite a bit of flexibility in the law. In my previous post I focused on the flexibility inherent in how "H&C" reasons constitute a big relief valve. That was because a major element in the discussion has to do with how Covid-19 factors into things. And I am sure for many PRs that Covid-19 is quite likely to be a significant factor which tips the scales in favour of them keeping PR status despite falling short of the RO.

I referred to the waive-through-the-border scenario without focusing much on it or the factors which likely influence whether this happens or not. Canadian immigration officials are not generally engaged in gotcha-games. So there is indeed a good deal of flexibility in the way CBSA immigration officers approach RO enforcement regarding returning PRs. It is quite likely that a PR two days short, for example, or even two weeks, is NOT going to be subject to a formal RO compliance examination at the PoE, and thus very likely will be waived through.

But, in contrast, when a PR arrives at a PoE and it has clearly been more than three years since the last time he or she was even in Canada, so that it is obvious on the face of things the PR has NOT complied with the RO, border officials have a more compelling duty to screen the PR for inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO.

Lots of various scenarios in-between those two. And now Covid-19 has added another factor.

Again, this is just scratching the surface of all the variables. See discussions in other topics. Note, for example, even if the PoE screening officer finds the PR to be in breach of the RO, and issues the inadmissibility Report, the PR then gets a chance to persuade another officer that he or she should be allowed to keep PR status. Technically this is the H&C side but it usually, mostly, amounts to the PR presenting the reasons why he or she was abroad so long and should be allowed to keep PR status anyway. And even if that second officer issues the Removal or Departure Order, the PR is still entitled to enter Canada and can appeal, and remains a PR while the appeal is pending.

Lots and lots of avenues for flexibility in the way the RO is applied and enforced.

But the basic requirement itself, 730 days in Canada, is fixed.



For sure, we are operating with very limited data. The best we can do is map the few anecdotal reports against the past and in context of what we can learn from IAD decisions (and to some extent, some Federal Court decisions).

In most times it is fairly apparent that border officials are far less strict in their approach to RO enforcement than visa offices handling PR TD applications. My GUESS is that the divide will be bigger for awhile given the Covid-19 situation. There are reasons for the difference, not the least of which is the presumption that if a PR abroad does not possess a valid PR card, he or she does not have valid PR status. This, in turn, requires the visa office to formally consider RO compliance, meaning conduct a RO compliance examination. Border officials are primarily focused on who gets permission to enter Canada.

Worth noting that BEFORE Covid-19, the number of IAD cases involving PoE Reports had been increasing relative to the number of PR TD cases. Five to ten years ago, in contrast, the number of IAD cases involving denied PR TD applications way, way outnumbered the PoE Report cases. It very much appeared that there was a dramatic increase in border enforcement of the RO . . . apparently beginning around the last couple years that Harper was PM (as you noted, there is a big lag between Reports and when we see those cases in IAD decisions, and back then it was often well over a year approaching two).

Thanks again for caring to provide these helpful details. Last time I was at Toronto pearssons Airport I don't actually recall passing a border officer in an official way because there were booth systems where one scanned your own PR cards which I did. I dont know what this system registers ie would it be able to snap up on RO, doubtful but possible? After scanning my PR card I passed a border officer who very unofficially and quickly asked what I was doing here until I was waived through. I imagine it being different now with health screenings etc but is this anyone else's experience also? Have they turned the controls into robotic systems instead? (Which may be favorable for a PR in RO breach, unless again the system could snap up on that).

As for a pre-approval/note, I understand your point but couldn't they add a condition such as "if the PR stays in Canada continously for the next two years", etc. You are not the border officer, so I understand if you can't answer this of course.
Interesting facts also regarding comparisons between IRCC and border officers. IRCC always seem the more intimidating to me but I don't know whether they are border officers as well.

 

[mira_johnson]

You are asking questions that to a significant degree depend on specifics of your case. I'm still not clear what your 'buffer of two days' means. Are you currently in or out of compliance with the RO? By how much? When are you returning? Do you mean that you're in compliance (in Canada) you'll only have a buffer of two days for travel?

As noted elsewhere, some of your questions are hard to put in context or understand. Put roughly and simply, the residency is specific and fixed - minimum 730 days. There is no way to get exceptions in advance. BUT: officers are required by law to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds (with no or few public guidelines as to how this should be applied), and the process of removing PR status is lengthy and costly for government. So in practice especially at points of entry, officers have authority to make decisions about which cases are worth pursuing/reporting. Others here have posted extensively how flexible this tends to be in practice (very shot form: the less out of compliance the better; true extenuating circumstances taken into account; ties in Canada - habitual residence and immediate family in Canada - help; etc).

Once admitted to Canada without being reported ('waved through'), the PR who is out of compliance is in Canada legally and is a PR. They can work and do everything that other residents do. They are not in hiding from the authorities, they are not 'underground.' If they are in and remain in Canada, it actually doesn't matter for almost all purposes that the PR card has expired, the individual is still a PR.

When we say 'avoid interactions with IRCC', let's be clear: far and away the most important of these is leaving Canada and then returning. They are still out of compliance and when examined on re-entry may or may not benefit from the lenience the previous officer gave. That doesn't mean never travel - but it is not recommended; the same considerations above will apply on re-entry. There is a risk will be reported. (Note with expired PR card there are more issues that come up esp. boarding a flight without valid PR card may not be possible).

The other main issue for the resident-in-Canada-with-expired-PR-card in terms of 'being examined' (while in Canada) is attempting to sponsor a family member (spouse, child or parents). This does NOT mean the PR will be examined and removed from the country if e.g. someone applying for a TRV puts down 'visiting my third cousin.' The way to completely avoid any issues is ... to get back in compliance by residing in Canada.

I'm going to stop there as this now gets hypothetical and I'm not sure this applies to your case. Short form: if you are not yet out of compliance, return to Canada as soon as feasible (while still in compliance). If you are out of compliance now or expect to be when you return, give some details. If you are currently out of compliance by only a small bit, and really wish to return and reside in Canada, chances are decent you'll be admitted with no issues.

You will not get guarantees in advance of complete flexibility to travel without risk until you are back in compliance. Every re-entry while not in compliance bears some risk. Although the RO is by construction relatively flexible and lenient (two of five years presence is not that demanding), it is designed for residency in Canada, not 'maintain status indefinitely while habitually abroad.'

Ok so to be more specific I was initially when creating this post still in compliance to RO by two days. Unfortunately I hesitated and now find myself out of RO compliance with about one week.
I was heading to canada together with a dependent child who would be arriving on an eTa allowing 6 months in the country only. Thus my plan was to ask border officers for an extension so called visitor allowance(?) in order for my child to be able to stay longer than this. That's the first risk I'm seeing, as now I'm having to inquire with border officials.
Approx one year later my spouse (also a PR out of RO compliance) would be arriving in canada to visit only. Here's the second risk. Could border officials somehow become interested in my profile if they were to find hes out of compliance?

By the way, I will not have an expiring PR card yet, at least not for another couple of yrs. Its solely a RO breach.

So I'm interpreting there is also no requirement set on the PR to "report" when they are inadmissible or failing to comply to the 2/5 RO rule, such as for instance if there are changes in ones circumstances ie surname changes, or if a PR were to have committed a crime?
Happy to know one does not need to be hiding from authorities though!

As for human and compassionate grounds, I thought it was more a law made for appeal cases and not generated for border officers?
Either way I think in the case of an appeal that I'd have a poor outcome, based on what Ive been reading. I believe I have a decent covid-reason for not returning in time but when it comes to ties in Canada I would be a fish on dry land.. most if not all of my ties are currently in my country of origin and I might not be able to promise my move is a permanent one, either. At least not for now.

Thanks for your response!

 

[mira_johnson]

You asked for advice from experience. Here is my experience, if your PR card is valid, the border officer will not check for RO unless something happens that raises his suspections. For example, if you tell them you were working/studying abroad or you were away from Canada for long time (years). I traveled a lot and I only got asked about RO once when I told them I was working outside Canada for over a year. The officer did not examine me much when I showed him that I am moving back for a new job. When i showed him my job offer he did not ask me any further questions and waived me through.
Similar situation happened with couple of my friends, luckily they always had proof of their ties to Canada with them, pay stubs, rent contract, school registration etc. In most cases the officer just want to make sure you are planning to live in Canada, if he is satisfied, he will not go further and count your days in the last five years to make sure you are in compliance with RO.
That is not a legal advice it is just what I noticed as a frequent traveller.

On the other hand if your PR card is expired, the chances of them asking questions about why you did not renew it and your RO compliance increases. But again if you have proof that you have established life Canada, it will increase your chance of being waived you through.

Regarding staying in Canada with expired PR card. Expired card do not cancel you residency. You can stay in Canada till you complete the 730 days and renew it. It is normal and nothing illegal about it. If your card expired and you are not in compliance with the 730 days RO, then it is preferable not to travel or you risk being issued removal order.

Amrelroby, based on your experience I guess I might be in "more" trouble. Although my job abroad is "paused", I don't have studies or a job in canada yet. Not even a proper apartment, as I would be starting out in airbnbs. I have an excuse to be caring for my child, but I would still be on parental leave from my country of origin (probably a big red flag for them?) at least for a couple of months. Eventually though I'd, I'd be looking for a job in canada.

 

[amrelroby]

Amrelroby, based on your experience I guess I might be in "more" trouble. Although my job abroad is "paused", I don't have studies or a job in canada yet. Not even a proper apartment, as I would be starting out in airbnbs. I have an excuse to be caring for my child, but I would still be on parental leave from my country of origin (probably a big red flag for them?) at least for a couple of months. Eventually though I'd, I'd be looking for a job in canada.

The big question is your PR card currently valid or not?
If it is valid, I would recommend traveling to Canada as soon as possible.
If the PR is valid, the chance of you being asked any questions at the border gets reduced significantly.
If you are entering Canada with your kids/family, it means that you are coming back to settle and reduces the chance of being questioned.
In any case, with the current COVID crisis I do not think they will giving people hard time.
They will be more interested in your quarantine plan.

Here is more content with what happened to me when I was questioned.
Some confusion happened with regards to my luggage and I was told it will be forwarded to my final destination in Canada.
But I discovered in the local terminal that this not the case and I need to clear them from customs.
So I had to reenter the international terminal again and grab my luggage.
That means I have to be directed to a secondary check because I did not claim my luggage in the international arrivals (it is a big red flag).
Now, they start asking questions about what I was doing abroad and the purpose of my travel, etc to make sure that leaving my luggage was an honest mistake. When they learned I was working abroad they asked how long I was working and how long I stayed abroad.
They did not count days and they were satisfied as soon as I told I am starting a new job in Canada and showed them my job offer.