I do not mean to quibble, but I think it can be important to clarify that entry into Canada does not require the PR to meet the residency obligation. Entry cannot be denied. A PR in breach of the RO can be reported, and issued a Departure Order, but will then be allowed entry.
Other, Further Observations: Given previous tangents in the discussion here, it may be helpful to add . . .
In certain cases, for what are obvious and reasonable reasons, a PR can be detained at the PoE. BUT NOT for a failure to meet the RO.
Authority to detain a PR at the PoE is prescribed in Section 55 IRPA, see here
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-11.html#docCont
To put those provisions into context, their application is mostly, overwhelmingly so, about detaining Foreign Nationals, NOT PRs, even though PRs are within the scope of possible application. For PRs (with exceptions, even the best intentioned law enforcement is not always perfect in executing their mandate), the policy LIMITS DETENTION for PRs to those where a threat to public safety is clearly identified. Section 55 IRPA includes PRs within the scope of those who can be detained if it is determined they are unlikely to appear for proceedings, but the policy is to detain PRs ONLY if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident "
is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or organized crime."
There is no hint in anecdotal reporting or the actual cases recounted in IAD and Federal Court decisions that PRs are being detained otherwise (there may be exceptions, usually are, but not enough to pop up in any of the places one might anticipate such reports to appear).
The policies in regard to detaining PRs at a PoE are stated in multiple Operational Manuals. Here are some samples:
In regards to PRs, ENF 4 Port of Entry Examinations, in Section 11.5 (page 40) it states:
Arrest and detention under A55(1) should only be considered when the BSO at Immigration Secondary can clearly identify that a threat to the public exists or in cases where there is an active warrant.
Section 6.7 in ENF 20 Detention (on page 22) states:
Officers must remain cognizant of the fact that subsection A19(2) gives permanent residents of Canada the right to enter Canada at a port of entry once it is established that a person is a permanent resident, regardless of non-compliance with the residency obligation in section A28 or the presence of another inadmissibility. While permanent residents seeking entry into Canada may be detained, officers at ports of entry should not detain a permanent resident solely in order for the examination to be completed.
For emphasis, the latter states more than policy, as it is an instruction to border officials of the "FACT" that PRs have a right to enter Canada . . . regardless of non-compliance with the residency obligation or the presence of another inadmissibility.
While I have qualms about perpetuating an unnecessary and largely irrelevant tangent in the previous discussions, there is a need to recognize the difference between discourse aimed at explaining, illuminating, educating, or otherwise informing, VERSUS that which deliberately obfuscates and confuses, distracts and misleads. Persistence in the latter is telling.
The subject of this thread is about a Permanent Resident living in Canada anticipating a brief trip abroad, returning to Canada with a PR card which will expire soon. Simple question. Simple answer. Done. Beyond that, this thread is in a forum about Permanent Residency Obligations. The nature of the Port-of-Entry examination, when the PR returns to Canada and applies for entry into Canada at the PoE, is relevant. Returning PRs are subject to examination at a PoE, as are Canadian citizens who arrive at a PoE and apply for entry into Canada (yes, even Canadian citizens must APPLY for permission to enter Canada in order to enter the country legally).
There is ZERO indication that in the context of this discussion the numerical statistics about travelers detained by border officials, or the conditions of such detention, are relevant.
That is so obvious it should not need stating let alone explaining. The also obvious question is why was that not at-all-relevant tangent introduced into the discussion here. It appears the reasoning for citing such information was to support the propositions that "
Authorities at POE in Canada are not friendly to immigrants," and the warning (which would be alarming if there was any actual truth to it, which there is NOT) to the OP "
You may not be able to renter Canada if you come back after expiration date on your PR card."
It needs to be made very clear that the latter is NOT true.
There is NO risk a Canadian Permanent Resident will be denied entry into Canada because their PR card has expired.
As others and I have already expressed, there is also little reason to suspect the former is true generally, in regards to all travelers who might be described as "
immigrants," and there is especially no reason to suspect the former is true in regards to PRs returning to Canada. There are occasional reports of somewhat aggressive questioning, and a somewhat larger number of claims border officials were not fair, but the overwhelming tide of reporting suggests that Canadian border officials are typically, at worst, merely formal, among scores and scores of reports about how overtly friendly many sometimes are.
But to illustrate the utter irrelevancy of the 100-page report, “‘
I Didn’t Feel Like a Human in There’: Immigration Detention in Canada and Its Impact on Mental Health,” referenced as the source for an article cited above, there are ONLY TWO references to Permanent Residents in the ENTIRE 100 page report. One, page 10, refers to the authority to detain (which again is Section 55 IRPA cited and linked above), and the other, page 15, is a broad general statement asserting that the thousands detained by Canadian border authorities includes "
people who have lived in Canada since childhood as permanent residents." No mention of the grounds for their detention (no hint, none whatsoever, they were detained for RO inadmissibility). No indication of their numbers (most likely if not undoubtedly a small percentage of all those detained). No advanced degrees in political science and government necessary to reasonably infer these individuals have been detained
on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or organized crime, that is,
NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread whatsoever.
That tangent deliberately obfuscates and confuses, distracts and misleads. It is not an isolated instance. Does not belong here.
In regards to friendly Canadian border officials, I'll share a personal anecdote: I made a road trip to the U.S. once without my spouse, and on my return, arriving at the PIL at the PoE into Canada, I handed the officer the Canadian passport I was carrying. He actually smiled when he asked me who XXX was, not my name, but my spouse's name, and our last names are not the same. "My wife" I answered, alarmed, realizing that she and I must have swapped passports the last time we crossed the border together. It is a rather serious crime to present someone else's passport to authorities. Technically it should have been seized. "We must have accidently taken each other's the last time." I added. The officer appeared to suppress a bit of a chuckle, and asked if I had other identification. I presented a passport from the country where I was born (I do not refer to it as my "home country"). "Have a nice day" he said, or something very similar to that, as he handed both passports back to me, and waived me on my way. (My wife and I have gone through that PoE together many, many times, traveling in the same car for many years.)
