PRTD - is "past 365 days status" a (potential) criteria?

[dreamon2019]

Reading from an agent, said, while applying PRTD, following criteria will be checked:
1. Whether the applicant meets RO
2. Whether the applicant stayed in Canada in the most recent 365 days from the day PRTD application submitted.

I haven't heard the 2nd criteria yet, so would like to ask, is it a (potential) criteria?

just for a very cutting to close example:
Landing 2000-1-1,
2000-1-1 to 2000-8-1 in Canada,
2000-8-2 to 2003-1-2 out of Canada,
2003-1-3 to 2005-1-6 in Canada (2004-7-1 renewed PR Card, but PR Card not arrived before 2005-1-6 -- the day s/he left Canada),
2005-1-7 to 2007-10-1 out of Canada,

On 2007-10-5, the applicant applied PRTD, will his/her PRTD approved?
- s/he renewed one time PR Card but didn't get on hand, (no matter what reason, maybe long processing time, maybe 2nd review required or need additional document)
- s/he never entered Canada and stayed oversea over 2 years before applying PRTD
- s/he accomplished RO when applying PRTD

if "1. Whether the applicant meets RO" is the only criteria, IMO s/he will get PRTD.


Additional:
Let's say, when 2004-7-1, s/he applied to renew PR card, but left before get it, then after s/he left Canada, s/he was required to collect PR card physically or need a interview but s/he cannot join (because after 2005-1-6 s/he is oversea), under this situation, can s/he get PRTD under the situation accomplished RO between 2003-1-3 to 2005-1-6?

Any ideas?

 

[dpenabill]

Reading from an agent, said, while applying PRTD, following criteria will be checked:
1. Whether the applicant meets RO
2. Whether the applicant stayed in Canada in the most recent 365 days from the day PRTD application submitted.

I haven't heard the 2nd criteria yet, so would like to ask, is it a (potential) criteria?

I will not attempt to unravel the hypothetical.

Meeting the PR Residency Obligation is required to be issued a PR Travel Document.

If a PR's application for a PR TD is denied, and the PR appeals, the PR is generally entitled to a special PR TD to travel to Canada pending the appeal IF the PR has been IN Canada within the year (365 days) preceding the PR TD application.

That is, being in Canada within the preceding year will allow the PR to obtain a special PR TD even though the primary PR TD application is denied.

To what extent more recent presence in Canada might have evidentiary weight, either in weighing the PR's evidence of presence, or in weighing H&C factors for a PR in breach of the RO, is not clear and probably varies considerably depending on other factors, not the least of which is the duration of the most recent stay in Canada.

 

[dreamon2019]

I will not attempt to unravel the hypothetical.

Meeting the PR Residency Obligation is required to be issued a PR Travel Document.

If a PR's application for a PR TD is denied, and the PR appeals, the PR is generally entitled to a special PR TD to travel to Canada pending the appeal IF the PR has been IN Canada within the year (365 days) preceding the PR TD application.

That is, being in Canada within the preceding year will allow the PR to obtain a special PR TD even though the primary PR TD application is denied.

To what extent more recent presence in Canada might have evidentiary weight, either in weighing the PR's evidence of presence, or in weighing H&C factors for a PR in breach of the RO, is not clear and probably varies considerably depending on other factors, not the least of which is the duration of the most recent stay in Canada.

well explained on the preceding year stay in Canada and special PRTD.
On the other hand, if s/he has never been in Canada in the past 365 days before applying PRTD, but stayed 731 days in the past 5 years, which like in the example, year 1-2 in Canada, year 3-4.5 oversea, could s/he get the PRTD if apply PRTD on year 4.5?

as you said, "Meeting the PR Residency Obligation is required to be issued a PR Travel Document. " but whether once the RO meets, PRTD will be issued? that's the question,

 

[dpenabill]

well explained on the preceding year stay in Canada and special PRTD.
On the other hand, if s/he has never been in Canada in the past 365 days before applying PRTD, but stayed 731 days in the past 5 years, which like in the example, year 1-2 in Canada, year 3-4.5 oversea, could s/he get the PRTD if apply PRTD on year 4.5?

as you said, "Meeting the PR Residency Obligation is required to be issued a PR Travel Document. " but whether once the RO meets, PRTD will be issued? that's the question,

There is of course the matter of proof. A PR abroad who does not possess a valid PR card is presumed to NOT have valid PR status. That presumption is rebuttable and for most admissible PRs is easily rebutted; nonetheless this puts the burden of proof squarely on the PR.

If there is no question that the PR was physically present IN Canada for at least 731 days within the five years preceding the application for a PR TD, the PR TD will be granted (unless there is some other problem with status). IRCC does not have a crystal ball that confirms facts, however, and must rely on what the evidence shows. That is, as I said, there is of course the matter of proof.

IN particular, 731 days is, well, cutting-it-close to the extreme . . . if the officer reviewing the application and evidence submitted in support of the application, or provided in response to a request for further evidence/documents, has cause to question some days, that could support a decision to deny the PR TD application. Remember, once a PR's accounting of days in Canada is questioned, the PR may need to provide proof of actual presence for days in-between known and reported dates of entry, and next reported date of exit.

Various factors and circumstances can influence how persuasive the evidence is. The PR's overall history can influence the outcome.

For the PR who was in fact, indeed, physically present in Canada at least 731 days, and that PR has not otherwise given IRCC cause for a credibility concern, the odds should be good if not very good, there is no problem. But of course cutting-it-close has risks, and especially so for a PR who does not appear to have established in-fact residence in Canada. So no one can reliably guarantee what the outcome will be.

 

[dreamon2019]

There is of course the matter of proof. A PR abroad who does not possess a valid PR card is presumed to NOT have valid PR status. That presumption is rebuttable and for most admissible PRs is easily rebutted; nonetheless this puts the burden of proof squarely on the PR.

If there is no question that the PR was physically present IN Canada for at least 731 days within the five years preceding the application for a PR TD, the PR TD will be granted (unless there is some other problem with status). IRCC does not have a crystal ball that confirms facts, however, and must rely on what the evidence shows. That is, as I said, there is of course the matter of proof.

IN particular, 731 days is, well, cutting-it-close to the extreme . . . if the officer reviewing the application and evidence submitted in support of the application, or provided in response to a request for further evidence/documents, has cause to question some days, that could support a decision to deny the PR TD application. Remember, once a PR's accounting of days in Canada is questioned, the PR may need to provide proof of actual presence for days in-between known and reported dates of entry, and next reported date of exit.

Various factors and circumstances can influence how persuasive the evidence is. The PR's overall history can influence the outcome.

For the PR who was in fact, indeed, physically present in Canada at least 731 days, and that PR has not otherwise given IRCC cause for a credibility concern, the odds should be good if not very good, there is no problem. But of course cutting-it-close has risks, and especially so for a PR who does not appear to have established in-fact residence in Canada. So no one can reliably guarantee what the outcome will be.

very detailed and well explanation
So in the real world, if the years stay in Canada and out of Canada is:

1 - 3 - 2 - 2.5 -then apply PRTD
(in-out-in-out-apply PRTD),

although the applicant stayed 2 years in Canada, but if s/he has nothing proof of has "connection as resident in Canada" (e.g. house, bank account, car, etc.), the PR TD may not be granted.

 

[armoured]

very detailed and well explanation
So in the real world, if the years stay in Canada and out of Canada is:

1 - 3 - 2 - 2.5 -then apply PRTD
(in-out-in-out-apply PRTD),

although the applicant stayed 2 years in Canada, but if s/he has nothing proof of has "connection as resident in Canada" (e.g. house, bank account, car, etc.), the PR TD may not be granted.

You are rephrasing comments above in an overly determined sense. Ultimately no-one can tell you how things will go, but mainly because we do not know your info or case in detail.

-If you have the 731 days in last five years, it should be granted.
-The fact it's so close may lead to somewhat greater scrutiny - which may delay things a bit, or requests for further information. But if you have decent documentation of stay in Canada, reasonably likely to go smoothly.
-The biggest risk is that you have some error in your dates or counting.

I'd note: EVEN IF you are short of dates, there is some possibility of getting H&C consideration - and since the shortfall so small, the bar for that may be low. (Case for H&C might be better if you'd actually been in Canada more than you have.)

Suggestion: if this is important to you and you have ability to travel through USA - fly to USA, cross on land border, and get admitted. (100% you will be admitted). Stay in Canada and organise your papers to apply for PR card, submit in a month or two when you have a more decent buffer over the 730 days minimum. You will have less likelihood of issues and the fait accompli of already being in Canada means your ability to challenge any decisions against is much higher.

 

[armoured]

just for a very cutting to close example:
Landing 2000-1-1,
2000-1-1 to 2000-8-1 in Canada,
2000-8-2 to 2003-1-2 out of Canada,
2003-1-3 to 2005-1-6 in Canada (2004-7-1 renewed PR Card, but PR Card not arrived before 2005-1-6 -- the day s/he left Canada),
2005-1-7 to 2007-10-1 out of Canada,

On 2007-10-5, the applicant applied PRTD

Again, one reason no-one is responding in specifics (apart from general point that no-one should do the math for you because your responsibility) is that this hypothetical does not make much sense and the dates unreal. Is the date of application referred to an actual, i.e. already done? (What's the point of this hypothetical anyway?)

 

[dpenabill]

Again, one reason no-one is responding in specifics (apart from general point that no-one should do the math for you because your responsibility) is that this hypothetical does not make much sense and the dates unreal. Is the date of application referred to an actual, i.e. already done? (What's the point of this hypothetical anyway?)

Yeah. Ditto.

I sort of skidded into this discussion trying to explain the relevance of presence in Canada during the year preceding a PR TD application, that is a response to what I thought was the primary subject of this thread.

@dreamon2019 has recently posed three other queries which elicited NO responses, and one other that elicited just one response. I will not speculate why other forum members have not responded but will acknowledge the queries . . . well, they seem off a bit. Some, including this one, lack realistic context. I suspect, however, this may be because OP has been posing queries either regarding different individual PRs or some are about a present PR card application (see queries about photo, address history, and blank-or-NA responses, noting that it is difficult to understand the question about name). while this one may be related to anticipating a future situation.

I responded to this query to clarify, apart from the hypothetical scenario posed, that for purposes of an application for a PR Travel Document, consideration given to whether the PR had been IN Canada within the last 365 days is most likely about whether a special PR TD would be issued if the primary PR TD application is denied, but also noted presence in Canada within the previous year may be an evidentiary factor, which could include for purposes of evaluating whether there are sufficient H&C reasons to grant the PR TD despite a breach (if there is a breach).

The follow-up query seemed to be seeking a for-sure answer, which of course no one can give . . . unless the case is so clear cut, the facts sufficiently certain, a virtually-for-sure answer is appropriate.

I offered what I hoped would illustrate the difference between facts (like presence in Canada sufficient to meet the Residency Obligation) determined to be the facts by an officer in the IRCC visa office abroad, versus facts-to-be-determined, especially so in a cutting-it-close case.

It may be noted, in particular, that the OP's other posts indicate, or at least suggest that the OP has been IN Canada for some time now and is in the process of making a PR card application. So for purposes of a PR TD application, there is no indication that how consideration of no presence during the preceding 365 days is relevant . . . unless the query is about another PR or about an anticipated future situation.

very detailed and well explanation
So in the real world, if the years stay in Canada and out of Canada is:

1 - 3 - 2 - 2.5 -then apply PRTD
(in-out-in-out-apply PRTD),

although the applicant stayed 2 years in Canada, but if s/he has nothing proof of has "connection as resident in Canada" (e.g. house, bank account, car, etc.), the PR TD may not be granted.

In the real world the actual facts in the particular case matter. That includes a wide range of facts. That includes the date of the transaction. IRCC visa offices do NOT decide cases based on hypotheticals. They do not decide PR TD eligibility in advance or apart from an actual, in fact application.

A hypothetical cannot, not in any practical real world sense, adequately establish the facts sufficient to reach for-sure conclusions.

Moreover, even if all the relevant facts are known, as to what will happen, as in what will happen in the real world, forecasting that can never be for-sure.

We can say what constitutes compliance with the RO. That is a simple arithmetic calculation based on the PR's location and the calendar. If the PR is in Canada 730 days within the preceding five years, that meets the RO.

We can say that if a PR submits a PR TD application sufficiently establishing the PR was in Canada 730 days within the preceding five years, that meets the RO, and thus the PR TD application cannot be denied on the grounds of inadmissibility for a breach of the RO.

We can describe some of the key factors that will be considered in assessing H&C reasons, if the PR is in breach of the RO, and roughly indicate how those factors can influence the H&C decision; but we cannot say what the actual outcome will be . . . there are some scenarios in which there is a fairly high probability which we can describe, but that will not be a for-sure answer.

And relative to some general situations, we can describe some factors which might indicate the level of risk or the level of scrutiny, but only roughly, only in very general terms.

Leading to this:

"although the applicant stayed 2 years in Canada, but if s/he has nothing proof of has "connection as resident in Canada" (e.g. house, bank account, car, etc.), the PR TD may not be granted."​

If the IRCC officer handling the PR TD application concludes the PR has been in Canada at least 2 years during the five years preceding the PR TD application, the absence of ties in Canada is NOT grounds for denying the PR TD.

In contrast, if the IRCC officer handling the PR TD application concludes the PR has NOT been in Canada at least 2 years during the five years preceding the PR TD application, that is grounds for denying the PR TD (but will deny it only if there are not otherwise sufficient H&C reasons for granting it despite the breach of RO) . . . and can deny the PR TD no matter how many ties the PR has in Canada. There are scores of PR breach cases involving a PR with a home in Canada, bank accounts in Canada, and a family including spouse and children all well settled and living in Canada, who have been denied a PR TD and who lost PR status after failing to win an appeal, because the IRCC officer, and later the IAD panel, determined they did not meet the RO (and did not have sufficient H&C reasons to allow them to keep PR status despite the breach).

But sure, ties to Canada can carry evidentiary weight. And, in the cutting-it-close case that can make a difference in whether a decision-maker concludes the PR has submitted sufficient information and documentation to show the RO was met or failed to prove the RO was met.

 

[dreamon2019]

You are rephrasing comments above in an overly determined sense. Ultimately no-one can tell you how things will go, but mainly because we do not know your info or case in detail.

-If you have the 731 days in last five years, it should be granted.
-The fact it's so close may lead to somewhat greater scrutiny - which may delay things a bit, or requests for further information. But if you have decent documentation of stay in Canada, reasonably likely to go smoothly.
-The biggest risk is that you have some error in your dates or counting.

I'd note: EVEN IF you are short of dates, there is some possibility of getting H&C consideration - and since the shortfall so small, the bar for that may be low. (Case for H&C might be better if you'd actually been in Canada more than you have.)

Suggestion: if this is important to you and you have ability to travel through USA - fly to USA, cross on land border, and get admitted. (100% you will be admitted). Stay in Canada and organise your papers to apply for PR card, submit in a month or two when you have a more decent buffer over the 730 days minimum. You will have less likelihood of issues and the fait accompli of already being in Canada means your ability to challenge any decisions against is much higher.

Thanks for reply, I thought I can ask for questions to understand the rule on the basis of hypothesis, so that to prepare someone's future.
I'd prefer "know the rule, prepare for future" rather than "that's the result, what can do now", so I made hypothesis.

But now I know if I don't give the real situation, it impacts the answers.

Your further explanation is appreciated, thank you.

 

[dreamon2019]

Yeah. Ditto.

I sort of skidded into this discussion trying to explain the relevance of presence in Canada during the year preceding a PR TD application, that is a response to what I thought was the primary subject of this thread.

@dreamon2019 has recently posed three other queries which elicited NO responses, and one other that elicited just one response. I will not speculate why other forum members have not responded but will acknowledge the queries . . . well, they seem off a bit. Some, including this one, lack realistic context. I suspect, however, this may be because OP has been posing queries either regarding different individual PRs or some are about a present PR card application (see queries about photo, address history, and blank-or-NA responses, noting that it is difficult to understand the question about name). while this one may be related to anticipating a future situation.

I responded to this query to clarify, apart from the hypothetical scenario posed, that for purposes of an application for a PR Travel Document, consideration given to whether the PR had been IN Canada within the last 365 days is most likely about whether a special PR TD would be issued if the primary PR TD application is denied, but also noted presence in Canada within the previous year may be an evidentiary factor, which could include for purposes of evaluating whether there are sufficient H&C reasons to grant the PR TD despite a breach (if there is a breach).

The follow-up query seemed to be seeking a for-sure answer, which of course no one can give . . . unless the case is so clear cut, the facts sufficiently certain, a virtually-for-sure answer is appropriate.

I offered what I hoped would illustrate the difference between facts (like presence in Canada sufficient to meet the Residency Obligation) determined to be the facts by an officer in the IRCC visa office abroad, versus facts-to-be-determined, especially so in a cutting-it-close case.

It may be noted, in particular, that the OP's other posts indicate, or at least suggest that the OP has been IN Canada for some time now and is in the process of making a PR card application. So for purposes of a PR TD application, there is no indication that how consideration of no presence during the preceding 365 days is relevant . . . unless the query is about another PR or about an anticipated future situation.



In the real world the actual facts in the particular case matter. That includes a wide range of facts. That includes the date of the transaction. IRCC visa offices do NOT decide cases based on hypotheticals. They do not decide PR TD eligibility in advance or apart from an actual, in fact application.

A hypothetical cannot, not in any practical real world sense, adequately establish the facts sufficient to reach for-sure conclusions.

Moreover, even if all the relevant facts are known, as to what will happen, as in what will happen in the real world, forecasting that can never be for-sure.

We can say what constitutes compliance with the RO. That is a simple arithmetic calculation based on the PR's location and the calendar. If the PR is in Canada 730 days within the preceding five years, that meets the RO.

We can say that if a PR submits a PR TD application sufficiently establishing the PR was in Canada 730 days within the preceding five years, that meets the RO, and thus the PR TD application cannot be denied on the grounds of inadmissibility for a breach of the RO.

We can describe some of the key factors that will be considered in assessing H&C reasons, if the PR is in breach of the RO, and roughly indicate how those factors can influence the H&C decision; but we cannot say what the actual outcome will be . . . there are some scenarios in which there is a fairly high probability which we can describe, but that will not be a for-sure answer.

And relative to some general situations, we can describe some factors which might indicate the level of risk or the level of scrutiny, but only roughly, only in very general terms.

Leading to this:

"although the applicant stayed 2 years in Canada, but if s/he has nothing proof of has "connection as resident in Canada" (e.g. house, bank account, car, etc.), the PR TD may not be granted."​

If the IRCC officer handling the PR TD application concludes the PR has been in Canada at least 2 years during the five years preceding the PR TD application, the absence of ties in Canada is NOT grounds for denying the PR TD.

In contrast, if the IRCC officer handling the PR TD application concludes the PR has NOT been in Canada at least 2 years during the five years preceding the PR TD application, that is grounds for denying the PR TD (but will deny it only if there are not otherwise sufficient H&C reasons for granting it despite the breach of RO) . . . and can deny the PR TD no matter how many ties the PR has in Canada. There are scores of PR breach cases involving a PR with a home in Canada, bank accounts in Canada, and a family including spouse and children all well settled and living in Canada, who have been denied a PR TD and who lost PR status after failing to win an appeal, because the IRCC officer, and later the IAD panel, determined they did not meet the RO (and did not have sufficient H&C reasons to allow them to keep PR status despite the breach).

But sure, ties to Canada can carry evidentiary weight. And, in the cutting-it-close case that can make a difference in whether a decision-maker concludes the PR has submitted sufficient information and documentation to show the RO was met or failed to prove the RO was met.

Thanks a lot for the whole explanations and replies.
I am now renewing my PR card, and want to prepare for the next years, that's why I asked questions about PR Card Renewal, and this post.

Again, I thought in this forum can discuss the rule on the basis of hypothesis, push to the edge, discuss the result, and to see the outcome in the real world, that's why made I examples - the examples are not happened to me, but want to prepare for "if it happened, what shall I do, what shall be expected, or what I can to to avoid it happen". But didn't realized an unreal date and case will impact the discussion.

However, again, I much your patience, inputs and time, they are helpful.

About the other 3 posts, English is not my mother languages, so when I read the Guide, some times I confused, then search from internet and this forum, different answers to similar question, so I confused more, that's why I ask again.
For example, when saying leave blank or write NA, in the Guide, it's said leave NA or Not Applicable for a section, on the other hand, the number of days cannot be filling by non-numeric characters, so I got bit confused.
Then I understand just write "NA" for Section not applicable, not every cells.

The address history and travel history, I am not the only one confused, what is "Lived Address".
At the beginning, I posted the real date and country name, but since no one replied, I removed the real-world-details.

I, maybe someone else too, always "bad-luck" and meet situations 99% people don't meet, in everyday life, in application, etc., that's why for a unsure question, I just want to make sure again, no one want to get returned documents after 128 days waiting because of his/her misunderstanding.

Thanks for reading and have a safe day.

 

[armoured]

Thanks a lot for the whole explanations and replies.
I am now renewing my PR card, and want to prepare for the next years, that's why I asked questions about PR Card Renewal, and this post.

Again, I thought in this forum can discuss the rule on the basis of hypothesis, push to the edge, discuss the result, and to see the outcome in the real world, that's why made I examples

It's just hypotheticals are not a productive path here. If you're interested, read the dozens and dozens of existing threads with real-world cases (some of which have actual results eventually shared).

Why is it not productive? Well, personal opinion only - but for whatever reason it frequently occurs that someone shows up here with a 'hypothetical case' (oh actually a real one) about some specific scenario BUT they've left out the three other extremely relevant (and sometimes even decisive) factors that are the real issue. Actually more often than not the individual has actually previously written about those other issues but for whatever reason either left it out or decided to see if it would get a different answer.

Or a very common thread type: "I'm five days out of compliance what if I come tomorrow will I be let in" and general advice is 'if you want to keep your PR status, the sooner the better.' Repeat this exact same question and scenario three, six, 11, 18, 24 and 36 months later. (I'm not blaming anyone, just noting this really does happen).

Short form: truth and reality are challenging enough, no need for hypotheticals really.

 

[dpenabill]

Again, I thought in this forum can discuss the rule on the basis of hypothesis, push to the edge, discuss the result, and to see the outcome in the real world, that's why made I examples - the examples are not happened to me, but want to prepare for "if it happened, what shall I do, what shall be expected, or what I can to to avoid it happen".

I essentially agree with @armoured.

That said, some hypotheticals can indeed be instructive and useful.

But many hypotheticals tend to be more misleading than helpful. In particular, most hypotheticals tend to focus too much on particular details, and are often bogged down with unnecessary or barely relevant details, when it is likely there are other facts which will make a difference in the outcome; and, as @armoured noted, many hypotheticals tend to omit important elements.

I realize it can be difficult to formulate good questions that will illuminate what someone is hoping to better understand, and I sympathize . . . many times it seems like you need to know the answer in order to ask a good question.

But it is also important to realize that in terms of what will happen in any particular case, there are many things that can affect how it goes, and there are so many variables, and so many contingencies (and many are very difficult to predict) and conditionals (if this, then that, but if this other thing, then something else unless this or that), for many situations the best anyone here can offer tends to be rather general, a rough range of possibilities with, hopefully, some probabilities, almost never any guarantees, rarely any for-sure-this-will-happen.

 

[armoured]

Thanks for reply, I thought I can ask for questions to understand the rule on the basis of hypothesis, so that to prepare someone's future.
I'd prefer "know the rule, prepare for future" rather than "that's the result, what can do now", so I made hypothesis.

But now I know if I don't give the real situation, it impacts the answers.

I wanted to add - my apologies if my response sounded harsh or rude; was not my intent.

I bolded the part of your response that I should have focussed on as you clearly got my point, to wit, yes, it does impact the answers because it impacts the understanding of the situation.

 

[dreamon2019]

I wanted to add - my apologies if my response sounded harsh or rude; was not my intent.

I bolded the part of your response that I should have focussed on as you clearly got my point, to wit, yes, it does impact the answers because it impacts the understanding of the situation.

No, no need to apologize armoured, I can see how members like you in the forum help everyone, it's very kind of you.
Later if I have further question, will use the real case.