I met with an accident on 8-Mar. My doctor advised for bed rest for 2 months.
In Nov-2021, I had booked my tickets to relocate to Canada on 3-Apr. But I have not recovered yet and cannot travel so have got my tickets rescheduled to 28-Apr.
My PR obligation day count of 730 days (out of 5 years) starts on 11-May-2022 (soft landed on 11-May-2019). Unfortunately, due to accident, I have lost 25 days from that extra day count beyond 730 days. I mean if I had travelled on 3-Apr, I could have taken a 1 month vacation out of Canada in 2023 while maintaining the PR obligation day count.
But I am now restricted to only 13 day vacation.
Can I explain this to immigration office through some email to request them to count my PR obligation day count from 3-Apr instead of from my landing on 28-Apr?
I have hospital discharge letter from doctor advising bed rest for 2 months due to ankle fracture.
Will it be enough? How do I inform Immigration? Should I email now and inform them of the situation? If yes, which email address?
Mostly take note of what is stated by veteran, reliable forum participants @scylla, @armoured, and @Tubsmagee.
For context and clarification, some further observations:
The PR Residency Obligation is imposed by law. It is a simple formula: count the days within the relevant five years. There are various ways of describing how to practically count during the first five years, but it comes down to this:
-- as long as the PR is NOT outside Canada for more than 1095 days during the first five years, the PR is complying with the PR Residency Obligation
-- if the PR is outside Canada for more than 1095 days during the first five years, the PR is NOT complying with the PR Residency Obligation, and thus is in breach
Neither IRCC nor CBSA have authority to change how that works.
Both, however, have fairly broad discretion in how they enforce the RO. And, before making a decision to terminate a PR's status (such as issue a Removal Order following a Report of inadmissibility for a breach of the RO), both MUST CONSIDER whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C factors.
So . . .
. . . if you return to Canada before you have been abroad less than 1095 days, following a soft landing, you are in compliance with the RO.
. . . if during the first five years since landing you return to Canada (soon, or after a later trip abroad) and have been outside Canada more than 1095 days, you are in breach of the RO.
In the latter situation it appears that CBSA border officials are continuing to exercise quite a lot of leeway and leniency in regards to RO enforcement, as in NOT conducting in-depth screening and waiving many PRs in breach into Canada without subjecting them to a rigorous RO examination. For a PR in breach there is always a RISK otherwise. We cannot quantify that risk beyond ballpark generalities related to some factors. For example, the longer the absences, the bigger the risk.
Appears you are still abroad and, well,
cutting-it-close. Caution expressed by
@Tubsmagee and noted by
@armoured is well worth taking into consideration . . . both in terms of following through and getting here, and in terms of staying or at least not leaving again for a period of time that will result in a breach of the RO.
No matter how close you are
cutting-it-close, as long as you do not breach the RO it does not matter why you failed to come to Canada sooner to establish a permanent residence here. No explanation necessary.
Why is none of the Canadian government's concern, in practice not just theory. They will not ask (for a PR
cutting-it-close border officials may caution them about the RO, but they will not require an explanation for the absence).
If you fail to return to Canada in time, that is are absent for more than 1095 days before coming, or you return but leave again resulting in a total absence of more than 1095 days (before the fifth year anniversary of landing), again, you will be in breach of the RO.
And that is a different story.
Determining whether the PR is in breach of the RO or not, that is not complicated. Count the days.
In compliance, end of story. No problem. In breach, again that is a different story . . . leading to the dynamics of RO enforcement.
In particular, where it gets complicated is on the enforcement side of the equation once there is a breach of the RO. What is not easily calculated is how strict or how lenient border officials will be, including:
-- first, in screening a returning PR in regards to RO compliance, and
-- secondly, in weighing H&C factors if during the PoE examination the PR is determined to be in breach of the RO
Many PRs in breach of the RO are being waived through the PoE without being closely examined in regards to RO compliance, let alone required to present H&C reasons sufficient to allow them to keep PR status despite the breach. The nature and scope of this is the subject of many discussions here. Some claim it is a roll of the dice but in reality the highly variable outcomes are mostly the result of widely variable facts. Forecasting an outcome depending on variable facts and complex calculations subject to contingencies should not be confused with predicting an outcome determined by chance. How it goes in RO enforcement is more the former, mostly the former (but, sure, acknowledging chance plays some role . . . way, way less than many describe).
The first part is about the extent a PR is subject to a strict or lenient screening upon arrival. It is not worth diving into all the nuances but generally if you arrive here, even if a little in breach of the RO, and stay for a year, and then take a holiday abroad in a year, and return from that holiday in breach of the RO (but still no more than a little in breach), as FAR as WE CAN DISCERN, it is far more likely you will NOT encounter a strict RO examination when you return here, meaning the odds are PROBABLY rather good you would be waived back into Canada without being "
Reported" despite being in breach of the RO.
As others have aptly noted, that is a determination that cannot be made in advance. It depends, after all, on the specific facts as they exist on that particular day.
H&C factors can and almost certainly will play some role in how that first part goes. This includes the biggest H&C factor, the extent to which the PR is (or appears to be) short of the RO. And this is where there tends to be the most leeway and leniency in PR RO enforcement.
In terms of the practical impact, getting waived in is roughly the same as being in RO compliance. And we see many anecdotal reports that scores of PRs in breach benefit from this leniency in enforcement, especially during the first five years after landing, especially those who are only a little short of meeting the RO, and especially during the last couple years (it is almost certain) due to additional leniency related to accommodations for the impact of the Covid-related global pandemic.
Leading to if and when the PR in breach is NOT waived through, more or less casually, but is subject to a more formal, in-depth RO compliance examination at the PoE upon their arrival here. What I referred to as the second part. And that is where it really can be a different story, a very different story.
And this is where I will quibble some, just a bit, with
@armoured's analysis about taking into account medical evidence explaining . . . if I understand things . . . a reason for being abroad . . . two or four months? Sure, this information might help influence leniency and a casual waive through. But if the PoE procedure goes to the second phase of examination, that's not going to weigh much at all. It is correct that if and when border officials prepare a 44(1) Report against a PR in breach of the RO, the reviewing officer (technically the Minister's Delegate, but practically just another CBSA immigration officer) must consider any and all explanations for the PR's absence in assessing whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C factors (same by the IAD if a Removal Order is issued and appealed). But if the OP is subject of a 44(1) Report for a breach of the RO, upon returning from a vacation in 2023, how does not being able to travel for four months in early 2022 explain being absent from Canada for more than three years? Let's be frank, it doesn't. That is not likely to tip the scales in favour of not being issued a Departure Order at the PoE, and if that happens it is not going to carry much weight before the IAD in an appeal.
The H&C case is not about getting additional days' credit to add to days in Canada, to reach the 730 threshold; that's not how it works. Without going there now, I apprehend there is a tendency to overlook how steep a climb making the H&C case is once it has been determined the PR is in breach of the RO. At the PoE. More so if it is necessary to appeal a Removal Order.
