If a PR is in breach of the PR Residency Obligation by one day or ten years, PR status is at risk. The scope of that risk varies greatly depending on many other circumstances.
For a PR with a valid PR card, there is good chance the PR might not even be asked PR RO questions and thus be allowed to enter Canada without being reported for a breach of the PR RO. Here too, the odds of this vary a lot depending on the circumstances. For a PR still within the first five years, a big factor is how long it has been since the PR was last in Canada. The longer it has been, the greater the risk of being asked questions related to PR RO compliance. How those questions are answered can have a big impact on whether the PR is referred to Secondary for a more thorough examination. These days it appears many PRs referred to Secondary related to questions about PR RO compliance are being asked to complete a written questionnaire. It is important to be truthful when doing this.
Most reports indicate that of course the bigger the breach of the PR RO, the more likely it will, first, come to the attention of a CBSA officer, and second, the more concerned the CBSA will be about a potential breach.
Technically a week's breach should be treated the same as a six month or two year breach, but it is fairly obvious that CBSA officers are more likely to approach the small breach case more leniently. But, even more obviously, this can vary and can change depending on the officer's mood, but far more so on the officer's reaction to the traveler's mood and demeanor and whether the officer perceives the traveler is a legitimate PR sincerely trying to make a life in Canada, or is a PR who has been gaming the system.
In any event, to that stage that is about whether there is a Secondary examination and in Secondary whether the examining officer recognizes and focuses on the fact of a breach of the PR RO. While that officer, in that mode, does not ordinarily make a H&C decision, it appears many officers will more or less assume the PR is in compliance when the breach is relatively small and the circumstances support the view the PR deserves to keep PR status (unless the officer has a negative impression of the PR, such as getting the sense the PR is evasive or deceptive or gaming the system). There have been many reports of PRs in such circumstances being admonished or warned that they are at risk of being in breach and inadmissible.
If the examining officer determines there is a breach and issues a report, the validity of that report is indeed strictly based on determining if the PR failed to comply with the PR RO.
The first issue for the Minister's Delegate is then whether that Report is valid. For this, it is strictly a determination if the report is valid in law, and for purposes of this determination it does not matter if the breach was by a week or five years. The breach by a week makes the Report valid in law.
And then, if it is determined the Report is valid in law, then H&C factors MUST be considered. One of the biggest and more influential factors in the H&C analysis is how big the breach of the PR RO is. But it is not an isolated factor. It is considered in context with many other factors. The PR with ties in Canada, for example, such as a job, in conjunction with a small breach, has a lot better odds of being able to keep PR status. And, of course, there are other factors, many which can have a positive impact, many which can have a negative impact.
H&C cases are tricky. They depend a lot on how persuasive the PR makes his or her case. The officer's assessment can be very subjective.
In any event, small breaches are not necessarily given an easy pass. But the odds of the border officers allowing a PR to come into Canada without being reported, or allowed to keep PR status based on H&C reasons even if reported, are much better the smaller the breach.
