Mistake in number of absent days for PR renewal

[Dee2345]

Hi

I became a PR in Jan 2014 but couldn’t move to Canada till July 2017. As I was in RO border agent questioned me but let me go without reporting when I explained my situation. I applied for renewal of my PR application in July 2019. In my application, instead of recording the number of absent days from July 2014 - July 2019 I counted from Jan2014 which makes my application look like I don’t have enough days. I know thats a blunder on my part! I recently realized that when I ordered gsmc notes because there is no movenent in my file from july 2019. They sent my application to Winnipeg for further investigation in August2019. I sent a web query form with a letter correcting my absent days. When I contacted Winnipeg they said my file is still in queue to be assigned to an officer. No one looked at my file from aug 2019. Is there anything else i can do?

 

[canuck78]

Hi

I became a PR in Jan 2014 but couldn’t move to Canada till July 2017. As I was in RO border agent questioned me but let me go without reporting when I explained my situation. I applied for renewal of my PR application in July 2019. In my application, instead of recording the number of absent days from July 2014 - July 2019 I counted from Jan2014 which makes my application look like I don’t have enough days. I know thats a blunder on my part! I recently realized that when I ordered gsmc notes because there is no movenent in my file from july 2019. They sent my application to Winnipeg for further investigation in August2019. I sent a web query form with a letter correcting my absent days. When I contacted Winnipeg they said my file is still in queue to be assigned to an officer. No one looked at my file from aug 2019. Is there anything else i can do?

No because it is in secondary review.

 

[BOYX]

Hi

I became a PR in Jan 2014 but couldn’t move to Canada till July 2017. As I was in RO border agent questioned me but let me go without reporting when I explained my situation. I applied for renewal of my PR application in July 2019. In my application, instead of recording the number of absent days from July 2014 - July 2019 I counted from Jan2014 which makes my application look like I don’t have enough days. I know thats a blunder on my part! I recently realized that when I ordered gsmc notes because there is no movenent in my file from july 2019. They sent my application to Winnipeg for further investigation in August2019. I sent a web query form with a letter correcting my absent days. When I contacted Winnipeg they said my file is still in queue to be assigned to an officer. No one looked at my file from aug 2019. Is there anything else i can do?

You can attempt to cancel your application and send in a new application. This was something I did, although it was a bit of a strange process and I had it done through my lawyers. I’d say you’re in lawyer territory right now so best you consult with them if you require your card in a hurry.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi

I became a PR in Jan 2014 but couldn’t move to Canada till July 2017. As I was in RO border agent questioned me but let me go without reporting when I explained my situation. I applied for renewal of my PR application in July 2019. In my application, instead of recording the number of absent days from July 2014 - July 2019 I counted from Jan2014 which makes my application look like I don’t have enough days. I know thats a blunder on my part! I recently realized that when I ordered gsmc notes because there is no movenent in my file from july 2019. They sent my application to Winnipeg for further investigation in August2019. I sent a web query form with a letter correcting my absent days. When I contacted Winnipeg they said my file is still in queue to be assigned to an officer. No one looked at my file from aug 2019. Is there anything else i can do?

There are some anomalies in your account, some of which I will address below. In the meantime, however, DATES are important. If any of the dates in your post are off, corrections could help illuminate your situation better.

What really matters is --
-- that you were in fact NOT issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, and
-- that as of NOW you have been in Canada for MORE than two of the last five years (again, as of NOW), and
-- it matters, to some extent, that you are currently IN Canada and have been living IN Canada these past three years

The last is not crucial. But if true, that should give you strong insurance protecting your PR status.

The first two are critical. If the first two are true, you should be OK at least relative to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

In any event, if it is true that you were not Reported and that you have been living in Canada from July 2017 to now, you should have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. At least not in regards to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

Things are bogged now, given Covid-19, so you may not get a new PR card any time soon. But your status as a PR should be OK.


Some Further, Longer Observations (with some repetition):

There is no process by which you can "cancel" a PR card application. You can submit a request to "withdraw" the application but that is NOT likely to change the dynamics much if at all. (My guess is that @BOYX was just using the wrong term and meant "withdraw.")

The main factor which will influence how this goes from here is whether you have remained IN Canada since making the application in July 2019. In particular, if you have been living in Canada since July 2017 and have not spent much time outside Canada since then, you should have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. At least not in regards to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

That is, if you have remained (at least most of time) IN Canada, there is NO reason to withdraw (or cancel) the PR card application.

It does NOT matter if you were short of complying with the Residency Obligation some time in the past, including when a PR card application was made. As long as you have not been issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO, and NOT issued a Departure or Removal Order, the days you have been IN Canada since making the PR card application continue to count.

Additionally, it does NOT appear that your PR card application is in "Secondary Review" as @canuck78 says. Rather, it appears it was referred to a local office to investigate your compliance with the Residency Obligation (there are more than a few participating in this forum who confuse various types of non-routine processing or who simply, erroneously, label any non-routine PR card processing as "Secondary Review"). While the label does not matter much, the differences can indicate the nature of the issues or concerns, which in turn can indicate the extent to which there is a problem or something to worry about.

Leading to . . .

THAT SAID . . . There Appears to be Some Anomalies in Your Description of the Situation:

For example, it is hard to understand what you mean in your description of the error made in the PR card application. After all, if you reported being present IN Canada from July 2017 to July 2019, and thus 730 days IN Canada during that time, it does not matter how many days you were absent before that.

I can probably guess at least some of the facts. But AGAIN what really matters is --

-- that you were in fact NOT issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, and​

-- that as of NOW you have been in Canada for MORE than two of the last five years (again, as of NOW), and​

-- it matters, to some extent, that you are currently IN Canada and have been living IN Canada​

As I previously noted:

The last is not crucial. But if true, that should give you strong insurance protecting your PR status.​

The first two are critical. If the first two are true, you are OK at least relative to compliance with the Residency Obligation.​

There are other anomalies. You report that there is "no movement in my file from july 2019," but then you report movement AFTER that, saying they "sent my application to Winnipeg for further investigation in August 2019."

Additionally, the timeline, for example, is well outside the norm for local office referrals. Hard to discern what this involves since things have gotten so screwed up in the wake of Covid-19. Thing is, local office referrals to investigate RO compliance issues tend to be resolved within a few months (unlike referrals for Secondary Review where PR card applications do indeed tend to sit without any movement for many months, up to a year or so). So a referral to the local office in August 2019, and NOTHING since then, is well outside the norm.

As I previously noted, I could guess about some of this. But that would indeed be GUESSING.

In any event, AGAIN, if you have been living and staying IN Canada since July 2017 up to NOW, you should have NOTHING to WORRY about in regards to Residency Obligation compliance. As long as you respond to requests from IRCC and appear as scheduled (such as for an interview if that is scheduled . . . not likely to happen but if scheduled, then it would be imperative to appear), you are in compliance with the RO. Again, it does not matter if you were in breach of the RO sometime in the past.

But as to when you will be issued a new PR card, hard to guess . . . things are in a state of confusion now. But it is quite possible that your recent transactions with IRCC will trigger action on the file and get things moving.

 

[BOYX]

There are some anomalies in your account, some of which I will address below. In the meantime, however, DATES are important. If any of the dates in your post are off, corrections could help illuminate your situation better.

What really matters is --
-- that you were in fact NOT issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, and
-- that as of NOW you have been in Canada for MORE than two of the last five years (again, as of NOW), and
-- it matters, to some extent, that you are currently IN Canada and have been living IN Canada these past three years

The last is not crucial. But if true, that should give you strong insurance protecting your PR status.

The first two are critical. If the first two are true, you should be OK at least relative to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

In any event, if it is true that you were not Reported and that you have been living in Canada from July 2017 to now, you should have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. At least not in regards to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

Things are bogged now, given Covid-19, so you may not get a new PR card any time soon. But your status as a PR should be OK.


Some Further, Longer Observations (with some repetition):

There is no process by which you can "cancel" a PR card application. You can submit a request to "withdraw" the application but that is NOT likely to change the dynamics much if at all. (My guess is that @BOYX was just using the wrong term and meant "withdraw.")

The main factor which will influence how this goes from here is whether you have remained IN Canada since making the application in July 2019. In particular, if you have been living in Canada since July 2017 and have not spent much time outside Canada since then, you should have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. At least not in regards to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

That is, if you have remained (at least most of time) IN Canada, there is NO reason to withdraw (or cancel) the PR card application.

It does NOT matter if you were short of complying with the Residency Obligation some time in the past, including when a PR card application was made. As long as you have not been issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO, and NOT issued a Departure or Removal Order, the days you have been IN Canada since making the PR card application continue to count.

Additionally, it does NOT appear that your PR card application is in "Secondary Review" as @canuck78 says. Rather, it appears it was referred to a local office to investigate your compliance with the Residency Obligation (there are more than a few participating in this forum who confuse various types of non-routine processing or who simply, erroneously, label any non-routine PR card processing as "Secondary Review"). While the label does not matter much, the differences can indicate the nature of the issues or concerns, which in turn can indicate the extent to which there is a problem or something to worry about.

Leading to . . .

THAT SAID . . . There Appears to be Some Anomalies in Your Description of the Situation:

For example, it is hard to understand what you mean in your description of the error made in the PR card application. After all, if you reported being present IN Canada from July 2017 to July 2019, and thus 730 days IN Canada during that time, it does not matter how many days you were absent before that.

I can probably guess at least some of the facts. But AGAIN what really matters is --

-- that you were in fact NOT issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, and​

-- that as of NOW you have been in Canada for MORE than two of the last five years (again, as of NOW), and​

-- it matters, to some extent, that you are currently IN Canada and have been living IN Canada​

As I previously noted:

The last is not crucial. But if true, that should give you strong insurance protecting your PR status.​

The first two are critical. If the first two are true, you are OK at least relative to compliance with the Residency Obligation.​

There are other anomalies. You report that there is "no movement in my file from july 2019," but then you report movement AFTER that, saying they "sent my application to Winnipeg for further investigation in August 2019."

Additionally, the timeline, for example, is well outside the norm for local office referrals. Hard to discern what this involves since things have gotten so screwed up in the wake of Covid-19. Thing is, local office referrals to investigate RO compliance issues tend to be resolved within a few months (unlike referrals for Secondary Review where PR card applications do indeed tend to sit without any movement for many months, up to a year or so). So a referral to the local office in August 2019, and NOTHING since then, is well outside the norm.

As I previously noted, I could guess about some of this. But that would indeed be GUESSING.

In any event, AGAIN, if you have been living and staying IN Canada since July 2017 up to NOW, you should have NOTHING to WORRY about in regards to Residency Obligation compliance. As long as you respond to requests from IRCC and appear as scheduled (such as for an interview if that is scheduled . . . not likely to happen but if scheduled, then it would be imperative to appear), you are in compliance with the RO. Again, it does not matter if you were in breach of the RO sometime in the past.

But as to when you will be issued a new PR card, hard to guess . . . things are in a state of confusion now. But it is quite possible that your recent transactions with IRCC will trigger action on the file and get things moving.

Yes, I meant withdraw.

I still do believe withdrawing his application is something OP should do, especially since their application has been sent to secondary without any reason to be there.

In my case, when I was let into the country, a positive determination had been made on my status. I was then given a green light to renew my PR card by the officer who made the determination on my status. Unfortunately my application went into secondary (long story but unrelated to my determination) and it took way too long; enough time that I met the RO.

Therefore, I was advised by my lawyers to re-apply in the hope that my application would be considered routine & would go through the regular processing time. It did end up working out and I got my PR card approved in around 3 months (November to February).

 

[Dee2345]

There are some anomalies in your account, some of which I will address below. In the meantime, however, DATES are important. If any of the dates in your post are off, corrections could help illuminate your situation better.

What really matters is --
-- that you were in fact NOT issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, and
-- that as of NOW you have been in Canada for MORE than two of the last five years (again, as of NOW), and
-- it matters, to some extent, that you are currently IN Canada and have been living IN Canada these past three years

The last is not crucial. But if true, that should give you strong insurance protecting your PR status.

The first two are critical. If the first two are true, you should be OK at least relative to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

In any event, if it is true that you were not Reported and that you have been living in Canada from July 2017 to now, you should have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. At least not in regards to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

Things are bogged now, given Covid-19, so you may not get a new PR card any time soon. But your status as a PR should be OK.


Some Further, Longer Observations (with some repetition):

There is no process by which you can "cancel" a PR card application. You can submit a request to "withdraw" the application but that is NOT likely to change the dynamics much if at all. (My guess is that @BOYX was just using the wrong term and meant "withdraw.")

The main factor which will influence how this goes from here is whether you have remained IN Canada since making the application in July 2019. In particular, if you have been living in Canada since July 2017 and have not spent much time outside Canada since then, you should have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. At least not in regards to compliance with the Residency Obligation.

That is, if you have remained (at least most of time) IN Canada, there is NO reason to withdraw (or cancel) the PR card application.

It does NOT matter if you were short of complying with the Residency Obligation some time in the past, including when a PR card application was made. As long as you have not been issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO, and NOT issued a Departure or Removal Order, the days you have been IN Canada since making the PR card application continue to count.

Additionally, it does NOT appear that your PR card application is in "Secondary Review" as @canuck78 says. Rather, it appears it was referred to a local office to investigate your compliance with the Residency Obligation (there are more than a few participating in this forum who confuse various types of non-routine processing or who simply, erroneously, label any non-routine PR card processing as "Secondary Review"). While the label does not matter much, the differences can indicate the nature of the issues or concerns, which in turn can indicate the extent to which there is a problem or something to worry about.

Leading to . . .

THAT SAID . . . There Appears to be Some Anomalies in Your Description of the Situation:

For example, it is hard to understand what you mean in your description of the error made in the PR card application. After all, if you reported being present IN Canada from July 2017 to July 2019, and thus 730 days IN Canada during that time, it does not matter how many days you were absent before that.

I can probably guess at least some of the facts. But AGAIN what really matters is --

-- that you were in fact NOT issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, and​

-- that as of NOW you have been in Canada for MORE than two of the last five years (again, as of NOW), and​

-- it matters, to some extent, that you are currently IN Canada and have been living IN Canada​

As I previously noted:

The last is not crucial. But if true, that should give you strong insurance protecting your PR status.​

The first two are critical. If the first two are true, you are OK at least relative to compliance with the Residency Obligation.​

There are other anomalies. You report that there is "no movement in my file from july 2019," but then you report movement AFTER that, saying they "sent my application to Winnipeg for further investigation in August 2019."

Additionally, the timeline, for example, is well outside the norm for local office referrals. Hard to discern what this involves since things have gotten so screwed up in the wake of Covid-19. Thing is, local office referrals to investigate RO compliance issues tend to be resolved within a few months (unlike referrals for Secondary Review where PR card applications do indeed tend to sit without any movement for many months, up to a year or so). So a referral to the local office in August 2019, and NOTHING since then, is well outside the norm.

As I previously noted, I could guess about some of this. But that would indeed be GUESSING.

In any event, AGAIN, if you have been living and staying IN Canada since July 2017 up to NOW, you should have NOTHING to WORRY about in regards to Residency Obligation compliance. As long as you respond to requests from IRCC and appear as scheduled (such as for an interview if that is scheduled . . . not likely to happen but if scheduled, then it would be imperative to appear), you are in compliance with the RO. Again, it does not matter if you were in breach of the RO sometime in the past.

But as to when you will be issued a new PR card, hard to guess . . . things are in a state of confusion now. But it is quite possible that your recent transactions with IRCC will trigger action on the file and get things moving.

Thank you so much for your reply. It was very helpful.
About the movement in my file - I meant I didn’t receive any information after the AOR I received in July 29 2019 so i ordered gcms notes. From that i got to know that they sent my file to Winnipeg in aug 2019. I was never issued a 44(1) as well.

I lived in canada from july 2017 till now. I studied and have been working from past two years as well. I am not sure why they didn’t take into account my 730 days instead of absences.

I am planning to contact local MP and see if they can help as well. Fingers crossed.

 

[Dee2345]

Yes, I meant withdraw.

I still do believe withdrawing his application is something OP should do, especially since their application has been sent to secondary without any reason to be there.

In my case, when I was let into the country, a positive determination had been made on my status. I was then given a green light to renew my PR card by the officer who made the determination on my status. Unfortunately my application went into secondary (long story but unrelated to my determination) and it took way too long; enough time that I met the RO.

Therefore, I was advised by my lawyers to re-apply in the hope that my application would be considered routine & would go through the regular processing time. It did end up working out and I got my PR card approved in around 3 months (November to February).

That’s interesting information. Thanks!
I didn’t know this was an option.

 

[canuck78]

That’s interesting information. Thanks!
I didn’t know this was an option.

It isn't a good option actually. Border agents tend to be very lenient and an approval at the border does not guarantee that an IRCC agent will also approve the H&C reasons for not meeting your RO. That is why people are told to wait 2 years to renew a PR card if you are not reported at the border.

 

[dpenabill]

More Observations Regarding Option to Withdraw Current Application and Re-apply for new PR card:

It isn't a good option actually. Border agents tend to be very lenient and an approval at the border does not guarantee that an IRCC agent will also approve the H&C reasons for not meeting your RO. That is why people are told to wait 2 years to renew a PR card if you are not reported at the border.

This is NOT an H&C case. The OP is in compliance with the Residency Obligation. No need for any leniency. Indeed, it appears the OP is not even cutting-it-close.

The OP was cutting-it-close at the time the pending PR card application was made and in conjunction with some kind of mistake in the PR card application (I am still not clear what the OP did), it appears the circumstances triggered a referral of the PR card application to a local office for investigation. A PRC referral to the local office is almost always (emphasizing *almost* and thus NOT always) about investigating the PRC applicant's compliance with the Residency Obligation. (NOTE: this is different from Secondary Review referrals.) Given cutting-it-close at the time, and the mistake, that makes sense.

The fact the OP was cutting-it-close at the time is of little or no import now. The OP has remained in Canada in the meantime and now, it appears, has been IN Canada enough to qualify for citizenship let alone be in compliance with the Residency Obligation. (Present in Canada July 2017 to November 2020 . . . over 1100 days within the last five years.)

Does not matter if the OP was short of complying with the RO when the PRC application was made in July 2019. Days in Canada since then continue to count toward compliance with the RO.

Leading to the option to withdraw this application and re-apply . . .

I do not know. I do not attempt to analyze situations to the level of offering personal advice. I strongly suggest that any personal advice offered here be very cautiously approached. Details in a particular individual's situation can have a big impact on things. There is NEVER any guarantee that the best approach for one individual will be the right approach for a different person.

Thus, for example, while the observations offered by @BOYX make sense, it appears the decisions made by @BOYX were guided by professional legal advice. That does not mean that even the same lawyer would advise @Dee2345 to do the same.

For now, unless @Dee2345 needs to be traveling abroad in the near future, there is no rush to get a new PR card. Given the current surge in Covid-19 cases, for most people travel is not in the near-future forecast.

BUT it is NOT CLEAR, NOT CERTAIN that this PRC application is stalled this long due to RO concerns. As I noted in my previous post, this timeline is well outside the norm for local office RO investigations.

It is possible the local office dropped the ball, and thus, as I noted before, it is quite possible that the OP's recent transactions with IRCC will trigger action on the file and get things moving. My guess, just a GUESS, is that this is the more likely scenario.

BUT the timeline might also be due to some other non-routine, investigatory processing. The OP, that is @Dee2345, should know or at least have a good idea if there is any other reason for investigating the OP's status (criminality, misrepresentation, or such).

In the meantime, Covid-19 has thrown so much into disarray, that makes it all the more difficult to discern if there is something of real concern lurking or if this is simply a case in which a local office failed to take action, but now will.

What is fairly clear is that the OP, @Dee2345, should have NOTHING to WORRY ABOUT in regards to any Residency Obligation compliance issues.

If @Dee2345 needs a new PR card relatively soon, because of travel plans or anticipated travel needs, it may be a good idea to at least consult with a lawyer who will examine and review all the relevant documents, and then decide how to proceed taking the lawyer's observations and advice into consideration.


A Bit of a Weedy Nuance Sidebar:

Many of us in this forum often emphasize that a PR should be in full compliance with the PR Residency Obligation BEFORE applying for a new PR card.

That said, as long as the PR WILL BE in compliance with the RO BEFORE there is a formal examination of compliance with the RO, in the course of processing the PR card application, the fact the PR was short as of the date of the application is NOT grounds for terminating the PR's status. That is, the fact the PR was in breach of the RO as of the date of making the PRC application will NOT result in a decision taking away PR status as long as the PR cures the breach by the time the formal investigation into RO compliance is done (usually, but not now, this will be the date of an interview/hearing with the PR, but it can be as of the date a decision is made based on the PR's written submission of evidence in response to an RQ-related request).

There are some practical, logistical wrinkles in this, including the risk of mistakes in decision-making by IRCC officers, who are not likely to be especially well-versed in the nuances of applying the law.

This would be really cutting-it-close, which is inherently risky on multiple levels.

So the conventional wisdom in this forum, the typical advice, emphasizing that a PR should be sure to be in RO compliance BEFORE making a PR card application, is well-founded, good information, good advice. But it is not entirely or always necessary.

 

[canuck78]

More Observations Regarding Option to Withdraw Current Application and Re-apply for new PR card:



This is NOT an H&C case. The OP is in compliance with the Residency Obligation. No need for any leniency. Indeed, it appears the OP is not even cutting-it-close.

The OP was cutting-it-close at the time the pending PR card application was made and in conjunction with some kind of mistake in the PR card application (I am still not clear what the OP did), it appears the circumstances triggered a referral of the PR card application to a local office for investigation. A PRC referral to the local office is almost always (emphasizing *almost* and thus NOT always) about investigating the PRC applicant's compliance with the Residency Obligation. (NOTE: this is different from Secondary Review referrals.) Given cutting-it-close at the time, and the mistake, that makes sense.

The fact the OP was cutting-it-close at the time is of little or no import now. The OP has remained in Canada in the meantime and now, it appears, has been IN Canada enough to qualify for citizenship let alone be in compliance with the Residency Obligation. (Present in Canada July 2017 to November 2020 . . . over 1100 days within the last five years.)

Does not matter if the OP was short of complying with the RO when the PRC application was made in July 2019. Days in Canada since then continue to count toward compliance with the RO.

Leading to the option to withdraw this application and re-apply . . .

I do not know. I do not attempt to analyze situations to the level of offering personal advice. I strongly suggest that any personal advice offered here be very cautiously approached. Details in a particular individual's situation can have a big impact on things. There is NEVER any guarantee that the best approach for one individual will be the right approach for a different person.

Thus, for example, while the observations offered by @BOYX make sense, it appears the decisions made by @BOYX were guided by professional legal advice. That does not mean that even the same lawyer would advise @Dee2345 to do the same.

For now, unless @Dee2345 needs to be traveling abroad in the near future, there is no rush to get a new PR card. Given the current surge in Covid-19 cases, for most people travel is not in the near-future forecast.

BUT it is NOT CLEAR, NOT CERTAIN that this PRC application is stalled this long due to RO concerns. As I noted in my previous post, this timeline is well outside the norm for local office RO investigations.

It is possible the local office dropped the ball, and thus, as I noted before, it is quite possible that the OP's recent transactions with IRCC will trigger action on the file and get things moving. My guess, just a GUESS, is that this is the more likely scenario.

BUT the timeline might also be due to some other non-routine, investigatory processing. The OP, that is @Dee2345, should know or at least have a good idea if there is any other reason for investigating the OP's status (criminality, misrepresentation, or such).

In the meantime, Covid-19 has thrown so much into disarray, that makes it all the more difficult to discern if there is something of real concern lurking or if this is simply a case in which a local office failed to take action, but now will.

What is fairly clear is that the OP, @Dee2345, should have NOTHING to WORRY ABOUT in regards to any Residency Obligation compliance issues.

If @Dee2345 needs a new PR card relatively soon, because of travel plans or anticipated travel needs, it may be a good idea to at least consult with a lawyer who will examine and review all the relevant documents, and then decide how to proceed taking the lawyer's observations and advice into consideration.


A Bit of a Weedy Nuance Sidebar:

Many of us in this forum often emphasize that a PR should be in full compliance with the PR Residency Obligation BEFORE applying for a new PR card.

That said, as long as the PR WILL BE in compliance with the RO BEFORE there is a formal examination of compliance with the RO, in the course of processing the PR card application, the fact the PR was short as of the date of the application is NOT grounds for terminating the PR's status. That is, the fact the PR was in breach of the RO as of the date of making the PRC application will NOT result in a decision taking away PR status as long as the PR cures the breach by the time the formal investigation into RO compliance is done (usually, but not now, this will be the date of an interview/hearing with the PR, but it can be as of the date a decision is made based on the PR's written submission of evidence in response to an RQ-related request).

There are some practical, logistical wrinkles in this, including the risk of mistakes in decision-making by IRCC officers, who are not likely to be especially well-versed in the nuances of applying the law.

This would be really cutting-it-close, which is inherently risky on multiple levels.

So the conventional wisdom in this forum, the typical advice, emphasizing that a PR should be sure to be in RO compliance BEFORE making a PR card application, is well-founded, good information, good advice. But it is not entirely or always necessary.

Not commenting on OP's situation. was commenting on @BOYX's situation where it seems as though the border agent allowed them to enter based on their H&C reason and they went on to apply for a PR card right away. I disagreed that this was a good option. Think you would agree with my statement that it is not a good idea to apply for a new PR card if you were able to enter Canada based on a border agent accepting your H&C reason. Applying for a PR card right upon entry is not a good idea and it is advisable to wait for 2 years.

 

[dpenabill]

Not commenting on OP's situation. was commenting on @BOYX's situation where it seems as though the border agent allowed them to enter based on their H&C reason and they went on to apply for a PR card right away. I disagreed that this was a good option.

Since you prefaced your observation quoting the OP, @Dee2345, and since the "option" being discussed was suggested as one available to the OP, and that option is not about applying for a new PR card but rather about withdrawing an already pending PR card application and re-applying, and as I understand it, that is also the situation addressed by @BOYX, I am not following you here.

That said . . .

Think you would agree with my statement that it is not a good idea to apply for a new PR card if you were able to enter Canada based on a border agent accepting your H&C reason. Applying for a PR card right upon entry is not a good idea and it is advisable to wait for 2 years.

Yes, I agree, and emphatically so, that getting waived through is NOT a green light to apply for a new PR card without being in compliance with the RO. And yes, emphatically, the safest approach is to NOT engage in any transactions with IRCC, including any application for a new PR card, unless and until the PR is in compliance with the RO. And staying and waiting two years is the for-sure safe approach.

That said, it is NOT universally true for PRs who are subjected to a full RO examination at the PoE. In particular, if a PR has strong H&C reasons AND the PR is issued a 44(1) Report, but the second officer, the reviewing officer (who is technically the "Minister's Delegate") accepts the H&C reasons and declines to issue a Removal or Departure Order, that SHOULD be the type of affirmative decision which gives the PR a green light to proceed to apply for a new PR card, relying on the positive H&C decision (which in legal effect was made by the Minister, albeit the Minister of Public Safety not the Minister of IRCC).

Nonetheless, even in the latter scenario, since many if not most PRs will not be this intimately familiar with the rules and procedure, and what actually happens at the PoE can be rather confusing or obscure for many if not most, the SAFE approach, as you suggest, is still to NOT apply for a new PR card unless and until getting into full compliance with the RO (without relying on the H&C relief) . . . and the for-sure safe wait is two years.

One More Caveat:

The reference to staying and waiting TWO years to apply for a PR card is also NOT universal. Indeed, this is ONLY true for a PR who was last in Canada three years prior to arriving at the PoE. This happens to be, it appears, a very common scenario. Perhaps the most common scenario. A typical instance of this is a soft landing PR fails to actually make the move to Canada for more than three years. In which event, if waived through the PoE without being Reported, this PR needs to stay IN Canada at least two years to get into RO compliance.

If a PR has spent some time in Canada within the previous three years, as of the date of arriving at the PoE, those days will continue to count toward RO compliance, and thus the PR only needs to stay long enough for the total number of days to be at least 730 and that will get the PR into compliance. For example, if within the previous three years the PR visited Canada multiple times for a total of 155 days, the PR will be in compliance and OK to make a PR card application 575 days after arriving . . . does not need to wait a full two years.

While there are other variations of this, as well, I recognize and agree with the conventional wisdom you and others often offer about staying TWO years before applying for a new PR card. That is the FOR-SURE safe approach.

 

[SecularFirst]

After reading above discussion, I have few questions.
What if the OP need to travel outside while waiting for her PR card application? Can travel be done?
In the above situation, Can the OP apply for both PRC and citizenship application if he/she spent more than 3 continues years inside Canada?

 

[BOYX]

Not commenting on OP's situation. was commenting on @BOYX's situation where it seems as though the border agent allowed them to enter based on their H&C reason and they went on to apply for a PR card right away. I disagreed that this was a good option. Think you would agree with my statement that it is not a good idea to apply for a new PR card if you were able to enter Canada based on a border agent accepting your H&C reason. Applying for a PR card right upon entry is not a good idea and it is advisable to wait for 2 years.

You start by failing to read my response thoroughly, wherein I specifically stated that the delay was due to circumstances beyond my positive determination. Then, you follow by incorrectly advising people that it is not acceptable to apply for a PR Card once they have received a positive determination. Incredibly, you see reason in advising against a lawyer's counsel while presumably not being one yourself.
Maybe not the intended outcome; however, you've given guidance on how one can lose all credibility. I will look out for your advice, in particular, @canuck78, as guidance on what NOT to follow.

I bring to your attention section 7.7 of ENF-23:

The effect of a recently made favourable humanitarian and compassionate decision

Officers will sometimes make residency determinations for permanent residents who were the
subject of favourable decisions under A28(2)(c) for humanitarian and compassionate reasons in the recent past, either by an officer or the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB. In this situation, officers are required to exercise their statutory authority and render independent decisions. However, officers should be mindful that the intent of the legislation was to enable persons to retain permanent resident status where it is determined that, having regard to all circumstances, retention of status is warranted. Therefore, unless circumstances have changed significantly or new information is available, it would not be consistent with the intent of the legislation for these clients to receive a negative determination

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone who has received a positive determination to wait 2-years in order to apply for their PR Card renewal. This point is one I personally learned from this site years ago and it is consistent with the outcomes of many members in the community who did as I did.

 

[dpenabill]

After reading above discussion, I have few questions.
What if the OP need to travel outside while waiting for her PR card application? Can travel be done?
In the above situation, Can the OP apply for both PRC and citizenship application if he/she spent more than 3 continues years inside Canada?

Of course a PR can apply for a new PRC and for citizenship.

The real question is what will be the outcome of the respective applications. IF QUALIFIED the PR will be granted a new PRC while the citizenship application is pending, and IF QUALIFIED granted citizenship.

Many of those who apply for citizenship and run into a lengthy timeline apprehend their PR card will expire before they become a citizen, so they will apply for a new PR card pending the outcome of the citizenship application. This is mostly to facilitate any international travel they may need to do before they take the oath and get a Canadian passport.

The travel question is a bit of a trick question.

It warrants remembering that the ability of a Canadian PR to travel internationally is about what passport or other travel documents the PR possesses. Thus, whether a PR can travel internationally is NOT controlled by Canada but by the PR's home country plus the laws in whatever country the PR intends to travel to. (The only aspect Canada regulates is the PR's access to commercial transportation that will bring the PR to Canada.)

Unlike Canadian citizens, who have a fundamental right to travel internationally under Canadian law, protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights, Canadian PRs do NOT have any such right under Canadian law.

So, again, whether a PR can travel internationally while a PR card application is pending depends on what passport the PR carries and the laws of the countries where the PR might travel. Not Canadian law.

On the other hand, there is nothing in Canadian law which restricts a PR's ability to travel internationally.

Nonetheless, a PR needs to present EITHER a valid PR card or a valid PR Travel Document to board a flight headed to Canada. Having either a PR card application in process, or a citizenship application in process, does not change how that works.

Having a PR card application in process does not affect the processing of a citizenship application; likewise, having a citizenship application in process does not affect the processing of a PR card application . . . except that once citizenship is actually granted, that terminates PR status and thus will terminate any PR card application in process.

Note: Contrary to what more than a few say here, the PR card is NOT a Travel Document. It is a status document.

Also note, even a PR who is not in compliance with the RO can travel outside Canada. The RISK is the PR might be Reported when he or she returns to Canada. And if the PR card is no longer valid, or is lost while traveling, the PR will need to apply for and obtain a PR Travel Document from a visa office (with some exceptions), and if not in compliance with the RO the risk of that application being denied, thus terminating PR status (subject to a right of appeal), tends to be worse.

. . . there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone who has received a positive determination to wait 2-years in order to apply for their PR Card renewal. This point is one I personally learned from this site years ago and it is consistent with the outcomes of many members in the community who did as I did.

Some Serious Caution Regarding This:

There is a huge difference in who, what official at the PoE, makes the "positive determination" you refer to. Being waived through by the PIL officer, for example, does not constitute a formal adjudication of H&C reasons allowing for relief from a Residency Obligation breach. EVEN if the traveler is asked about the RO and gives the PIL officer an explanation based on H&C reasons.

Even if the officer conducting a Secondary examination at the PoE decides, in effect, to not issue a 44(1) Report after hearing the traveler's reasons, and thus waives the PR through, that may or may not be recorded in GCMS as a formal determination of H&C reasons allowing the PR relief from a breach of the RO.

If the traveler is issued a 44(1) Report AND then the Minister's Delegate (the second officer in Secondary to review the traveler's case) makes, as you say, a "positive determination" granting H&C relief, that is then a decision as described in ENF 23 (noting, however, those guidelines are NOT binding).

Since many (probably most) PRs going through these sorts of examinations at a PoE are not well familiar with the nuances in these procedures, and their perception of what is happening is typically under stress, many will not know, not with much confidence let alone a degree of certainty, just what sort of decision or determination was made.

So the SAFEST approach is to wait . . . and for many if not most this means waiting two years . . . BEFORE applying for a new PR card.

Of course, there are other factors which a PR can and should take into consideration BEFORE deciding to apply for a new PR card or wait, including the nature and extent of the breach compared to the nature of the H&C reasons. And how PoE officials responded to the PR can be a big clue about how IRCC officials will respond to a PR card application.

Way, way too many variables to make a definitive declaration that after explaining H&C reasons at the PoE, a PR in breach of the RO who was allowed to enter Canada without being reported has no reason to wait. On the contrary, there are scores of anecdotal reports from such PRs who FOOLISHLY relied on a PoE officer's "OK" and whose PR card application, or application to sponsor a spouse for PR, ran into negative RO determinations.

A PR who is confident he or she understands what happened at the PoE, and is confident that it was the Minister's Delegate who made the favourable H&C decision, can confidently proceed to make a PR card application without waiting. (And the more cautious will nonetheless wait, because once they have cured the RO breach by staying, that almost for-sure protects them from a negative RO determination resulting in loss of PR status. Visa office decisions in response to PR TD applications tend to be safer because the PR TD will bear a code that shows it was a positive H&C determination.)

Others may be OK making the PR card application without waiting, but doing so is more RISKY . . . depending on who made the PoE decision, what it was based on, what was actually entered into the client's GCMS records, the nature and extent of the breach, and the nature of the PR's H&C reasons.