1. Is she going to receive, at some point in the future, an A44(1) report or other reports stating she's no longer a PR even she's abroad.
2. Is it her best interest to stays away from Canadian customs which triggers RO examination?
3. Can she stay in her home country and wait till she's ready to come back to Canada on 2024? At that time she applies for a H&C PRTD and enter Canada.
Any "
best interest" assessment is necessarily very specific to the individual, with way too many variables and details to competently evaluate in a forum setting like this, including details probably best not shared in an open source like this. Even if we were experts. I for sure am NO expert, and I just as surely would not trust anyone else here to be an expert (with apologies to those who feel otherwise about themselves; but, still, no).
As I noted, the situation is complicated, involving some significantly diverging tangents. And some of the factors can involve significantly diverging effects. Which is why I suggested a consultation with a lawyer while she is here may be a good idea. A lawyer can go over her specific details and offer better informed views about how CBSA and IRCC officials are actually handling PR RO issues these days.
I am sorry I cannot offer more responsive observations. But a lot of this will be about going to the next step (like coming here in June), seeing how that goes, seeing what you learn from that, and only then making decisions about next steps after that.
Just to illustrate a factor that can involve significantly diverging effects is her relationship to you. Being in a marital relationship with a Canadian citizen predominantly living in Canada is a big positive factor in the H&C analysis. BUT as a Canadian citizen spouse you can sponsor her for new PR if she loses PR status, with is considered to reduce the amount of hardship she will face from losing PR status. So your relationship can have both a positive and a negative effect on the H&C case.
Trying to map what the net effect of that is in regards to all the other factors inherently involves speculation and prediction.
We know the key factors. Extent of ongoing direct ties to a life in Canada, especially the number of days actually IN Canada, is probably the biggest, most influential factor. It would be guessing, however, to try quantifying how this will affect official decision-making beyond ballpark generalities like more-days-in-Canada and stronger-ties-in-Canada, are better.
Then there are the PR's reasons for remaining abroad. And how compelling those are. Short of being held against one's will or otherwise physically not able to return to Canada, however, this inherently involves personal priorities and highly subjective elements. There is no point scale. Reason versus time factors into this.
But most PRs have family abroad. And other interests outside Canada. The 2/5 rule itself is intended to give PRs enough flexibility to balance their immigration to Canada with the PRs ties to family or business or whatever other interests abroad a PR typically has, so that Canadian officials do not get involved in making or second-guessing largely personal, subjective decisions for PRs . . . as long as the PR spends 2 years in 5 in Canada, neither CBSA nor IRCC will ask or be at all concerned about why, that's entirely the PR's choice.
The caveat is the 2/5 rule. The catch is that PRs are given flexibility to be outside Canada for extended periods of time no-questions-asked but that very much is as long as the PR spends 2 years in 5 in Canada.
I reference this to illuminate context. I do not mean, not at all, to minimize the weight of your wife's reasons for remaining abroad; even in my previous post, where I suggested the strength of the H&C case may be less than you apprehend, I did not mean that to suggest the case is weak.
Unless the situation falls into one of the more obvious scenarios, it is simply too speculative to forecast the outcome for the H&C case. A removed-as-a-minor case, especially for a PR who was actually settled and living in Canada prior to removal, yeah we can give that case good odds. At the other end, a PR well past the first five years who stays abroad for four of the last five years for a job opportunity, and who continues to be involved in that same employment, we can say the odds are not at all good.
All A Long-Way Round to Some Particulars:
If your wife can readily travel to Canada via the states, that is a very different scenario than a PR who must have either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document in order to travel to Canada.
For the latter, for a PR who needs a PR TD to get to Canada once their PR card expires, having been physically IN Canada within the previous YEAR will usually make the difference in whether they get a special PR TD to come to Canada during an appeal, in the event the application for a PR TD based on H&C reasons is denied. If the PR has not been actually in Canada within the previous year, they will likely not be able to come to Canada pending an appeal. For the PR who has a spouse in Canada who can sponsor them anew, faster path to return to Canada could be not appealing, letting the PR TD denial terminate their PR status, and then proceed with the new sponsored PR application.
In contrast, for a PR who can travel via the U.S., DEPENDING on other factors (must emphasize that other factors can influence what is the best way to navigate this), it may be better to continue coming to Canada via the U.S. and in effect put off having to make the H&C case until there is a border control examination resulting in the preparation of a 44(1) Report . . . which as I referenced before, can be upheld by a second officer reviewing it (technically labeled the "Minister's Delegate," but in practice just another CBSA immigration officer) which results in a Removal Order, which the PR can then appeal; or based on the H&C case the second officer can set the Report aside. This is drilling into the weeds a bit, into some of the technicalities, and there are variations in how this goes, so again things are complicated and can get more complicated. But the overall take-away is that for the PR who can travel via the U.S. to get to Canada, no need to push a H&C decision unless and until Canadian authorities effectively force it. And if all that can be pushed down the road long enough, maybe your wife is finally in Canada to stay, which should help the H&C case in the appeal, before the IAD, but if that fails, and she loses the appeal, she is here and you can initiate an inland spousal sponsored PR application so she gets to stay. Subject to some variables. Did I mention it gets complicated?
Note: NO guarantee, but traveling TOGETHER, arriving at the Canadian PoE together, could help her get waived through, and if not waived through but subject to a formal RO determination, help the H&C case.
Which leads to . . .
Time PR and Citizen Spouses Spend Together:
If you are not "
ordinarily residing together" abroad, time abroad together is not likely to be counted toward complying with the PR RO. But you can certainly present this information, about time together abroad, and ask that it be given credit as time accompanying-citizen-spouse abroad.
And for H&C purposes it should count as a significant Canadian tie in any event. Especially if your story is a coherent whole, about a couple planning all along to make a life together in Canada and balancing the PR's compelling need to be there for her parents, juggling priorities as best the two of you can, spending as much time together as the two of you can. This is not to forecast the outcome, just noting this is a factor that can help push the needle in a favourable direction.
BUT to be clear, I have just scratched the surface of some particular threads in your situation. It may be that a lawyer can offer a specific plan about how to best proceed.
Once again I did not answer your particular questions. I don't think the answers to these questions helps much, but I will offer this:
1. Is she going to receive, at some point in the future, an A44(1) report or other reports stating she's no longer a PR even she's abroad.
No. If she applies for a PR TD, a decision denying that application is a decision terminating PR status; but it is subject to appeal. Otherwise, a 44(1) Report will be prepared ONLY if she engages in a transaction that triggers a formal RO determination. Most common: application to enter Canada (made by just showing up at a PoE), but this procedure can be triggered by a PR card application made by a PR in breach. Note: it is not the 44(1) Report that terminates PR status, but the combination of the Report and issuance of a Removal Order. Again, subject to appeal.
2. Is it her best interest to stays away from Canadian customs which triggers RO examination?
Tough call. Remember, more time in Canada, more trips to Canada, tends to make a stronger H&C case. But, if she can travel via the U.S., and waits until 2024 to make the trip, and is ready to stay in Canada then, worst case scenario is Report & Removal Order, Appeal, and if she wins the appeal, all is OK; if she loses the appeal, you make an inland spousal sponsored PR application and she gets to stay.
3. Can she stay in her home country and wait till she's ready to come back to Canada on 2024? At that time she applies for a H&C PRTD and enter Canada.
If she can travel via the U.S., see response to 2.
If she would need a PR TD to travel, remember that if it is denied she will be stuck abroad pending an appeal unless she has been IN Canada with the YEAR prior to making the PR TD application.