The further elaboration of your experience helps to fill in the picture generally. Good anecdotal reporting is always appreciated.
A comment about lawyers' advice: it almost always leans well toward what is the safest approach. Appears that staying in Canada was the FOR-SURE safe approach in your situation. Lawyers tend to place their bet on the FOR-SURE horse (in giving advice; many lawyers can place rather risky bets in their own affairs). In giving advice they approach things differently than, say, an investment broker. (For more, one might describe as
intimate client-attorney relationships, some lawyers will trust their clients with more nuanced, risk-variable advice; but generally lawyers go with what comes as close to possible as the safest, most sure approach. Lawyers loathe being wrong.)
This is true for the OP here. The FOR-SURE way to keep PR status, as comments by
@canuck78 have referenced, to avoid any chance of a re-examination of RO compliance resulting in a contrary outcome, is to NOT travel abroad until in compliance based on more than 730 days present in Canada within the preceding five years.
But in the OP's situation the risk-analysis is PROBABLY relatively secure . . . again because the key favourable element is NOT about leniency but rather the weight to given a decision already made.
Some further observations:
Unfortunately I do not clearly recall the details in the example case I described (so I hope my accounting of it above is at least close). Cannot recall if I discussed it in depth at the time here or whether that was in another forum. It was not the only
change-in-circumstances case resulting in the loss of PR status notwithstanding a prior positive H&C decision. That is, observations by others, such as
@primaprime, and me, regarding the potential for a
change-in-circumstances reason resulting in a different outcome, derive from a range of sources not just one case.
Situations similar to this, in addition to comparing the number of IAD cases involving denied PR TD applications versus, what for a long time, was the smaller number of cases involving Port-of-Entry Report & Removal Order cases, underlies my strong impression (shared by others) that Visa Office decision-making for PR TD applications tends to pose significantly greater risks of a negative RO-compliance decision (makes sense given there is a not-valid status presumption for PRs abroad without a valid PR card). That is, it has long seemed that given similar factual scenarios, PRs are more at risk for being denied a PR TD than being Reported and issued a Removal Order upon arrival at a Canadian PoE. This has been a significant factor in suggestions, for PRs in RO-breach and abroad without a PR card, to attempt traveling to Canada via the U.S. so as to avoid making a PR TD application (recognizing however there are pros & cons either way . . . for example, for the PR with a strong H&C case, applying for the PR TD will offer a more definitive outcome without having to invest in making the move, and if granted, as was the OP's situation, the PR can soon apply for a new PR card rather than wait two years, and while there is no guarantee IRCC would issue a new PR card forthwith (thus the PR could have a long wait for a new card anyway), the risk of a RO-determination resulting in loss of PR status is low, at least way lower than for the PR in RO-breach who traveled via the U.S.)
Note, however, the general situation has changed some.
-- Covid-19 has skewed things big time. During this period and probably for awhile to come, quantitatively forecasting risks is far, far more difficult than it was, and it was already rather speculative.
-- As previously noted over the last decade (and prior to the impact of Covid-19), the number of IAD cases involving PoE issued Removal Orders had increased dramatically, enough so that it seemed their number actually started to exceed the PR TD denied cases. This warrants further attention.
-- -- Note, for example, there were 1413 Removal Orders, for breach of RO, issued at Ports-of-Entry in 2014 (and on average, those issued at the Montreal PoE more than doubled the combined total issued in Toronto and Vancouver), compared to just 605 in 2008 (source:
2017 Star article; might link); Harper government measures implementing stricter enforcement obviously the primary factor. Also noteworthy is the change in number of successful appeals, just 7.7 percent in 2014 compared to 17 percent in 2008.
There are numerous complicating elements making it difficult to map clear conclusions from the available information. Moreover, this is a subject I have not revisited in depth in a couple years, and my analysis could probably use some updated research (difficult now because so much is skewed by Covid; and my personal lack of time at the moment). Which is why I emphasized "
probably" in my previous observations responding to the OP. Notwithstanding that, most of the underlying principles remain largely consistent. The credit given a prior H&C decision, for example, is rooted in principles guiding Canadian government decision-making generally and for a very long time, and that in turn is rooted in long-established Western jurisprudence generally.
Which brings this back to the young PR who was issued a PR TD based on H&C reasons but then denied a PR TD when he had traveled to the home country before getting a PR card . . . and then lost on appeal. Again, my memory is not sufficiently clear about the details to draw direct conclusions based on that case alone, which is why I referenced it as an illustrative example rather than a definitive source, an example illustrating what I (and others) generally concluded based on a range of sources including IAD decisions.
And this in turn takes the discussion toward putting into context observations by some here, such as for example reservations about the prospect of H&C relief for a PR
removed-as-a-minor who makes it clear the reason for seeking a return to Canada is for the explicit purpose of attending university in Canada. As opposed, say, to returning to Canada to settle and live permanently. That is a tangent into a big and complicated subject itself, rife with nuances. I bring it up here mostly to highlight that there are variables and underlying influences which can affect how things go in the individual case . . . so as
@canuck78 and others sometimes comment, H&C relief is not guaranteed, and in particular is not guaranteed even if there already has been a grant of H&C relief if the PR (for some reason) encounters another RO-compliance examination.
So, in the PR-student case, again my memory is well shy of precise, and IAD decisions tend to be soft or outright vague in describing the analytical reasoning employed, but as best I can recall it appeared clear that the "
change in circumstances" related to the circumstances pursuant to which the first PR TD decision, allowing H&C relief, was made. (I am way short of certain about this; again, going on best recall.) In other contexts this might be described as a "
new evidence" scenario rather than "
change in circumstances." That is, the PR-student's subsequent behavior may have been interpreted to reveal the circumstances under which the first PR TD was granted were not as they appeared or were presented . . . that is, the PR was not applying for the PR TD in order to return to Canada to settle and stay. As evidenced by circumstances showing the PR continued to maintain his home abroad, where the rest of his family resided.
That is more complicated than it appears. Especially since the role of "intent" has been all but eliminated from the RO and its application (intent absolutely NOT relevant in determining if a PR is in compliance; only relevant in evaluating whether a PR who has already been determined to be in breach deserves H&C relief, and even in most of these cases, intent is not among the more influential factors, even though, however, in close cases it appears it can be what makes the difference).
Which brings this, finally, around to some general observations. Some will say, and some will highlight it with emphasis, that it is not possible to predict how things will go when a PR arrives at a PoE and the PR has not been IN Canada at least 730 days within the previous five years. Which is true, in so far as it goes. But in certain scenarios PRs can be relatively confident regarding the probabilities. Thus, even though mapping the probabilities to what will be the outcome in a particular case is precarious, it is far more speculative in some scenarios, but relatively reliable in others. (Which is why the "
xxx happened to me, so xxx will happen to you" reasoning, so often posted in the forum, makes me cringe; just not how things work, far, far from it.)
