I have been meaning for some time to organize, compile, and present the observations I offer below. I, and others, have repeatedly expressed, in various ways, why cutting-it-close is precarious, why those PRs who are not well-settled and permanently living in Canada can encounter problems when there is a Residency Determination or PoE assessment of their compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.
Ultimately, the best proof of compliance with the PR RO is strong evidence of having a permanent residence in Canada and a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, in conjunction with a complete and accurate declaration of all travel outside Canada which is, at the least, consistent with having settled permanently in Canada.
Proof of precisely 730 days, or a little more than that, even 800 or so days, can be difficult, and perhaps it can be extremely difficult. This is because PRs invariably need the benefit of a positive inference that they were in Canada on days in-between those solidly shown to actually be in Canada.
Without the benefit of such a positive inference, proving presence can be a very steep uphill climb. There is no definitive cut-off for when or why or who. Or even any clear criteria for how severely this affects a particular PR's case.
And ultimately the problem is that the PR who is not well-settled in Canada is likely to have a lot less documented evidence of time in Canada, and also be burdened with indications of strong ties abroad.
My sense is that many, many PRs grossly underestimate the risks involved when they cut-it-close.
Leading to the query posed here by fateh88
The PR Residency Obligation is based on days in Canada within the previous five years, or if it has been less than five years since the date of landing, then compliance is based on the total number of days in Canada so far plus number of days remaining until the fifth year anniversary.
Secondly, cutting-it-close has risks, and this is especially so for those PRs with minimal long-term or residential ties in Canada. Attempts to establish the minimum threshold of days in Canada by patching together days spent in Canada which in turn relies on counting periods of time visiting (as opposed to permanently resident in Canada), or even which appear to be visiting (appearance matters), is precarious.
Since you are at the least past the third year anniversary of the date you landed, unless and until you are permanently settled in Canada, there is a risk your compliance with the PR RO could be challenged . . . and I do mean challenged, not just questioned . . . any time you are arriving at a Canadian PoE or you apply for something like a new PR card or a PR TD.
So far this does not answer your query. There is a reason for this. And this is something which seems to be at least widely underestimated, perhaps outright misunderstood, about enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation.
Unless and until a PR is actually well-settled in a permanent home in Canada, and particularly when the PR has spent more time abroad than in Canada, there is a significant risk any inferences about whether the PR was in Canada, or outside Canada, will lean toward inferring the PR was outside Canada.
The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences.
The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences.
What does this mean in practical terms? In terms of what it might take to prove presence?
The main thing to understand is that this means most PRs have minimal problems proving compliance with the PR RO.
If CBSA or IRCC does not perceive a reason to doubt or challenge the PR's reported dates of exit and entry, then ordinarily there is an inference that the PR was in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit. The days in between are credited toward meeting the PR RO. This is particularly so if the PR has an established home in Canada and readily verifiable activity in Canada, such as regular employment with a recognizable Canadian employer entailing work at a location in Canada.
In contrast, the absence of a permanent home in Canada in conjunction with an absence of a substantial work (or school or parenting children) history in Canada, is likely to at least invite questions, and in conjunction with a pattern of absences or travel which suggests the PR is not settled and living permanently in Canada, seriously risks a negative Residency Determination unless there is strong objective proof of the days spent in Canada.
Finally: as to the proof:
Well, not yet. What constitutes "proof" is a judgment, a conclusion.
The real question is what constitutes competent, convincing evidence of presence sufficient to persuade a decision-maker (CBSA officers at a PoE; visa officers processing a PR TD application; IRRC officers otherwise conducting a Residency Determination) the number of days a PR was present in Canada.
This varies, and varies a lot. For some, minimal proof is requested. For some, the burden of proof can be a high hurdle.
Which goes back to what I already outlined:
-- The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to persuade the decision-maker.
-- The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . again, meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to present.
In other words, it cannot be overemphasized that the most important evidence consists of what might be described as the three legs of a stool: evidence of a residence in Canada, evidence of work or other regular activity in Canada, and a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada.
Take out any one of the three legs, the stool tends to tip. For any weak or missing leg the PR needs alternative objective proof to prop up the stool. Take out two legs, that demands a real balancing act to keep the stool upright, a lot of alternative evidence to prop it up. Take out all these three legs, means finding something else entirely to prop the stool up.
The three key legs of evidence/proof are worth repeating with emphasis:
-- evidence of a residence in Canada
-- evidence of a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, and
-- a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada
All three are important. Dealing with a case for which any one of these is weak leads the discussion back to dates of entry and dates of exit, and that this can lead to the PR losing the benefit of an inference the PR was in Canada between entry and exit dates. Stripped of a positive inference that the PR was in Canada between the last known date of entry, and the next known date of exit, means that these dates (dates of entry and exit) only establish that the PR was in Canada those particular days. That is it. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR entered Canada. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR exited Canada. And that leaves all the days in-between to be proven as in Canada by some other evidence, at least enough evidence in-between to, in effect, force a decision-maker to infer other in-between days were in Canada (showing attendance at a job site in Canada four or five days a week for consecutive weeks will effectively force an inference the PR was also present during days off . . . and actually, solid proof of a particular activity on a particular date here and there through the course of a month should result in an inference the PR was present throughout the month).
Thus, to prove (to persuade the decision-maker to conclude) the PR was in Canada during the days in-between last entry and next exit, the PR needs to affirmatively present objective evidence of being in Canada a number of the days in-between date of last entry and next exit, as many of those days as possible. Not every day is necessary. Proof of being involved in an activity in Canada a day here and there in between dates of entry and exit will tend to confirm the PR was in Canada during that period of time.
But this can be difficult for anyone without a job or other regular activity which can be documented. Visits to doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, and such, can often be documented and thus these activities can fill in some of the days. It may be possible to get credible persons to submit letters or such which show dates when the PR was engaged in this or that community activity, or at the least to show the PR was regularly engaged in such or such activity over certain periods of time (for example: a member of clergy affirming the PR attended religious services regularly between such and such dates).
Financial transactions can be presented but these often carry little weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence. Credit card or ATM transactions carry minimal weight.
Testimonial statements from various people can help, recognizing that letters or such from family or friends are often not given much weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence.
Much of this kind of evidence is prone to inconsistencies actually undermining the PR's case. A letter from clergy attesting to the PR's regular attendance at religious activities which overlaps a period of time the PR was abroad can hurt more than it helps. Similarly for testimonials from family or friends. Credit card transactions are not worth much unless complete statements are provided (otherwise cherry-picking is suspected), and a credit card transaction abroad during a period of time the PR declared he was in Canada, or for that matter a transaction purported in Canada on a date the PR is indicated to be abroad, will tend to either negate the weight of this evidence altogether or, perhaps, be considered negative evidence.
In one case, a PR submitted attendance records for her children's presence in a pre-school, but those records indicated the children were present during a time the PR declared she and the children were abroad. This did not result in CIC (case was prior to change to IRCC) adding more days in Canada, but resulted in negative inferences about the PR's credibility, and thus was a factor supporting a negative outcome in her case. To my view it was apparent the pre-school made a simple error and while that could be a basis for not giving the school attendance records a lot of weight, it should not have been put on the other side of the scales to support a negative outcome. But it was, and this was upheld on appeal.
Information in a LinkedIn account which suggested the PR had employment abroad that was not disclosed by the PR (in the PR's work history, which the PR must provide including any employment abroad), has been a big negative factor in more than a few cases.
Summary; the point of all this:
The PR who is cutting-it-close should recognize that to keep PR status the first priority needs to be to get into Canada as soon as possible and settle permanently in Canada. That will in turn generate the kind of proof, the evidence, which will suffice, which will work.
Any other plan is risky. Relying on proof other than a combined triad of residence, activity (preferably work), and pattern of presence consistent with permanently residing in Canada, is highly risky.
There are a score of recent IAD decisions which illustrate that at least as of 2012 CBSA began more strictly screening returning PRs upon arrival at a PoE if it appeared the PR was not yet settled and living in Canada, and this includes many who were not only still within their first five years of landing, but some who were barely beyond the three year anniversary (thus PRs with PR cards still valid for another year, even nearly two years).
It takes those of us in the public some serious lag-time before we can clearly discern some trends. Given the lengthy appeal time, many of the IAD cases being published about PR RO breaches are three and even four years old. So we are only now obtaining clear, actual accounts of PoE examinations from 2012 and 2013. This makes it difficult to discern how things go today when a cutting-it-close PR arrives at a PoE, but there is no reliable indication that the trend toward elevated scrutiny and strict enforcement has abated.
Get to Canada. Do it soon. Establish a household in Canada. Get settled. That will generate the proof needed for future travel abroad and for the PR card application when the time for that comes.
Or roll the dice and see what comes up.
Ultimately, the best proof of compliance with the PR RO is strong evidence of having a permanent residence in Canada and a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, in conjunction with a complete and accurate declaration of all travel outside Canada which is, at the least, consistent with having settled permanently in Canada.
Proof of precisely 730 days, or a little more than that, even 800 or so days, can be difficult, and perhaps it can be extremely difficult. This is because PRs invariably need the benefit of a positive inference that they were in Canada on days in-between those solidly shown to actually be in Canada.
Without the benefit of such a positive inference, proving presence can be a very steep uphill climb. There is no definitive cut-off for when or why or who. Or even any clear criteria for how severely this affects a particular PR's case.
And ultimately the problem is that the PR who is not well-settled in Canada is likely to have a lot less documented evidence of time in Canada, and also be burdened with indications of strong ties abroad.
My sense is that many, many PRs grossly underestimate the risks involved when they cut-it-close.
Leading to the query posed here by fateh88
First off, the expiration date on your PR card is NOT relevant. PR status itself does not expire.fateh88 said:
The PR Residency Obligation is based on days in Canada within the previous five years, or if it has been less than five years since the date of landing, then compliance is based on the total number of days in Canada so far plus number of days remaining until the fifth year anniversary.
Secondly, cutting-it-close has risks, and this is especially so for those PRs with minimal long-term or residential ties in Canada. Attempts to establish the minimum threshold of days in Canada by patching together days spent in Canada which in turn relies on counting periods of time visiting (as opposed to permanently resident in Canada), or even which appear to be visiting (appearance matters), is precarious.
Since you are at the least past the third year anniversary of the date you landed, unless and until you are permanently settled in Canada, there is a risk your compliance with the PR RO could be challenged . . . and I do mean challenged, not just questioned . . . any time you are arriving at a Canadian PoE or you apply for something like a new PR card or a PR TD.
So far this does not answer your query. There is a reason for this. And this is something which seems to be at least widely underestimated, perhaps outright misunderstood, about enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation.
Unless and until a PR is actually well-settled in a permanent home in Canada, and particularly when the PR has spent more time abroad than in Canada, there is a significant risk any inferences about whether the PR was in Canada, or outside Canada, will lean toward inferring the PR was outside Canada.
The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences.
The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences.
What does this mean in practical terms? In terms of what it might take to prove presence?
The main thing to understand is that this means most PRs have minimal problems proving compliance with the PR RO.
If CBSA or IRCC does not perceive a reason to doubt or challenge the PR's reported dates of exit and entry, then ordinarily there is an inference that the PR was in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit. The days in between are credited toward meeting the PR RO. This is particularly so if the PR has an established home in Canada and readily verifiable activity in Canada, such as regular employment with a recognizable Canadian employer entailing work at a location in Canada.
In contrast, the absence of a permanent home in Canada in conjunction with an absence of a substantial work (or school or parenting children) history in Canada, is likely to at least invite questions, and in conjunction with a pattern of absences or travel which suggests the PR is not settled and living permanently in Canada, seriously risks a negative Residency Determination unless there is strong objective proof of the days spent in Canada.
Finally: as to the proof:
Well, not yet. What constitutes "proof" is a judgment, a conclusion.
The real question is what constitutes competent, convincing evidence of presence sufficient to persuade a decision-maker (CBSA officers at a PoE; visa officers processing a PR TD application; IRRC officers otherwise conducting a Residency Determination) the number of days a PR was present in Canada.
This varies, and varies a lot. For some, minimal proof is requested. For some, the burden of proof can be a high hurdle.
Which goes back to what I already outlined:
-- The less settled the PR is in Canada, the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to persuade the decision-maker.
-- The more time spent abroad (less time known to be in Canada), the greater the risk of negative inferences . . . again, meaning the more objective evidence the PR may need to present.
In other words, it cannot be overemphasized that the most important evidence consists of what might be described as the three legs of a stool: evidence of a residence in Canada, evidence of work or other regular activity in Canada, and a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada.
Take out any one of the three legs, the stool tends to tip. For any weak or missing leg the PR needs alternative objective proof to prop up the stool. Take out two legs, that demands a real balancing act to keep the stool upright, a lot of alternative evidence to prop it up. Take out all these three legs, means finding something else entirely to prop the stool up.
The three key legs of evidence/proof are worth repeating with emphasis:
-- evidence of a residence in Canada
-- evidence of a history of work or other regular activity in Canada, and
-- a travel history consistent with having permanently settled in Canada
All three are important. Dealing with a case for which any one of these is weak leads the discussion back to dates of entry and dates of exit, and that this can lead to the PR losing the benefit of an inference the PR was in Canada between entry and exit dates. Stripped of a positive inference that the PR was in Canada between the last known date of entry, and the next known date of exit, means that these dates (dates of entry and exit) only establish that the PR was in Canada those particular days. That is it. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR entered Canada. One day counts toward the PR RO for the day the PR exited Canada. And that leaves all the days in-between to be proven as in Canada by some other evidence, at least enough evidence in-between to, in effect, force a decision-maker to infer other in-between days were in Canada (showing attendance at a job site in Canada four or five days a week for consecutive weeks will effectively force an inference the PR was also present during days off . . . and actually, solid proof of a particular activity on a particular date here and there through the course of a month should result in an inference the PR was present throughout the month).
Thus, to prove (to persuade the decision-maker to conclude) the PR was in Canada during the days in-between last entry and next exit, the PR needs to affirmatively present objective evidence of being in Canada a number of the days in-between date of last entry and next exit, as many of those days as possible. Not every day is necessary. Proof of being involved in an activity in Canada a day here and there in between dates of entry and exit will tend to confirm the PR was in Canada during that period of time.
But this can be difficult for anyone without a job or other regular activity which can be documented. Visits to doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, and such, can often be documented and thus these activities can fill in some of the days. It may be possible to get credible persons to submit letters or such which show dates when the PR was engaged in this or that community activity, or at the least to show the PR was regularly engaged in such or such activity over certain periods of time (for example: a member of clergy affirming the PR attended religious services regularly between such and such dates).
Financial transactions can be presented but these often carry little weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence. Credit card or ATM transactions carry minimal weight.
Testimonial statements from various people can help, recognizing that letters or such from family or friends are often not given much weight unless corroborated by other evidence of presence.
Much of this kind of evidence is prone to inconsistencies actually undermining the PR's case. A letter from clergy attesting to the PR's regular attendance at religious activities which overlaps a period of time the PR was abroad can hurt more than it helps. Similarly for testimonials from family or friends. Credit card transactions are not worth much unless complete statements are provided (otherwise cherry-picking is suspected), and a credit card transaction abroad during a period of time the PR declared he was in Canada, or for that matter a transaction purported in Canada on a date the PR is indicated to be abroad, will tend to either negate the weight of this evidence altogether or, perhaps, be considered negative evidence.
In one case, a PR submitted attendance records for her children's presence in a pre-school, but those records indicated the children were present during a time the PR declared she and the children were abroad. This did not result in CIC (case was prior to change to IRCC) adding more days in Canada, but resulted in negative inferences about the PR's credibility, and thus was a factor supporting a negative outcome in her case. To my view it was apparent the pre-school made a simple error and while that could be a basis for not giving the school attendance records a lot of weight, it should not have been put on the other side of the scales to support a negative outcome. But it was, and this was upheld on appeal.
Information in a LinkedIn account which suggested the PR had employment abroad that was not disclosed by the PR (in the PR's work history, which the PR must provide including any employment abroad), has been a big negative factor in more than a few cases.
Summary; the point of all this:
The PR who is cutting-it-close should recognize that to keep PR status the first priority needs to be to get into Canada as soon as possible and settle permanently in Canada. That will in turn generate the kind of proof, the evidence, which will suffice, which will work.
Any other plan is risky. Relying on proof other than a combined triad of residence, activity (preferably work), and pattern of presence consistent with permanently residing in Canada, is highly risky.
There are a score of recent IAD decisions which illustrate that at least as of 2012 CBSA began more strictly screening returning PRs upon arrival at a PoE if it appeared the PR was not yet settled and living in Canada, and this includes many who were not only still within their first five years of landing, but some who were barely beyond the three year anniversary (thus PRs with PR cards still valid for another year, even nearly two years).
It takes those of us in the public some serious lag-time before we can clearly discern some trends. Given the lengthy appeal time, many of the IAD cases being published about PR RO breaches are three and even four years old. So we are only now obtaining clear, actual accounts of PoE examinations from 2012 and 2013. This makes it difficult to discern how things go today when a cutting-it-close PR arrives at a PoE, but there is no reliable indication that the trend toward elevated scrutiny and strict enforcement has abated.
Get to Canada. Do it soon. Establish a household in Canada. Get settled. That will generate the proof needed for future travel abroad and for the PR card application when the time for that comes.
Or roll the dice and see what comes up.
