Buffer over minimum RO:
But perhaps there is too much conservatism about . . . having 'buffers' over the minimum required.
In regards to PR card applications and compliance with the Residency Obligation, I agree there tends to be too much attention given in the forum to "
having 'buffers' over the minimum required." To my view even 40 or 60 days may not make a whole lot of difference. In particular, as I have often commented here, other factors loom much larger, especially the extent to which it is readily indicated that the PR has made Canada their primary or permanent home. (Yeah, I know, I bang away about this repetitively; but there's good cause for it.) There are other related factors also having more influence than a buffer of 30 or 50 days (let alone just 10 or so), including the PR's address and work history, and pattern of absences.
While it is nearly impossible to precisely map correlations between particular factors and risk probabilities beyond broad generalizations, it seems safe to apprehend that an additional buffer of 30 to 50 days is
not likely to change the risks much for a PR whose address and work history, and pattern of absences, indicate they are just visiting Canada at the time they make a PR card application; this is just one example among many.
It warrants noting with some emphasis that IRCC does not employ a strict approach to enforcing the RO, at least not as to PRs who are IN Canada and even more so those who appear have made the move to live in Canada long-term (in effect, in practical terms, permanently, in a sense comparable to how we commonly refer to our "
permanent address" even though future moves are likely). There is a reason why there are no IAD cases about PRs who were just ten or twenty days short, and only rarely cases involving a PR in breach by two or three months (and as best I recall, without revisiting the research, most of these, if not all, are probably appeals from denied PR TD applications, so about PRs outside Canada rather than PRs in Canada).
[
Note, however, it is absolutely the opposite in regards to having a good buffer over the minimum physical presence requirement to qualify for a grant of citizenship. The forum consensus for citizenship applications tends to be a buffer in the week to ten day range, with some suggesting even this is unnecessary; seems I am the lone advocate for the prudence of waiting to have a least a month buffer. Context is that even one day short means being denied.]
While, again in regards to RO compliance, I have generally
not been among those suggesting a buffer, I have nonetheless been one to caution about the risks attendant
cutting-it-close. This is about recognizing different kinds of
*risks*, such as the difference between what increases the risk of non-routine processing and delays, versus risks in regards to negative outcomes, especially situations which might risk triggering inadmissibility proceedings resulting in loss of status. I have long been trying to illuminate that the extent to which
cutting-it-close increases the risk of non-routine processing is almost certainly tied to other risk factors, and here again the extent to which the PR appears well-settled in Canada looms large. Applying during a visit to Canada (which would ordinarily be readily apparent in address and work history, and pattern of absences), in conjunction with
cutting-it-close, is obviously a formula elevating the risk of non-routine processing.
Absent serious credibility issues, there is virtually no risk of triggering inadmissibility proceedings if the PR is in Canada and in RO compliance based on days physically IN Canada when they make the PR card application, and they do not leave Canada for a length of time that results in a breach of the RO. (It is more complicated for PRs relying on exceptions for RO credit). To be clear, this means the total number of days calculated as outside Canada is fewer than 1095, as completely and accurately detailed in the travel history chart for reporting time spent outside Canada, in question 5.5 in the PR card application.
Leading to the title of this topic versus what it is actually about . . .
. . . at the risk of a weedy dive into nuances and being so
picky-picky, nit-picky, many if not most are sure to groan if not complain outloud . . .
PR Card Application Before Meeting RO versus Before Spending 730 Days In Canada (but meeting the RO):
But perhaps there is too much conservatism about applying before 730 days total reached . . .
The title of this topic is "
PR Card Renewal Before Meeting RO: My Experience"
The subject here, in contrast, as
@armoured framed it, is "
about applying before 730 days" have been spent in Canada. Despite the title given this thread by the OP,
@LilyH, they too say as much in their first sentence: "
Just wanted to share my experience applying to renew my PR card before meeting 730 days in Canada, but on track to do so by my 5 year anniversary." On track to meet the RO by the fifth year anniversary means the PR is meeting the RO.
Let's be clear: the main distinction is that
this is NOT about applying before meeting the RO, but rather about an application made by a PR who is meeting the RO. In this scenario, in question 5.5 in the PR card application, the application form will show a total number of days outside Canada fewer than 1095, and in the form itself it states: "
If your total time spent outside Canada is less than 1095 days, you appear to meet the residency obligation." (This most likely refers to you "
appear" to meet the RO, in this context, rather than a more definitive conclusion, because it is based on what the PR is self-reporting without being cross-checked or verified.)
That's the main key: Meeting the RO. If after completely and accurately filling in the chart in question 5.5, time spent outside Canada, the total number of days is fewer than 1095, the PR is in RO compliance and the odds are good the application is problem-free absent any risk indicator factors (like appearing to be in Canada visiting rather than settled and living in Canada, or apparent inconsistencies between work and address history, or work and travel history, and so on). IRCC has made this very easy since it implemented the June 2022 version of the application (noting however that even the most current version still has problems).
Which leads to looking at both sides of the coin: On one side of the coin, the OP's experience is consistent with these observations. With no known risk indicators, meeting the RO (that is, not outside Canada more than 1095 days as calculated in the application) is enough to facilitate smooth sailing for at least SOME applications. On the other side of the coin, it appears that applying before spending 730 days in Canada does not, not in itself, trigger non-routine processing.
This is good to know. To have it more or less confirmed (as well as isolated anecdotal reporting can).
Beyond that, some rain on the parade (extending this to other PRs)
:
Let's take hold of an umbrella first, but then put it away for a bit. While far from certain, this experience indicates that applying before spending 730 days in Canada in itself does not mean the PR card application is considered to be medium complex, let alone high complex. In particular, given the timeline, this appears to have been an online application approved by automated decision-making, and thus was triaged low complex. This deserves further attention, but that is part of the larger picture unfolding in recent anecdotal reports about online applications, with numerous additional reports just within the last few weeks about these fast processing and mailing timelines. This is the real good news. Except it is only for those PRs with low complex cases, and we have almost no idea what differentiates the medium from the low complex case, other than the experience reported here tends to indicate, again, that applying before spending 730 days in Canada in itself (by itself) does not mean the PR card application is considered to be medium complex. (In contrast, there are some obvious factors which likely render the application high complex, any GCMS alerts, indications the PR was not actually in Canada when making the application, obvious inconsistencies in the applicant's information, especially as to address and work history, and travel history, and so on). To be further explored . . .
Meanwhile, the rain . . . I still concur in the general consensus here to WAIT until the PR has been physically present in Canada long enough to meet the RO based on at least 730 days of actual presence. I have quite often observed, it is OK to apply BEFORE spending at least 730 days in Canada as long as the PR (1) is meeting the RO, and (2) will continue to meet the RO. As the OP has reported in their experience. BUT I nonetheless still concur in the forum consensus, for the same reasons I have discussed many times, which mostly come down to what is more or less for-sure SAFE. It can be tricky anticipating some of the risk indicators. Wait to be SAFE.
