The OP query, and subsequent variations of it, have been amply answered. However, there is an aspect of the above discussion which once again warrants an emphatic reminder that there are few
one-rule-fits-all answers.
In particular, there is a relatively small, tangential aspect of the discussion here which is misleading, but to my view nonetheless important.
However, to avoid confusion, it is worth emphasizing the accuracy of responses relative to the primary focus here, which is that the PR Residency Obligation is not
self-executing, meaning that there is no legal consequence for breaching the obligation unless the PR is reported or otherwise subject to a Residency Determination
while actually in breach of the PR RO. Moreover, it is not at all "illegal" to breach or otherwise fail to comply with the PR RO.
In other words, past breaches of the PR RO are of no consequence; once a PR has been present in Canada long enough to
currently be in compliance with the PR RO (with no 44(1) Report having been issued), any past breach is fully
cured.
In particular, the following accurately respond to the essential issue posed here:
Rob_TO said:
. . . You don't automatically lose PR status by not meeting the 2 in 5 years in Canada rule. If you can enter Canada without being reported by CBSA, then after waiting here 2 years without leaving you will be back in compliance with the residency obligation and can apply for renewal of your PR card.
Rob_TO said:
During the 2 years staying in Canada while not in compliance with the RO, one is warned to not try to exit/re-enter Canada again, or apply for anything with CIC. If CIC learns of the RO while in violation of it, then can begin proceedings to revoke your PR. CIC does not do random checks on this so if CBSA doesn't report you, then you will be able to stay. Once you reach the 2 years here, you are completely in the clear and no possibility after that for CIC to revoke status.
Leon said:
. . . if somebody enters Canada while not meeting the RO and they don't get reported, they can legally stay in Canada, remain a PR and meet the RO again by staying for 2 years.
You can find this here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ under Overseas Processing, OP 10 – Permanent Residency Status Determination (PDF, 650.30 KB), Page 12:
All the above is both accurate and important.
BUT . . .
. . . a quibble of sorts; mere "semantics" some may counter, but . . .
It is
not accurate to say or suggest that either CBSA or IRCC do
NOT check back more than 5 years. They can. They sometimes do.
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
This much is correct:
Rob_TO said:
No you are completely wrong and not understanding.
Referring to the post by
davidT321
davidT321 said:
But they also will see the date when applicant became PR + report from Canada Border Agency with entry/exit to/from Canada.Question of elementary mathematics
Also ,at later stages, let's say 2,3 or 5 years,for some reason,?pplicant can be verified in details, from his first arrival in Canada to this day and be deported !
So it's necessary to open ? clamp,yes he can enter/live in CA and renew his old PR card ,but his stay in Canada
is illegal !
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
However, to my view, the actual and far more important
error in the post by
davidT321 is the assertion that once a PR has been outside Canada more than three years, the PR's stay in Canada is illegal and could result in being reported, even deportation . . . including many years later. That is indeed, as
Rob_TO posted, "completely wrong."
As noted, it is not illegal for a PR to breach the PR RO, or to stay in Canada after breaching the PR RO. There are no consequences for breaching the PR RO unless there is a formal Residency Determination resulting in either being reported for inadmissibility (a 44(1) Report) or the denial of an application for a PR Travel Document. And any such Residency Determination must be based on
counting presence versus absences during the five years preceding the relevant date, and only during those five years.
BUT davidT321 is not wrong in stating: "they also will see [previous absences]."
They can. Sometimes they will.
How far back the CBSA travel history (ICES report) goes for a given individual probably varies, due more to historical practices in record gathering, and vagaries in how well earlier technologies captured and stored the data.
Make no mistake, however, they can see more than five years back and they often will look beyond the previous five years.
Is there a substantive, practical difference between what CBSA/IRCC will "see," or "look" at, or "check," or "consider?" Or is the term employed merely a matter of semantics?
There is
NO reason to look back more than five years for purposes of
calculating compliance with the PR RO. Which is to say, for purposes of
counting days present or absent, whether the PR was absent or in Canada during a time period back more than five years is
NOT relevant.
But there are at least two related reasons why an officer might actually
consider information, including travel history, going back more than five years:
-- information relevant to assessment of credibility
-- information relevant to concerns about misrepresentation or fraud
We do not really know the nature or extent to which a PR's overall history is examined, including looking back more than five years. It almost certainly varies from individual to individual depending on that individual's particular situation, circumstances, and history, and includes the nature of the officer's concerns and thus just how probing the officer's inquiries are in that specific case. But again, make no mistake, they ("they" being officers in CBSA or IRCC) can see more than five years back and sometimes they will look beyond the previous five years.
While it is in the context of a citizenship application, there is actually a fairly recent decision by the Federal Court which does a good job explaining the validity and relevancy of examining events and circumstances
outside the relevant
residency time period. See http://canlii.ca/t/gpq1w (Ali Tahsin Ozlenir)
In this decision, Justice Annis distinguishes between the consideration of information outside the relevant time period in assessing the credibility of the applicant, the applicant's documentation, or other evidence, versus what is considered in "
counting" the days of residency. Only the latter, the
counting part, is excluded relative to consideration of information older than the application's residency time period.
Back in 2011, at the time of Justice Russell's decision in the Raad case, see http://canlii.ca/t/fkgp2 (Raad), which Justice Annis distinguishes, I struggled to explain this distinction and addressed it in depth (much more so in another forum). But I am no lawyer, let alone judge, and it was painfully apparent my clumsy use of language failed to adequately explain how events (including travel history) outside the time period relevant to the calculation of residency could nonetheless still be relevant and considered by the decision-maker assessing residency or presence. So it is refreshing, and to my view helpful, to see this better explanation of the distinction by Justice Annis. (See paragraphs 30 to 35 in particular.)
How important is it that "they" can and sometimes do check back more than the relevant residency time period?
For the vast majority, this distinction is of little or no import. For the vast majority there are no credibility concerns, let alone suspicions of misrepresentation. But this forum is populated by many whose situation is outside the mainstream, whose circumstances involve some incongruity, anomaly, or complicated history. And indeed, any PR who has many years of extended absences in the past is a candidate for elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing. Even among these PRs, for most there is nothing about their history which should be problematic, so long as they have credible evidence to document their presence in Canada within the preceding five years, to show presence sufficient to comply with the PR RO.
But for some, it can be important to recognize that CBSA and IRCC can, and sometimes will check back beyond the preceding five years.
See, for example, the discussion following the OP in a topic titled "hardness and cruelty of some CIC offciers" in the Citizenship conference here:
alaabebe said:
We have applied to renew our permanent residences and it took the CIC almost two years from early 2012 till early 2014 to bring me for intensive interview , had request and I had supplied all supporting
documentation to prove our residence , finally we got a positive determination of our residence obligation .
. . .
[then regarding citizenship application . . . received letter . . . notice for hearing and two days later . . .] we received a personal registered mail with a letter signed by her .....her assessment is refusal of their citizenship application
While what happened in that OP's situation is not that clear, it appears the issue was misrepresentation of fact as to events which were probably
prior to the time period relevant in the citizenship residency calculation.
There are scores of other examples.
Which leads to the matter of who gets referred for secondary review during the processing of a PR card replacement application.
More or less obvious candidates for being questioned about the actual amount of time in Canada are, of course, at higher risk for secondary review. Anyone who applies for a new card declaring 741 days present in Canada in the preceding five years should anticipate a significant risk of being referred to secondary review, and especially so if they in turn leave Canada for an extended period of time while the application for the card is pending. Perhaps similarly for someone declaring 841 days (that is, someone who has spent most of his or her time outside Canada, not in Canada), albeit somewhat lower risk.
But it appears that standard residency determinations are typically handled by the local office. Secondary review, in contrast, suggests that IRCC is probing more than the calculation of days.
For example . . .
Notice from CIC/IRCC that PR card renewal needs secondary review:
"More complex PR card applications, such as those linked to large scale residency investigations, are referred to local CIC offices for investigation and residency determination or to the PRCC Sydney Client Service Unit for a second-level review."
(Quoted from "background" in
OB 536 (this should link), emphasis added.)
Similarly, in the context of processing citizenship applications, the last version of the triage criteria divulged to the public still listed "use of a suspect residential address" first among the
risk indicators.
There is little doubt, use of a
suspect residential address still triggers elevated scrutiny: RQ for citizenship applicants; secondary review for PR card applicants.
But what is a
suspect address? Or, what makes an address suspect?
And what sort of
link to a "large scale residency investigation" is there that drags a PR card applicant into secondary review?
Obviously this is a tangent in this topic. What is relevant to the discussions above, however, is that the answer to these questions, about what constitutes a suspect address, is
NOT limited to current address, nor addresses for the last five years.
Here is a clue, as to just one example: any PR who has ever used (in an application to CIC/IRCC) an address provided by a consultant (other than legitimate mailing addresses provided by an
authorized representative who was properly
disclosed in the application), even if that was more than five years ago, are at risk for being investigated. Perhaps most or even nearly all who fall into this group have already been subject to elevated scrutiny of some sort or another. My sense, however, is that for many there has been no backwards scrutiny in this regard
as yet, but when they next make an application, be that for a new PR card, PR TD, or for citizenship, that is when IRCC might identify an old address in their records as "suspect," triggering secondary review for PR card applications, or RQ for citizenship applications. My guess is that in the last several years IRCC has developed and implemented software, comparable to web crawler software but specifically engineered to search their databases, to identify and cross-reference addresses, telephone numbers, and employers.
This has
NO impact on the vast majority. The rest show up in the forums, surprised if not alarmed by having been referred to secondary review.
The point being, to be clear, it is not as if what happened more than five years ago disappears entirely and will no longer ever be checked or looked at again. In these times, we continue to carry far more of our history than people did in previous decades. Our digital baggage is massive, and we drag it around for . . . at the least a long, long time (there are provisions for many records gathered and stored by CBSA and IRCC to be removed or destroyed after specified time periods).
So yeah, some are compelled to be looking over their shoulder for a long time, and looking back a lot longer than just the most recent five years.
