mmab50 said:
dpenabill, naheulbeuck and Leon - I have a similar situation: As of this writing I have completed 600 days in Canada, I have entered Canada on 27 March 2012 on Immigration and lived 27 days and went back, AND in 2013 I lived 182 days, 2014 one month and 10 months in 2015 and around 3 months in 2016. My PR is valid till end of May 2017. Currently I am in Canada to complete residency requirement but due to a family emergency (wife's prolong sickness) I want to travel back home and come back in Apr/May 2017 either direct to Canadian airport or via US border by private car. Can I take a chance now or wait till Mar 2017 and submit application for PR card renewal and travel. Your expert advice will be highly appreciated. Thanks
I am
NOT an expert. I am
not qualified to give personal advice.
I can and will offer some in-depth observations.
The short answer, however, is relatively simple: As long as the PR is in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation,
AND, of course, can PROVE it, absences from Canada should not cause the PR to lose status.
The PR who is in breach of the PR RO, however, is at risk for losing PR status.
The more obvious it is that the PR is in compliance, the less risk there is of difficulty convincing CBSA (at a PoE) or IRCC (in an application for a PR Travel Document or an application for a new PR card) of being in compliance.
Moreover, the more apparent it is that the PR is settled permanently in Canada, or at least making a concerted effort to settle in Canada, the easier it tends to go, and indeed, the better odds the PR has of being treated leniently even if somewhat in breach of the PR RO.
On the contrary, however, the more the PR
cuts-it-close, or the less it appears the PR is actually settling in Canada permanently, the greater the risk of elevated scrutiny and skepticism, and the less likely either CBSA or IRCC will be lenient.
The longer explanation; more in-depth observations:
Regarding PoE examination
Regarding the PoE examination for a PR cutting PR RO compliance close or a PR who is in breach of PR RO, but still carrying a valid PR card:
It
appears that PRs with a valid PR card who have come and gone, who are maintaining a residence in Canada, and whose more recent absences are not especially lengthy, tend to either not be subjected to an examination regarding compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, or to be treated more leniently, upon their arrival at a PoE. This makes sense. This makes sense for various reasons, but two are particularly salient:
-- it is not obvious or, perhaps, even readily apparent that there may be an issue with PR RO compliance (in contrast, the longer the more recent absences, the more apparent it is that there may be a PR RO compliance issue)
-- in general, such a PR appears to have substantial, continuing residential ties in Canada, and is thus more likely to appear to be a PR who deserves to retain PR status
Reminder regarding "PR is valid . . . until xx"
Most references to date that "PR is valid" are really, and appropriately, about how long the
PR CARD is valid. PR status itself has no expiration date.
The other side of this coin, remember, is that a PR can be reported and lose PR status even if the PR card is valid.
Date the PR card is valid is
NOT relevant when assessing compliance with the PR RO.
A valid PR card, however, does get the PR on a plane to return to Canada, which can be a big deal.
Most indicators suggest that IRCC more strictly enforces the PR RO if there is a PR Travel Document application than CBSA does when examining a returning PR at a PoE, so having a valid PR card and being able to board a flight to Canada, can make the difference in a close case.
Moreover, presenting a valid PR card at the PoE probably helps; failing to present a valid PR card, or otherwise having an expired PR card, is more likely to invite a PR RO examination at the PoE.
Cutting-it-close; barely complying with PR RO:
Reaching the 730 days in Canada threshold does not press a magic button.
In particular, PRs who are abroad more than they are in Canada obviously face an increased risk of not just being examined more thoroughly, but
more skeptically. For what should be obvious reasons:
-- there is the prospect of a reasonable inference as to location outside Canada
-- there is the appearance the individual may not be settling down permanently in Canada, which is not consistent with the purpose of being granted PR status
Regarding inference as to being outside Canada:
If there is any concern or question about where someone was located during a particular period of time, the
reasonable inference is they were in the place they are known to have been most of the time. Thus, for the PR who has been abroad more than in Canada during the preceding five years (less than 900 days in Canada), the government may
reasonably infer the PR was outside Canada for any period of time the PR does not affirmatively prove actual presence in Canada.
Similarly, for a PR who is abroad working or living after applying for a new PR card, IRCC might infer the PR was outside Canada for any period of time the PR does not affirmatively prove actual presence in Canada.
Reminder: dates of entry and exit are not proof of presence in Canada in-between those dates. Generally, yes, most PRs benefit from an
inference the PR remained in Canada between the last date of entry and the next date of exit. But in the absence of affirmative proof as to presence in between those dates, that is just an inference. The PR who has been in Canada less than 900 days, or indeed the PR who otherwise does not appear to be permanently settled in Canada, is at high risk for not getting the benefit of this inference, but on the contrary is at risk for the opposite inference, an inference the PR was outside Canada any time not definitively documented as time present in Canada.
Regarding the appearance an individual may not be settling down permanently in Canada
Similar to how many PRs fail to recognize the potentially negative impact of
cutting-it-close, many PRs similarly fail to recognize the potential negative impact if it appears the PR is not settling down permanently in Canada.
Sure, the PR who has spent at least 730 days in Canada, out of the preceding 1825 days, is
technically in compliance with the PR RO. But the burden of proving this is on the PR. And, as already noted, the PR who spends a considerable amount of time abroad may find that actually proving presence in Canada can be difficult.
The purpose of being granted PR status is to facilitate or allow a person to
settle permanently in Canada.
Not settling permanently in Canada is, simply,
NOT consistent with the purpose of being given PR status.
It is baffling to me how many PRs under-estimate, if not utterly ignore, the importance of this. Obviously, the government is going to approach and deal more skeptically, more strictly, with those who are not acting consistent with the purpose for which they were granted PR.
It seems that many PRs put far too much reliance on the fact that Canadian immigration policy no longer imposes an intent requirement to retain PR status, and thus, PR status cannot be taken away on the basis that the PR has failed to act consistently with the purpose of PR.
Just because the government cannot terminate PR status on grounds the PR has not settled permanently in Canada, does not mean the government will overlook, will not take into account, what appears to be exploitation of the Canadian immigration system.
Credibility always looms large. Always. And of course the PR who has not settled permanently in Canada appears to be exploiting the system, and that can be a huge factor in how thorough and skeptical IRCC approaches such a PR.
An editorial observation:
This forum is rife with whining about how abusive the bureaucratic process can be, much of that coming from individuals whose history suggests little or no effort to fulfill the purpose of being granted PR status, and who appear to feel entitled to demand the benefits of PR status even if it appears they have not, in turn, met their part of the bargain, which is to settle permanently in Canada.
This forum is also rife with reports of the opposite: many PRs who have encountered difficulties in settling in Canada, but who by the time they reach the end of their five year anniversary of landing, are at the least making a concerted effort to settle down permanently in Canada. And,
DUH!, yes, IRCC tends to be more flexible and lenient, even generous toward these PRs.
Of course IRCC and CBSA are not perfect. They let more than a few of the undeserving slide through all too easily, and sometimes are overly aggressive and tough on some who deserve to be treated better. Stuff happens.
But this is not rocket science. No advanced degrees in astrophysics are necessary to figure this stuff out. Indeed, no special expertise in Canadian immigration law or policy is necessary to recognize the obvious.
The obvious is that, generally, both IRCC and CBSA will be more friendly and lenient in how they approach those who are making a genuine effort to permanently settle in Canada, than how they will deal with those PRs who appear to just be trying to extend their PR status but not settle permanently in Canada.
