Does intent to reside ever applied or for. Now applies to Pr card renewals?
There is NO intent to reside requirement for Permanent Residents. (And NO intent to reside requirement to be qualified for a grant of citizenship.)
BUT FIRST BE AWARE: the post you quote was made well over TWO YEARS ago. The law has changed considerably since then, especially for grant citizenship but also for immigration law more generally.
More saliently, policy and practice are always evolving, always changing. Example: contrary to what I said in the above post, forum reports in the last two years appear to show many SR'd PR card applicants are eventually mailed the PR card. If IRCC still has concerns about PR Residency Obligation compliance, not so much as of when the PRC application was made but a current or ongoing concern (remembering the PR must continue to be in compliance with the PR RO), that appears to elevate the likelihood of a required in-person pick-up (and counter-interview) to obtain the new PR card. Similarly, if IRCC apprehends the PR is living abroad, not in Canada, it appears there is a increased risk the new PRC will not be mailed but will need to be picked-up in person. But forum reports in the meantime appear to indicate many SR'd PRs are mailed their new card. Eventually.
Like any and ALL other posts in a forum like this, a good deal (or even a great deal) of CAUTION should be exercised before relying on what I or anyone else posts, and the content should always be cautiously weighed in context with other information, especially official and formal sources, but also with due reference to the context for the particular post, including WHEN it was posted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In any event, again in response to what I think your query is about: there is NO intent to reside requirement for Permanent Residents.
However, IRCC does have a policy requiring applications for a new PR card to be made IN CANADA.
And, IRCC has long approached applications with elevated scrutiny when it appears the PR is abroad while the PRC application is pending. I am NOT certain what the current criteria is for referrals to Secondary Review, but in the past the fact or APPEARANCE the PR was living abroad (with obvious exceptions, such as for PRs living abroad with a Canadian citizen spouse) has been a factor triggering SR and elevated scrutiny of the PR's compliance with the Residency Obligation.
There is a tendency among more than a few to focus excess attention on the precise requirements and underestimate, if not overlook, the significance of many factors which cannot be reduced to definitive rules or precepts.
The big and perhaps most relevant example in this regard is the extent to which (it appears) scores of PRs more or less disregard the significance of the purpose for the grant of PR status, which is TO FACILITATE
PERMANENT SETTLEMENT IN CANADA.
There is NO requirement to PERMANENTLY settle and live in Canada. There is NO required intent to PERMANENTLY settle and live in Canada. BUT the interpretation and application of the rules governing PR obligations explicitly takes into consideration the purpose of the grant of PR status, which, again, is TO FACILITATE
PERMANENT SETTLEMENT IN CANADA. (Note: big clue looms large in the name: "
PERMANENT RESIDENT" status.)
Specific law about this ordinarily arises or is stated in reference to PR RO compliance cases in IAD and Federal Court decisions. This is mostly in H&C cases (in which an intent to permanently settle in Canada is overtly considered a positive factor, albeit more often its absence is what matters, negatively, in actual cases) but it is specifically articulated in decisions interpreting the provisions allowing credit toward the RO when living abroad, for those
employed-abroad-by-Canadian-employer (which is rather narrowly interpreted) and those
accompanying-Canadian-citizen-spouse (which in recent years has seen some decisions tending to narrow this credit as well).
It would be a mistake, however, to overlook the general influence of this in how IRCC approaches issues or concerns such as determining the accuracy of a PR's claims about actual presence in Canada. For example, as I have oft reminded, while PRs who are abroad more than half the time can meet the PR RO as long as their presence in Canada is 730+ days within any and every five year time period (as of the fifth year anniversary of landing), if there is any doubt at all about whether the PR was in Canada during a particular time period, the fact the PR was abroad more often than in Canada supports a REASONABLE INFERENCE the PR was possibly (or even probably) outside Canada during that time. This is NOT something you will see specifically stated in the IAD or Federal Court decisions. BUT its influence rather clearly underlies the tales of woe reported by scores of PRs who get bogged down in SR and RO compliance cases.
***Edit to add explanation for reasonableness of inference: No formal logic let alone advanced degrees in mathematics is necessary to recognize a person is more likely to have been located where he or she was usually located if the individual's actual location at a given time is in question. That is, if a person is usually OUTSIDE Canada (outside Canada more than in Canada), unless it is known where the individual was during a given time period, the REASONABLE inference is the individual was OUTSIDE Canada during that time.
