low said:
Just couple of hours because he was in the USA for meeting...came back to canada and left on the same day. Would that be considered 1 day? Or, should it be left out from the list of absences?
Every trip should be accurately reported. Nothing short of that.
As far as I can discern, every day for which any part of the calendar day was spent in Canada counts as a day in Canada. What I more confidently understand is that a day started in Canada counts even though the PR exits Canada that day, and a day ending in Canada counts even though the PR entered Canada that day.
However, if such days make the difference between a calculation barely meeting the minimum 730 days and one falling short of 730 days, the probability of elevated scrutiny and an extended processing time is high, and moreover, depending on other factors and circumstances, there may be a substantial risk a stranger bureaucrat at IRCC will be skeptical about the accounting and conclude the PR has
failed to prove compliance. If this happens, the impact could depend on whether the PR is settled in Canada and has mostly remained in Canada while the PR card application was in process.
Thus, beyond the mechanics of calculating days, a CAUTION is warranted:
Cutting it close can be risky.
How many days the PR was in Canada is only part of the equation. If subject to elevated scrutiny, the standard that counts, that really matters, is how many days the PR actually proves (to the satisfaction of a stranger bureaucrat at IRCC) he or she was in Canada.
It is not what you know. It is what you can prove.
Or, to be more precise, if subject to a formal Residency Determination, it is
what is what you actually prove. (Thus, for example, does no good
after a negative decision, to shout
"oh wait, I got proof." By then it is too late. Subject to possibly introducing additional evidence at an appeal to the IAD.)
Overall, for the PR who is well-settled and remaining in Canada after applying for the card, cutting it close mostly risks some elevated scrutiny and delay in obtaining a new PR card. For the PR who continues to spend extended periods of time abroad, particularly one working or otherwise living abroad, cutting it close risks a negative outcome and, depending on the particulars, potentially the loss of PR status.
The (longer) explanation:
I interpret this particular day to be about a day trip to Canada, from the U.S.
Again, report every cross-border trip and go ahead and count every day for which any part of the calendar day was spent in Canada. But if days like this matter, if counting these days is necessary to meet the minimum, that is
not a good sign. Actually, that (with some exceptions, such as for the PR otherwise clearly well-settled in Canada and continuing to live and stay in Canada), is more likely to be a
bad sign.
And even otherwise, if five days here, and two days there, or even a few weeks here and there, matter much, that too is not a good sign (with similar exceptions).
As already suggested, 730 days within the previous five years is the
absolute minimum and a significant margin above that is highly recommended.
Again, how many days the PR was in Canada is only part of the equation. The standard that counts, that matters, is how many days the PR actually proves (to the satisfaction of a stranger bureaucrat at IRCC) he or she was in Canada.
It is often overlooked that the PR Residency Obligation is not intended to facilitate living abroad. As numerous IAD panels and Federal Court Justices have oft reiterated, in
officially interpreting the intent and proper application of the PR RO, the obligation is specifically intended to be flexible enough to accommodate
exceptional circumstances, so that PRs who encounter unusual (but nonetheless somewhat common) situations compelling spending an extended period of time abroad do not have to worry about the vagaries of discretion in applying an indefinite standard. It is
NOT intended to accommodate those whose lifestyles or choices do not constitute becoming
in fact permanent residents in Canada.
Elevated scrutiny and potential delays, and perhaps a more or less skeptical approach to assessing the applicant's case, await the PR who applies for a new card and who is not
both:
-- clearly settled in Canada
and
-- clearly has more than the mere minimum of presence required
Not just settled in Canada. Not just at least the minimum amount of presence.
But both and each CLEARLY so.
Protestations that this is not fair, based on the proposition that meeting the minimum technical requirements should be sufficient, miss the point. The PR who sufficiently proves the minimum requirements have been met will not lose PR status and,
eventually, will be issued a new card. What constitutes sufficient proof, however, can be problematic. In particular, proving where one was each and every day can be a rather difficult hurdle, and the more short of
clearly having settled in Canada and clearly having met the minimum requirements the more skeptical IRCC is wont to be, the more IRCC will lean toward inferring a day of absence for any days not definitively documented to have been spent in Canada.
It is worth remembering, after all, that the most reasonable inference about where a person was on any given day, absent clear proof that on that particular day the person was in Canada, is that the person was where that person otherwise was most of the time. Thus, for any PR who was in Canada less than 900 days within the preceding five years (preceding 1825 days), the
reasonable inference is that the PR was outside Canada unless the PR has convincingly documented being in Canada. To what extent this factors into IRCC's assessment is more about other, additional factors and circumstances, but the more obvious and significant factors are the extent to which it appears the PR is settled permanently in Canada, and secondly the extent to which there is objective documentation to show time in Canada (documentation showing regular employment working at a location in Canada, for a recognizable employer, not a small business run by family or friend for example, is perhaps the best such evidence).
