. . . Do you think I would face any sort of questioning at the airport or am I worrying too much ???? Should I take any proof with me to show that I was physically present in Canada for the below mentioned dates, please help.
I may have responded to this before elsewhere, including the observation that any traveler can be subjected to elevated scrutiny at a Port-of-Entry (PoE), for a wide range of possible reasons. This includes PRs who can be questioned about Residency Obligation (RO) compliance
regardless how many days they have been in or outside Canada.
Whether there will be in-depth questioning, or an inadmissibility issue, depends on numerous factors; cutting-it-close raises the risks, of course, while falling short raises the risks more.
However, when a PR is in fact in RO compliance, and there is nothing about the PR that should trigger credibility concerns, the odds are very high there will NOT be a problem at the PoE . . . even if there are some questions about RO compliance.
Until the fifth year anniversary of landing, a PR is in RO compliance as long as they have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days since landing. As of and after the fifth year anniversary, the PR is in RO compliance as long as they have not been outside Canada for more than 1095 days in the last five years.
Either way, it is easy to figure out using a PR card application, doing a rough draft using the relevant dates (which can include prospective future dates) and filing in the chart for question 5.5; as long as the chart of travel history dates is completely and accurately filled in, all trips outside Canada reported, it will automatically calculate the total number of days outside Canada, and as long that total is fewer than 1095, the PR is in RO compliance.
Being short is a different scene. How different depends on numerous factors NOT just how short. That said, how short is a big factor, and usually the biggest factor.
Leading to . . .
I have had a friend who lost his PR so I am a bit concerned but I guess he had not met his residency obligation and was not close to fulfilling it, his appeal was denied as well.
. . . he had about 276 days of shortfall even if he had stayed for the entirety of the first five year period. He was also asked whether he would remain in Canada to fulfill his RO and he stated that he had a ticket back home and would be flying back.
While I agree with the general observations by
@canuck78, in regards to lenient RO enforcement attendant PoE examinations, I am however not so sure, and suspect otherwise, about this:
Pretty unusual to get reported with a 276 day shortfall.
In particular, during a PoE examination, if it is apparent to the examining officer that the PR is 276 days short (outside Canada 276 days more than 1095, that is outside Canada 1471 days in the relevant time period), it is likely the risk is high that a 44(1) Inadmissibility Report will be prepared. Whether that then results in being issued a Removal Order will depend on many other factors, the strength of H&C considerations looming large, and in that decision-making process a PR's plans to stay or not can indeed be a big factor. And if there is an appeal, whether the PR did stay, or not, will also be a significant factor in whether the appeal, relying on H&C relief, is successful or is denied.
That said, a key tipping point is
whether the returning PR is even asked questions about RO compliance. PRs presenting a valid PR card at the PoE, and who are not obviously in breach of the RO, have good odds their application to enter Canada will be granted without a referral to Secondary and without RO compliance questioning, let alone becoming the subject of an inadmissibility report. Even if in fact they are short, and depending on the circumstances even if short by a lot . . . and well over two hundred days short is being short by a lot.
We do not know much at all statistically about who is allowed entry without a referral to Secondary. It is easy to infer, nonetheless, that PRs presenting valid PR cards are mostly waived through UNLESS there is something about the PR signaling cause to question RO compliance (I spent a lot of time in Secondary before becoming a PR, but not once the whole time I was a PR). This, being waived through without close questioning about RO compliance, is the main leniency-relief valve which allows a significant number of PRs to return to Canada without being the subject of inadmissibility proceedings despite being in breach of the RO.
For a PR who is a couple hundred days short of RO compliance, in particular, getting waived through without close RO questioning, without a referral to a Secondary immigration examination, is their best chance.
But if referred to Secondary and questioned about RO compliance, that tips the scales. Risks go up for the PR in breach, and way up for those way in breach. In particular, if referred to Secondary and questioned about RO compliance, and if it is apparent to the examining officer in Secondary that the PR is significantly short, odds are the risk is high that an inadmissibility report is prepared. After all, that is a significant part of the border officer's duties. And if that happens, whether a Removal Order is then issued will largely depend on H&C factors. At that juncture, the PR's plans, whether they are to stay or not for example, can indeed be an important factor.
Whether There Is A Secondary Referral --
Various factors can increase the risk of RO questioning beyond basic questions. (Same factors, plus some others, influence the risk of PoE officials commencing inadmissibility proceedings.)
Three key factors:
-- presentation of valid PR card (or not)
-- number of days outside Canada since last exit from Canada (length of time outside Canada since last time in Canada), or other salient indicators depending on known travel history pattern
-- number of days IN/OUTSIDE Canada in the relevant time period (since landing or, after fifth year anniversary of landing, during the preceding five years), IF ASKED (or if otherwise known by an examining official)
There seems to be a tendency to underestimate the influence of the second of these. Perhaps it is a factor largely taken for granted. Nonetheless, a PR with a valid PR card returning to Canada following a weekend spent in the U.S., or after a ten day holiday in the Caribbean, or comparable, is far less likely to be confronted about their RO compliance than a PR who was last in Canada more than two years ago, let alone one who was last in Canada more than three years ago making it readily apparent they are in RO breach.
But that is about whether the returning PR is sent to Secondary and specifically questioned about RO compliance. There are additional factors which can influence this of course, including whether the PR appears to be settled and living in Canada, and is returning home, versus the PR who appears to not have come to Canada to settle and stay yet.
BUT once in Secondary and questioned about RO compliance, for most PRs the biggest factor in whether an inadmissibility report is prepared is the third factor,
the numbers. And even though we do not have statistical data and cannot really know, for the PR who is 276 days short who is questioned about RO compliance in Secondary, the odds are NOT good, the odds are there will be an inadmissibility report, and a substantial risk that leads to a Removal Order UNLESS they have a reasonably decent H&C case.
A Key Take-Away:
RO enforcement risks are not static or linear. Just looking at border transaction outcomes alone can be misleading. In regards to the chance of sliding by despite being short by a lot (by, say, 276 days), for example, overall those presenting a valid PR card may have decent odds, and it might even be true that per the net numbers it is unusual to get "
reported," but that would be because of the percentage being waived through without RO questioning in Secondary. If, in contrast, the examining officers are aware the PR applying for entry into Canada is short by that much, it is more likely there is a high risk of inadmissibility proceedings (outcome of which will depend on H&C considerations).
