Any effort to map particular outcomes to selected details is bound to be more speculative than helpful, prone to overlooking or at least underestimating the influence of many other factors. It is near impossible to quantify the RISKS . . . other than to recognize certain factors push the needle in one direction or the other . . . and even this can be rather unpredictable (for example, the impact of continuing education abroad, or even continuing employment abroad, can vary far more than many forum participants appear to recognize).
We see widely, and often wildly differing outcomes.
That said, once a PR is actually SETTLED in Canada, SETTLED in both FACT and in APPEARANCE, unless there are extended absences the risk of losing PR status generally goes down considerably . . . with the caveat that there are still many indications that Visa Office decisions regarding PR Travel Document applications still tend to pose a significantly bigger risk.
That is to say, if the PR is IN Canada, or at least at a Canadian PoE, and it is apparent the PR is SETTLED in Canada, the risks of losing status are significantly lower (recognizing, however, the impact of the extent-of-non-compliance factor) than if the PR is abroad and needs a PR Travel Document. The statutory PRESUMPTION that a PR without a valid status card does NOT have valid PR status obviously a big factor in this . . . but it also appears that Visa Office decision-makers are generally tougher, more strict.
Note the
Morena case discussed above. In the last few years we've seen more instances in which PRs with more than a year left in their first five year period have been reported at a PoE BUT it still seems very unlikely that someone in Morena's situation, a young man who has been in school abroad showing up some 650 days or so BEFORE the fifth year anniversary of his landing, would get Reported at a PoE, let alone lose the appeal (if Reported) assuming he stayed in Canada pending an appeal. The fact that the Visa Office for handling applications from someone in the Philippines denied the PR TD application, however, is not particularly surprising. In contrast consider recent forum reporting by a participant here who, as a child, spent only a short time in Canada, and then did not return to Canada until his (or her) mid-20s, largely due to continuing to attend school abroad, but still was allowed to keep PR status on H&C grounds (I believe he was able to come to Canada and stay in Canada pending the appeal).
Did I say something about how the outcomes can differ
WILDLY?
But this brings up the last point I was referencing in my long posts yesterday, about
INTANGIBLES. The biggest intangible is the PR's credibility. But at least this intangible is generally tied to readily recognized factors. Another looming intangible, which can have a rather significant impact, is the extent to which the PR *
DESERVES* to keep PR status. Good luck getting a firm grip on concrete details which factor into how a total stranger bureaucrat will perceive the extent to which a particular PR "deserves" to keep PR status. Sure, there are some more or less obvious factors, including the more commonly recognized positive H&C factors, which in turn includes existing ties in Canada, extent of non-compliance, reasons for the absence, and what the PR's intentions are perceived to be . . . the first and last of these heavily influenced by the extent to which the PR is already SETTLED in Canada.
The latter is why I so often repeat the admonition that among all the factors, the extent to which the PR is in fact SETTLED in Canada, and APPEARS to be so-settled in Canada, is among the most influential. Make no mistake, the difference between actually being present at least 730 days during the relevant five years (not absent for more than 1095 days, with a day or so possible leeway for leap years), and falling short, is by far the critical difference.
BUT nonetheless there are OTHER POTENTIAL FACTORS which can and will influence the decision-maker's perception of the PR's credibility, and perception of what the PR deserves.
I do not know, for example, that there were some additional factors at play in the
Morena case, but I am rather suspicious there were.
Consider another Removal Order case in which a Removal Order was issued more than six months prior to the PR's fifth year anniversary of landing. (Note, this is NOT one of the nearly NINE hundred IAD decisions quoting the language which is the basis for getting credit for days remaining until the fifth year anniversary.) See Dakar 2014 CanLII 99916 (CA IRB),
http://canlii.ca/t/gpgmq She was just 80 days short of meeting the RO. The IAD described it this way: "
This is not a major breach."
It is NOT definitively clear whether this includes or does not include credit for the 198 or so days between the date of the Removal Order and the fifth year anniversary of her landing, but given references to actual periods in Canada coming nowhere near close to the 650 days credit she was given (never "settled" in Canada and longest stay was 149 days), my impression is that this included credit for the remaining 198 or so days. Moreover, she did not contest the legal validity of the Removal Order, whereas if that calculation did not include days which Section 28(2)(b)(i) credits, that would have made a rather compelling case that the Removal Order was not valid in law (perhaps this was overlooked by both sides but that is NOT likely . . . it is not as if Section 28(2)(b)(i) is at all obscure, but rather, as I have noted, that particular language shows up in nearly NINE HUNDRED IAD decisions).
In reading the decision, however, it is clear that the IAD was mostly referencing enough numbers to justify its conclusions BUT THE REAL FOCUS, and impetus for the outcome, was the PR's participation in a scheme to deceive CIC about the extent of her absences. Which, it warrants observing, had been exposed and investigated and apparently resolved YEARS earlier, during the first two years of her PR. No misrepresentation case pursued beyond her being interviewed (she actually returned to Canada to attend the interview). But it is rather likely her record was flagged, and nearly three years later upon arrival at a PoE she was tagged and examined and reported for not complying with the RO.
So yes, indeed, she lost her PR status for failing to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. Based on the numbers. BUT how and why that came about has a backstory that goes well beyond just the numbers. She had both a credibility problem and a
does-not-deserve to keep status problem.
There were additional negative factors . . . which is rather common in many of the cases going against the PR: most do not tend to be close-call cases. One can easily wonder, for example, what made that individual think there was the slightest chance in the appeal, in more than a few of the cases which go against the PR. Which should not be taken to dismiss the risks in close call cases.
LONG WAY AROUND TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, SAY, 729 DAYS AND 732 DAYS:
Or 754 days.
Early on I think I mentioned something about having a certified government ankle-bracelet monitoring the PR's location, or IRCC finding a magic crystal ball. IRCC does not use either. No plans to do so either. More than a few discussions about THE NUMBERS fail to recognize that the numbers, for any given PR, are not carved in stone. If there is any concern about precisely how many days a PR was IN Canada, the dates of entry and exit are NOT enough to prove presence in-between a known date of entry and next known or reported date of exit.
So let's be clear: if the extent of actual presence is in question, which way are the scales likely to lean when it is known the PR spent more than a THOUSAND days abroad in the past five years?
Cutting-it-close has risks. Once a PR has entered those waters, it is a matter of navigating the hazards.
For golf enthusiasts, its like the tee-shot has gone well awry of the fairway, deep into the rough with looming cottonwoods blocking any shot toward the green. That usually means time to do a "
lay-up." Time to
play-it-safe (as best one can in the circumstances).
NO, the difference between CLAIMING 733 days and 753 days is not what will usually make anywhere near as much difference as a wide range of other factors . . . with the degree of settlement in Canada looming large, and a good credibility impression likewise.
That said, if at best the PR can claim 729 or fewer days. That is a breach. No way around it. A PoE official is, perhaps, quite likely to casually waive such a small breach, but make no mistake that is rooted in H&C discretion . . . which the PR best appear to DESERVE.
