PR renewal returned - "Dated more than 90 days ago" but shows received on day 85

[martinmd]

Hi everyone,

I need some advice. I think IRCC made a mistake (for the 2nd time with my application!) and I don't know what to do next.

I received my PR renewal application back today with a letter from IRCC that my application is not complete because it is "dated more than 90 days before being received by IRCC" and that now I need to updated my absences, re-sign and re-date the application. However, the received date stamp on it shows July 30th and the date I signed it was May 6th (only 85 days!). This is the second time I received my application back from IRCC, the first being when they sent it back because on the page where you fill out the total days absent from Canada, I filled out the entire page and the "total" box was pushed to the next page. So my application was returned back to me in July as "incomplete" and I was asked to complete my application as they didn't know how many days total I was from Canada (if only they turned the page over....). So I fixed that (I think) and I made sure to send them the application back ASAP, hence why it arrived back to IRCC on day 85 after the signature date, and yet now IRCC returned it to me again stating that the application was received after 90 days.

Please, I don't know what to do now. Should I contact them somehow and point out their mistake? Should I consult a lawyer? Any advice at all would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

 

[armoured]

Please, I don't know what to do now. Should I contact them somehow and point out their mistake? Should I consult a lawyer? Any advice at all would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Sounds like a colossal waste of time and money.

Update the forms to today, sign it - dated today - and resubmit.

 

[Ponga]

Hi everyone,

I need some advice. I think IRCC made a mistake (for the 2nd time with my application!) and I don't know what to do next.

I received my PR renewal application back today with a letter from IRCC that my application is not complete because it is "dated more than 90 days before being received by IRCC" and that now I need to updated my absences, re-sign and re-date the application. However, the received date stamp on it shows July 30th and the date I signed it was May 6th (only 85 days!). This is the second time I received my application back from IRCC, the first being when they sent it back because on the page where you fill out the total days absent from Canada, I filled out the entire page and the "total" box was pushed to the next page. So my application was returned back to me in July as "incomplete" and I was asked to complete my application as they didn't know how many days total I was from Canada (if only they turned the page over....). So I fixed that (I think) and I made sure to send them the application back ASAP, hence why it arrived back to IRCC on day 85 after the signature date, and yet now IRCC returned it to me again stating that the application was received after 90 days.

Please, I don't know what to do now. Should I contact them somehow and point out their mistake? Should I consult a lawyer? Any advice at all would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Send a webform and hope they realize their mistake:
https://secure.cic.gc.ca/enquiries-renseignements/canada-case-cas-eng.aspx?

 

[dpenabill]

I received my PR renewal application back today with a letter from IRCC that my application is not complete because it is "dated more than 90 days before being received by IRCC" and that now I need to updated my absences, re-sign and re-date the application. However . . .

I don't know what to do now. Should I contact them somehow and point out their mistake? Should I consult a lawyer?

@armoured nailed it, specifically, succinctly:

Update the forms to today, sign it - dated today - and resubmit.

That's it. "Update the forms to today, sign it - dated today - and resubmit."

No more needs to be said.

Well, no more needs to be said other than emphasizing that it is best to sign and date IRCC application forms just before sending them, information current to then. And better to submit forms printed single-sided.

But I will offer some further comments . . . broader picture, some context.

Some further observations:

How IRCC would respond to two-sided printing of forms has not occurred to me before (just assumed single-sided to be the norm for government forms), but perusing the forum and other discussion venues (a little research helps put things in context) it is clear that many, probably most, caution against two-sided printing, even if it is OK. Makes sense. Risk-avoidance, or at least minimizing risks, makes sense. Submitting forms with one-sided printing makes sense.

What does not make sense is resubmitting the same form, not updating the information, especially the time outside Canada and travel history information, and the signature date. After all, the calculation of days credit toward Residency Obligation compliance that matters most is based on days in Canada during the last five years as of today (always today) . . . so a week from now, say September 14, 2023, the calculation that matters most will be based on the five years ending September 14, 2023. And so on. Regardless what date the PR card application was signed.

That is, while the calculation based on date the application is signed matters, ongoing RO compliance matters more.

Technically whether a PR is "eligible" to be issued a PR card depends on a RO compliance calculation based on the five year period ending the date the PR card application is signed. But the calculation that matters more is whether the PR is in RO compliance any day and every day. Generally IRCC will not mail a new PR card to a PR who is inadmissible for failing to comply with the RO, even if technically the PR was eligible for a new card when the application was made.


Contesting IRCC's Action; Challenging the "Mistake:"

Here too, @armoured offered a direct and succinct response:

Sounds like a colossal waste of time and money.

And here too, not much more needs to be said but I will offer a contextual observation:

What is your remedy? After all, at best, the remedy is compelling IRCC to process the PR card application. Faster (probably much, much faster) to submit a new PR card application (I believe they will credit the fees paid) then contesting IRCC's failure to process the returned application. And, again, what matters more now is whether or not you continue to be in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, so the more recent (new application) provides a better accounting of relevant information (and for a qualified PR, thus a better chance of avoiding delays due to non-routine processing).

That is, there really is nothing to be gained by challenging IRCC about this.

By-the-Way:

Processing timeline for resubmitted PR card applications will depend on date of arrival and then the date application is opened. IRCC's approach to first-in, first-served is really just first-in, first-opened. So a resubmitted application is in the same queue as an altogether new application: when it is opened and processed will depend on its place in the queue of arriving applications. So resubmitting an application has no timeline advantage, none at all, over the submission of a newly completed application.