PRC Renewal After Appeal Decision

[Earth2Mars]

hello

I have a one year PR card produced while my appeal case was processing.
I won my appeal.

Should I submit for a new PR card even if I don’t have 2 years out of 5?
Can I apply and attach the court decision ?

 

[Earth2Mars]

Up

 

[dpenabill]

hello

I have a one year PR card produced while my appeal case was processing.
I won my appeal.

Should I submit for a new PR card even if I don’t have 2 years out of 5?
Can I apply and attach the court decision ?

If you have a lawyer who has been representing you in the appeal, the lawyer is a better source of information and advice.

The Minister is of course a party to the appeal, so the outcome of the appeal is a matter of record in your immigration files now. Will not hurt to reference and include a copy if and when you engage in another transaction with IRCC or, for that matter, with CBSA. But IRCC agents or officials should readily see the outcome anytime they access your records relative to any application made.



WHO MADE THE DECISION -- FEDERAL COURT or IAD?

Here and elsewhere you refer to the appeal being before a "COURT," in contrast, say, to the IAD (Immigration Appeal Division). This may make a BIG DIFFERENCE.

A "win" in the Federal Court, in the case of an appeal regarding the PR Residency Obligation, usually means the case is sent back to be reconsidered by another IAD panel. Thus it does NOT necessarily mean there is a final decision the PR gets to keep PR status.

In contrast, winning the appeal at the IAD usually means the PR gets to keep status (unless the Minister appeals to the Federal Court). The favourable IAD decision means the original decision is set aside and, importantly, any time in Canada since then gets to count toward ongoing PR Residency Obligation compliance.

Very few RO cases actually make it to the Federal Court. There is no right of appeal to the Federal Court (just a right to seek leave for judicial review).

In contrast many such cases are decided by the IAD, since a PR has a right of appeal for almost any RO decision made by either the IRCC or CBSA (subject to some exceptions, like no right of appeal if PR status terminated by cessation of refugee status).

I do not know, not any more than what your posts indicate, but my guess is you won an appeal before the IAD . . . if it was indeed a decision by a Federal Court, my guess is you have a competent lawyer who should explain what the decision means.

Leading to another *it depends* factor:



WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL OUTCOME ITSELF?

The actual disposition of the appeal can matter, such as whether it is decided the original adjudication was not valid in law or it was decided there were sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep PR status.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, a conclusive decision allowing the PR to keep status based on H&C reasons is actually better than winning the appeal on legal grounds. The H&C decision basically restarts the clock (not conclusively, but close).

Setting aside the original adjudication for legal reasons, that is because it is determined the PR actually was in compliance, in contrast, will not restart the clock . . . the PR's continuing compliance with the RO depends on being present in Canada at least 730 days within the preceding five years.

That is, if there is a final decision (which again would ordinarily be made by the IAD rather than a "court") based on H&C reasons, it should be OK to apply for a new PR card soon. In contrast, if the decision was based on actually complying with the RO, that means your ongoing obligation will continue to depend on having been in Canada at least 730 days within the previous five years as of any day . . . such as the day you make a PR card application or any day after that.


YEAH, I TOOK THE LONG WAY AROUND TO SAYING "It Depends!" But it almost always does depend on a number of factors, so just saying "it depends" tends to come across like no answer at all.

Again, if you have a lawyer who has represented or helped you in the appeal, the lawyer is a far, far better source of information and advice than what you can get here.

 

[Earth2Mars]

Thank you for the response. I appreciate this answer.

I was reported by IRCC (applied for PRTD outside of Canada). I submitted my appeal under H&C (with the IAD) and made my way into Canada and the CBSA, obviously, were aware of my return and my appeal record.
I applied for a PR card and received a 1-year card in Nov 2018.

I won and received my decision under H&C on April 1st, 2019 that I have not lost my PR status, the original decision is set aside.
So far I have received nothing from the minister, IAD, or any other party. I understand as per the IRB rules, I have to receive the documents on the minister's appeal "no later than 30 days after the Immigration Division decision was made" (IAD Rule #11). Given this rule, I consider that the decision by the IAD is complied with.
Would you agree?


If that is the case, that I am a PR of Canada with, I have two questions (which again are subject to It Depends answer, I am aware)

1- I would like to have my 5-year PR Card, my current will expire in less than 5 months
How does my appeal decision affect my PR Card application given that I have 1.1 years presence so far?

2- I understand that the 1.1 year presence is counted toward the number of days for RO purposes, is it not?


I am just worried that renewing the card might consider me not compliant with RO.

Thank you!

If you have a lawyer who has been representing you in the appeal, the lawyer is a better source of information and advice.

The Minister is of course a party to the appeal, so the outcome of the appeal is a matter of record in your immigration files now. Will not hurt to reference and include a copy if and when you engage in another transaction with IRCC or, for that matter, with CBSA. But IRCC agents or officials should readily see the outcome anytime they access your records relative to any application made.



WHO MADE THE DECISION -- FEDERAL COURT or IAD?

Here and elsewhere you refer to the appeal being before a "COURT," in contrast, say, to the IAD (Immigration Appeal Division). This may make a BIG DIFFERENCE.

A "win" in the Federal Court, in the case of an appeal regarding the PR Residency Obligation, usually means the case is sent back to be reconsidered by another IAD panel. Thus it does NOT necessarily mean there is a final decision the PR gets to keep PR status.

In contrast, winning the appeal at the IAD usually means the PR gets to keep status (unless the Minister appeals to the Federal Court). The favourable IAD decision means the original decision is set aside and, importantly, any time in Canada since then gets to count toward ongoing PR Residency Obligation compliance.

Very few RO cases actually make it to the Federal Court. There is no right of appeal to the Federal Court (just a right to seek leave for judicial review).

In contrast many such cases are decided by the IAD, since a PR has a right of appeal for almost any RO decision made by either the IRCC or CBSA (subject to some exceptions, like no right of appeal if PR status terminated by cessation of refugee status).

I do not know, not any more than what your posts indicate, but my guess is you won an appeal before the IAD . . . if it was indeed a decision by a Federal Court, my guess is you have a competent lawyer who should explain what the decision means.

Leading to another *it depends* factor:



WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL OUTCOME ITSELF?

The actual disposition of the appeal can matter, such as whether it is decided the original adjudication was not valid in law or it was decided there were sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep PR status.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, a conclusive decision allowing the PR to keep status based on H&C reasons is actually better than winning the appeal on legal grounds. The H&C decision basically restarts the clock (not conclusively, but close).

Setting aside the original adjudication for legal reasons, that is because it is determined the PR actually was in compliance, in contrast, will not restart the clock . . . the PR's continuing compliance with the RO depends on being present in Canada at least 730 days within the preceding five years.

That is, if there is a final decision (which again would ordinarily be made by the IAD rather than a "court") based on H&C reasons, it should be OK to apply for a new PR card soon. In contrast, if the decision was based on actually complying with the RO, that means your ongoing obligation will continue to depend on having been in Canada at least 730 days within the previous five years as of any day . . . such as the day you make a PR card application or any day after that.


YEAH, I TOOK THE LONG WAY AROUND TO SAYING "It Depends!" But it almost always does depend on a number of factors, so just saying "it depends" tends to come across like no answer at all.

Again, if you have a lawyer who has represented or helped you in the appeal, the lawyer is a far, far better source of information and advice than what you can get here.

 

[k.h.p.]

Is your judgment online? Do you the text of the actual decision rendered by the IAD? You've said that the decision was that the original decision was "set aside" but there is sometimes a second half of that sentence - "and the application is to be reconsidered by another officer" or something else. That helps inform the "depends" scenarios that @dpenabill discusses above.

 

[Earth2Mars]

Oh sorry. I should have mentioned that I received the letter (Reasons and Decision) from the IAD stating the decision. It reads:

Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed. The decision of the officer made outside of Canada is set aside. The IAD finds the appellant has not lost his PR status.

and signed.

Is your judgment online? Do you the text of the actual decision rendered by the IAD? You've said that the decision was that the original decision was "set aside" but there is sometimes a second half of that sentence - "and the application is to be reconsidered by another officer" or something else. That helps inform the "depends" scenarios that @dpenabill discusses above.

 

[Earth2Mars]

I found this from ENF 27 - Permanent resident Card
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf27-eng.pdf

8.2 under Exception: One-year validity

In practice, this means that all PR cards are issued for a validity of five years except where an applicant is described in paragraphs R54(2)(a) to (d) above. Where a PR card is valid for one year, pending finalization of any report, admissibility hearing, Minister's delegate review or appeal, the client has the option of applying for a new PR card whenever they are no longer in the enforcement stream, e.g., an appeal has been allowed.


Does that mean I can just apply (attach the decision letter)?

 

[k.h.p.]

Did you have a lawyer represent you? I would check with them to be certain.

My read on that decision is that you can re-apply for a PR card. However, don't trust me - I'm not a lawyer or consultant.

 

[canuck78]

Genuinely curious on what grounds you were either granted PR (or new appeal since still somewhat unclear) given that you spent 1 month in Canada as a 9 year old in 1998 and you returned at age 27. That is the information I gathered from your previous posts.

 

[Earth2Mars]

H&C grounds

Genuinely curious on what grounds you were either granted PR (or new appeal since still somewhat unclear) given that you spent 1 month in Canada as a 9 year old in 1998 and you returned at age 27. That is the information I gathered from your previous posts.

 

[Earth2Mars]

I know I answered simply H&C.
It worked out thankfully and I am being a member of the community.
There are other aspects of the H&C, witnesses, and documents involved, of course.

H&C grounds

 

[dpenabill]

I was reported by IRCC (applied for PRTD outside of Canada). I submitted my appeal under H&C (with the IAD) and made my way into Canada and the CBSA, obviously, were aware of my return and my appeal record.
I applied for a PR card and received a 1-year card in Nov 2018.

I won and received my decision under H&C on April 1st, 2019 that I have not lost my PR status, the original decision is set aside.
So far I have received nothing from the minister, IAD, or any other party. I understand as per the IRB rules, I have to receive the documents on the minister's appeal "no later than 30 days after the Immigration Division decision was made" (IAD Rule #11). Given this rule, I consider that the decision by the IAD is complied with.
Would you agree?


If that is the case, that I am a PR of Canada with, I have two questions (which again are subject to It Depends answer, I am aware)

1- I would like to have my 5-year PR Card, my current will expire in less than 5 months
How does my appeal decision affect my PR Card application given that I have 1.1 years presence so far?

2- I understand that the 1.1 year presence is counted toward the number of days for RO purposes, is it not?


I am just worried that renewing the card might consider me not compliant with RO.

With a reminder that I am NOT an expert and NOT qualified to offer personal advice . . .

Short answer: this appears to be an IAD decision setting aside a Visa Office (IRCC) decision denying a PR Travel Document and that this decision was based on H&C grounds.

Thus, assuming this is the case (again, that is what it appears to be), it should be safe to make a PR card application soon (probably not necessary to include copy of IAD decision but it would not hurt).

In particular --

-- days you have been in Canada since the PR TD was denied do indeed now COUNT toward any future evaluation of your compliance with the Residency Obligation . . . falling out of the calculation when they are five years past.
-- an H&C decision effectively equals being in full compliance as of the date of the decision, so it should be safe to apply for and obtain a new full five year PR card now

-- -- however, the latter is NOT an altogether free pass; remember, the RO is an ongoing obligation so each new day involves, to some extent, different circumstances; it is NOT likely there will be any issue at all with this UNLESS you go abroad in the near future and either stay abroad for a significant period of time OR you are no longer maintaining a primary residence in Canada
-- -- in particular, the main risk would arise if you applied for another PR Travel Document from abroad (this H&C decision should still result in it being granted, UNLESS the Visa Office determines a sufficient change in circumstances to reach a contrary outcome)​

CAVEAT: maybe wait a month or so still before making a new PR card application.

I do not know WHEN you actually received notice of the decision. More importantly, I do NOT know when the Minister received notice of the decision. Without revisiting the governing statutory provisions, my recall (which is a bit rusty about this in particular) is that the Minister probably has a fair amount of time (at least thirty days, maybe more, plus mailing time from date of getting NOTICE of the decision) to decide whether or not to pursue an appeal to the Federal Court. You probably do NOT want to make a PR card application until the time within which the Minister might seek review in the Federal Court has conclusively passed.



OTHER OBSERVATIONS:

Do you the text of the actual decision rendered by the IAD? You've said that the decision was that the original decision was "set aside" but there is sometimes a second half of that sentence - "and the application is to be reconsidered by another officer" or something else.

For clarification:

The IAD decision in these cases will NOT (not ordinarily anyway) result in a referral for reconsideration by another officer. The IAD hears and decides these cases essentially de novo, meaning the IAD hears the evidence and arguments (including any additional evidence, which can include evidence of events occurring after the decision denying the PR TD denial, including for example evidence of presence and establishment in Canada while the appeal has been pending), and makes its own, final decision . . . subject to the possibility of judicial review by the Federal Court (as sought and obtained by either the PR or the Minister).

In contrast, a Federal Court decision setting aside an IAD decision (in RO cases) will ordinarily result (with rare exceptions) in the matter being referred to another IAD panel for reconsideration. (Exceptions would probably be where the facts give rise to issuing a Writ of Mandamus to IRCC, which is rather unusual.)

I was reported by IRCC (applied for PRTD outside of Canada) . . .

Just to be clear . . . it appears you made a PR TD application and it was denied, and that is what you appealed. This is not being "reported by IRCC." The Visa Office decision to deny the PR TD application was a formal decision terminating your PR status, SUBJECT to the right of appeal.

Being "reported by IRCC" for a breach of the PR Residency Obligation is perhaps the least common way PRs face loss of PR status for non-compliance with the RO.

The most common procedural path is either (1) being denied a PR TD (which apparently was your path), or (2) being reported by CBSA at a PoE upon arrival in Canada.

IRCC can and sometimes will "report" PRs for RO non-compliance, but this will generally arise if a PR applies for a new PR card and is examined by a local office and determined to be in breach . . . or if a PR engages in some other transaction with IRCC, like applying to sponsor a family member, and it is apparent the PR is NOT in compliance, so there is an examination by a local office and the PR is determined to be in breach.

 

[Earth2Mars]

Well, the rule is for The Minister to appeal the decision within 30 days which means for me to receive the notice. I haven't received anything.

Decision date: April 1, 2019
I received it by mail on: April 4, 2019

so it's been over a month now. I would assume with 100% certainty that I am all clear.

however, the latter is NOT an altogether free pass; remember, the RO is an ongoing obligation so each new day involves, to some extent, different circumstances; it is NOT likely there will be any issue at all with this UNLESS you go abroad in the near future and either stay abroad for a significant period of time OR you are no longer maintaining a primary residence in Canada

I am residing in Canada and I have no plans to travel abroad. So applying now (two months after the positive decision) would show my continuous presence.
I have an establishment in Canada (School, work, community), I don't think they are concerned with the degree of establishment in terms of property, work..etc.

-- -- in particular, the main risk would arise if you applied for another PR Travel Document from abroad (this H&C decision should still result in it being granted, UNLESS the Visa Office determines a sufficient change in circumstances to reach a contrary outcome)

So, if I apply, the officer might act as the IAD and think I am not in an H&C situation and reverse it to lose the PR status?

With a reminder that I am NOT an expert and NOT qualified to offer personal advice . . .

Short answer: this appears to be an IAD decision setting aside a Visa Office (IRCC) decision denying a PR Travel Document and that this decision was based on H&C grounds.

Thus, assuming this is the case (again, that is what it appears to be), it should be safe to make a PR card application soon (probably not necessary to include copy of IAD decision but it would not hurt).

In particular --

-- days you have been in Canada since the PR TD was denied do indeed now COUNT toward any future evaluation of your compliance with the Residency Obligation . . . falling out of the calculation when they are five years past.
-- an H&C decision effectively equals being in full compliance as of the date of the decision, so it should be safe to apply for and obtain a new full five year PR card now

-- -- however, the latter is NOT an altogether free pass; remember, the RO is an ongoing obligation so each new day involves, to some extent, different circumstances; it is NOT likely there will be any issue at all with this UNLESS you go abroad in the near future and either stay abroad for a significant period of time OR you are no longer maintaining a primary residence in Canada
-- -- in particular, the main risk would arise if you applied for another PR Travel Document from abroad (this H&C decision should still result in it being granted, UNLESS the Visa Office determines a sufficient change in circumstances to reach a contrary outcome)​

CAVEAT: maybe wait a month or so still before making a new PR card application.

I do not know WHEN you actually received notice of the decision. More importantly, I do NOT know when the Minister received notice of the decision. Without revisiting the governing statutory provisions, my recall (which is a bit rusty about this in particular) is that the Minister probably has a fair amount of time (at least thirty days, maybe more, plus mailing time from date of getting NOTICE of the decision) to decide whether or not to pursue an appeal to the Federal Court. You probably do NOT want to make a PR card application until the time within which the Minister might seek review in the Federal Court has conclusively passed.



OTHER OBSERVATIONS:



For clarification:

The IAD decision in these cases will NOT (not ordinarily anyway) result in a referral for reconsideration by another officer. The IAD hears and decides these cases essentially de novo, meaning the IAD hears the evidence and arguments (including any additional evidence, which can include evidence of events occurring after the decision denying the PR TD denial, including for example evidence of presence and establishment in Canada while the appeal has been pending), and makes its own, final decision . . . subject to the possibility of judicial review by the Federal Court (as sought and obtained by either the PR or the Minister).

In contrast, a Federal Court decision setting aside an IAD decision (in RO cases) will ordinarily result (with rare exceptions) in the matter being referred to another IAD panel for reconsideration. (Exceptions would probably be where the facts give rise to issuing a Writ of Mandamus to IRCC, which is rather unusual.)




Just to be clear . . . it appears you made a PR TD application and it was denied, and that is what you appealed. This is not being "reported by IRCC." The Visa Office decision to deny the PR TD application was a formal decision terminating your PR status, SUBJECT to the right of appeal.

Being "reported by IRCC" for a breach of the PR Residency Obligation is perhaps the least common way PRs face loss of PR status for non-compliance with the RO.

The most common procedural path is either (1) being denied a PR TD (which apparently was your path), or (2) being reported by CBSA at a PoE upon arrival in Canada.

IRCC can and sometimes will "report" PRs for RO non-compliance, but this will generally arise if a PR applies for a new PR card and is examined by a local office and determined to be in breach . . . or if a PR engages in some other transaction with IRCC, like applying to sponsor a family member, and it is apparent the PR is NOT in compliance, so there is an examination by a local office and the PR is determined to be in breach.

 

[dpenabill]

-- -- in particular, the main risk would arise if you applied for another PR Travel Document from abroad (this H&C decision should still result in it being granted, UNLESS the Visa Office determines a sufficient change in circumstances to reach a contrary outcome)

So, if I apply, the officer might act as the IAD and think I am not in an H&C situation and reverse it to lose the PR status?

The IAD decision is a formal and official decision that there were, as of the date of that decision, sufficient H&C reasons to allow you to keep PR status. Once the time for seeking judicial review of that decision has passed, a subsequent examination cannot change that decision or its effect.

Thus, as of April 1, 2019 you are considered to be in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

And absent a change in circumstances, this is more or less binding for any subsequent examination. But it is not absolutely binding.

What that means is not altogether clear; it is NOT fully illuminated in official IAD or Federal Court decisions.

This is not, after all, something that arises often. The few cases I can recall, in which there was a favourable H&C decision and within the next year or so there was another examination, the later one resulting in a negative decision, involved PRs who went abroad for relatively significant periods of time, and as best I can recall the explanation for upholding the denial of the PR TD application is rooted in the nature and extent of the PR's absence from Canada AFTER the earlier, favourable decision.

Best I can describe, as to what I can discern of it, is that the H&C decision does NOT, as I previously said, give the PR a totally free pass to not remain settled in Canada. Generally the PR is OK. Even to travel abroad. But an extended absence or circumstances indicating the PR is residing abroad could be considered a material change in circumstances which could support a different outcome in a subsequent examination. Except for the obviously egregious examples, like a PR who goes abroad to live and does not return to Canada for a year or more, in which event a PoE examination might be triggered upon return . . . except for that rather obvious example, it is mostly a potential issue if the PR needs to make a PR TD application . . . remember, overall, in the overseas Visa Offices there tends to be a more strict approach to evaluating RO compliance and assessing H&C reasons (to in effect waive a RO breach).

As should be obvious: since RO compliance is an ongoing matter, the relevant facts change every new day. Every day there is a new five year time frame for calculating compliance.

Thus, a PR TD application six months after a favourable H&C decision is technically based on a completely different five year time frame. If the PR is settled in Canada and has been absent from Canada only brief periods of time since the favourable H&C decision, that should NOT constitute anywhere near a sufficiently negative Change-in-Circumstances to warrant a different H&C decision. But, for example, if the PR has been abroad much or most of this time, and especially if it appears the PR is NOT settled in Canada, depending on other factors that could be interpreted to constitute a sufficiently negative change-in-circumstances to potentially trigger a negative decision.

I do NOT intend to cause unnecessary worry. If, as you say you are, if you are settled in Canada now and mostly staying in Canada now, there is very little risk. If you do not leave Canada for many more months, there is virtually NO risk. The main point in noting this caveat, the risk of a later examination resulting in a different outcome, is to be clear that the favourable H&C decision is not a free pass to go abroad to live with a plan to return much later.

If the H&C decision was absolutely binding, for example, it might be thought that the PR could technically go abroad for up to nearly three years before returning to Canada.

I realize I am fumbling the words here, some. The distinction is NOT an easy one to illuminate. I suspect IRCC does NOT want to establish hard-and-fast parameters, but prefers to exercise some discretion . . . so that those PRs that officers discern to be settling in Canada permanently, or otherwise to be worthy of leniency, get to keep status . . . and those discerned to be gaming-the-system or otherwise not actually settling in Canada are not given a free pass to abuse the system.

 

[Earth2Mars]

What I underatand is the officer has no authority to override the decision as long as circumstances are not changed

The officer can not have an opinion over the IAD's decision. Right?

Of course given that my circumstances are the exact same and even better, having resided more period and show more integration in the community.

The IAD decision is a formal and official decision that there were, as of the date of that decision, sufficient H&C reasons to allow you to keep PR status. Once the time for seeking judicial review of that decision has passed, a subsequent examination cannot change that decision or its effect.

Thus, as of April 1, 2019 you are considered to be in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

And absent a change in circumstances, this is more or less binding for any subsequent examination. But it is not absolutely binding.

What that means is not altogether clear; it is NOT fully illuminated in official IAD or Federal Court decisions.

This is not, after all, something that arises often. The few cases I can recall, in which there was a favourable H&C decision and within the next year or so there was another examination, the later one resulting in a negative decision, involved PRs who went abroad for relatively significant periods of time, and as best I can recall the explanation for upholding the denial of the PR TD application is rooted in the nature and extent of the PR's absence from Canada AFTER the earlier, favourable decision.

Best I can describe, as to what I can discern of it, is that the H&C decision does NOT, as I previously said, give the PR a totally free pass to not remain settled in Canada. Generally the PR is OK. Even to travel abroad. But an extended absence or circumstances indicating the PR is residing abroad could be considered a material change in circumstances which could support a different outcome in a subsequent examination. Except for the obviously egregious examples, like a PR who goes abroad to live and does not return to Canada for a year or more, in which event a PoE examination might be triggered upon return . . . except for that rather obvious example, it is mostly a potential issue if the PR needs to make a PR TD application . . . remember, overall, in the overseas Visa Offices there tends to be a more strict approach to evaluating RO compliance and assessing H&C reasons (to in effect waive a RO breach).

As should be obvious: since RO compliance is an ongoing matter, the relevant facts change every new day. Every day there is a new five year time frame for calculating compliance.

Thus, a PR TD application six months after a favourable H&C decision is technically based on a completely different five year time frame. If the PR is settled in Canada and has been absent from Canada only brief periods of time since the favourable H&C decision, that should NOT constitute anywhere near a sufficiently negative Change-in-Circumstances to warrant a different H&C decision. But, for example, if the PR has been abroad much or most of this time, and especially if it appears the PR is NOT settled in Canada, depending on other factors that could be interpreted to constitute a sufficiently negative change-in-circumstances to potentially trigger a negative decision.

I do NOT intend to cause unnecessary worry. If, as you say you are, if you are settled in Canada now and mostly staying in Canada now, there is very little risk. If you do not leave Canada for many more months, there is virtually NO risk. The main point in noting this caveat, the risk of a later examination resulting in a different outcome, is to be clear that the favourable H&C decision is not a free pass to go abroad to live with a plan to return much later.

If the H&C decision was absolutely binding, for example, it might be thought that the PR could technically go abroad for up to nearly three years before returning to Canada.

I realize I am fumbling the words here, some. The distinction is NOT an easy one to illuminate. I suspect IRCC does NOT want to establish hard-and-fast parameters, but prefers to exercise some discretion . . . so that those PRs that officers discern to be settling in Canada permanently, or otherwise to be worthy of leniency, get to keep status . . . and those discerned to be gaming-the-system or otherwise not actually settling in Canada are not given a free pass to abuse the system.