I concur in a lot of the response by david1697.
The short answer, after all, is fairly simple and straight-forward: figure out your priorities, and if maintaining PR status in Canada is your priority, be sure to comply with the PR residency obligation.
Long response:
Since there are many past reports of what amout to getting-away-with-it, that is, getting away with breaching the PR Residency Obligation, I think it is important to add that there is plenty of evidence to indicate a continuing trend toward more strict enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation. Thus, past experiences are not a reliable indicator of the risks going forward.
That said, the highest risk stages for being examined for compliance with the PR Residency Obligation are when:
-- a PR abroad applies for a PR Travel Document (such as if PR card is expired or the card is lost)
-- a PR applies for PR card replacement/renewal
-- a PR arrives at a Canadian POE without a currently valid PR card in possession
The above are in order of risk, as best I can discern.
There are other situations in which a PR may be examined for compliance with the RO, but the risk of it happening in other situations is significantly less than in the above.
It appears that ordinarily PRs arriving at a POE with a valid PR card are not challenged regarding compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.
My strong sense, however, is that within the trend toward more strict enforcement this is changing relative to PRs who have been abroad for extended periods of time, that is, for those who were last in Canada years ago.
Especially if last in Canada three years ago.
In particular, one other event which (it appears to me) can raise a significant risk of being examined for compliance with the PR residency obligation is arriving at a POE after having been abroad for an extended period of time, especially more than a year, definitely if more than three years. The longer one has been abroad, the higher the risk. My sense is that for a PR who has been abroad for more than three years, for example, being in possession of a valid PR card does not offer much insulation from a challenging border interview with the prospect of a 44(1) Report being issued, followed by a Removal Order (per section 44(2) in IRPA). After all, there is no need to compute the extent of absences in this scenario: a PR who has been abroad for more than three years is, on the face of things, in breach of the residency obligation.
Forget about trying to fudge how long you have been abroad. Misrepresentation is a serious matter. CIC and CBSA have many more and better tools today to identify when PRs are not honestly reporting absences . . . including at the POE (not just when applying for a replacement PR card).
Again, the short answer looms as the best answer: figure out your priorities, and if maintaining PR status in Canada is your priority, be sure to comply with the PR residency obligation.
Potential for leniency despite breach of PR RO:
Regarding reported instances of leniency in the past, again, foremost, I think the past is not a reliable indicator of how CBSA and CIC are now approaching enforecement of the PR RO, let alone going forward.
The leniency issue is about the extent to which CBSA or CIC identifies a technical breach of the PR RO but does not initiate a 44(1) report resulting in the issuance of a Removal Order. This is usually about PRs arriving at a POE with a valid PR card but having had extended absences.
There is little or no doubt that in the past, CBSA POE officers were often quite lenient toward PRs in possession of valid PR cards.
There appears to be, however, some participants in this forum who believe reports of this extend to even those PRs who were clearly in breach (such as someone who has been absent from Canada 3+ years) and had NO H&C argument. I doubt there have been more than a very few, isolated, credible reports of this, particularly if one is talking about the last couple years. Even if this does happen, even if on some occasions POE officers are cautioning, rather than reporting returning PRs clearly in breach of the RO, that is little assurance another POE officer on some other occasion will be so lenient.
My sense is that to the extent POE officers have been, or continue to be, lenient depends on their impression of the PR. I highly doubt they let clear breaches slide. Rather, I think, they are more or less open to explanations, or excuses, the reasons, and what leniency there is, is an exercise of discretion based on H&C grounds.
In other words, my sense is that a PR who has clearly been outside Canada more than 1095 days, who acknowledges this was a personal choice (such as the reason for this was a better job opportunity outside Canada), and otherwise has no substantial H&C argument to make, is going to be reported. And issued a Removal Order.
Additional note re past experiences: In the past it is clear that there was a lot of fudging going on. It appears there was minimal cross-checking or investigation done. It appears that in the past PRs were able to quite easily slip back into Canada despite having been absent for long periods of time. Those days are probably over. Sure, more than a few will still be able to slip through this or that crack. Many more, however, will not. Going forward, the choice really is to comply with the PR RO or lose PR status.
