In addition to and apart from the astute observations by
@zardoz as to a more or less precise calculation, which should be taken seriously, REMEMBER that CBSA and IRCC do not have a crystal ball, there is no precise database of an individual PR's presence that CBSA or IRCC will entirely rely upon.
The burden of proving presence is always on the PR. This is a real burden.
The discussion here warrants a reminder about the risks associated with cutting-it-close.
In particular, playing a cutting-it-close game so close that a few days makes the difference is so risky as to be foolish if keeping PR status is a priority for the PR.
To be clear: cutting-it-this-close, as close as you are contemplating, can be especially risky.
The risk is about more than the precise calculation for meeting the MINIMUM amount of presence necessary to comply with PR obligations.
There are real risks apart from and in addition to the risk of potential emergencies or compelling personal circumstances, apart from situations compelling going abroad again. That is, there are risks even if in actual fact the PR is present enough days to meet the PR RO since what really can matter, if IRCC has concerns, is
PROVING that amount of presence.
The extent of risk can depend on how clearly it appears the PR has fully settled and is permanently living in Canada. Make no mistake, however, this is about appearances. Appearances matter. Especially for a PR who is
cutting-it-close. Sure, the actual facts matter too, a lot. And there is a strong correlation between the actual facts and appearances.
But unless and until a PR who has been abroad for years has come to Canada and settled in Canada for years, until then the appearance tends to be the PR has NOT settled in Canada permanently.
SUMMARY: Unless and until a PR has been living and otherwise settled in Canada permanently, for the PR
cutting-it-close there are serious risks apart from, and over and above, the precise calculation. A two week margin, let alone merely a few days margin, MIGHT
NOT be good enough if IRCC has concerns and is skeptical about the PR's compliance. Reminder: PRs with as much as 900 days presence, near continuous presence for nearly two and a half years (and occasionally more), have an elevated risk of Secondary Review when they apply for a new PR card.
Further Caution: this is about the risk of a negative PR RO determination, the risk of losing PR status. Additionally, the PR
cutting-it-close faces the risk of less severe but nonetheless oft times problematic issues. Like a PR card application being referred to SR and taking a year, a year during which the PR has NO PR card, making travel abroad more risky . . . to return to Canada during that year the PR card is in process the PR will need to either obtain a PR Travel Document or travel via the U.S. and cross the border using private transportation, and while abroad is subject to the statutory presumption that the PR does NOT have valid PR status (see
Section 31.(2)(b) (should link) IRPA).
This forum is rife with tales of woe, more than occasional wailing and gnashing of teeth, among those who were
cutting-it-close, and fell short, one way or another.
Longer explanation:
For a PR who has been outside Canada for nearly three years, it will take nearly THREE YEARS presence in Canada before the PR has been in Canada as much as the PR has been abroad. Thus, for nearly three years after coming to Canada and settling in Canada and STAYING in Canada, and then ONLY TO THE EXTENT THIS IS PROVEN, any time the PR is subject to an examination as to compliance with the PR RO, for any day the PR does not affirmatively prove actual presence in Canada it would be REASONABLE for CBSA or IRCC (during a PoE examination, for example, or a PR card application or PR TD application) to INFER THE PR WAS OUTSIDE CANADA, since that is where the PR was most of the time.
That is, for any day which it is not certain the PR was in Canada, a fact-finder can reasonably infer the PR was likely where the PR was most of the time during the preceding five years or so. And thus, if the PR was abroad more than in Canada, it would be reasonable for CBSA or IRCC to infer the PR was NOT in Canada unless the PR has affirmatively proved presence for any particular day.
For example, the PR reports being present in Canada 15 Aug 2015 until 31st Aug 2015, and the records and documentation do indeed verify the PR entered Canada 15 Aug 2015 and departed Canada 31 Aug 2015. That proves the PR was in Canada TWO DAYS regarding which it would be unreasonable to conclude presence for any less than FOUR days (since it is highly unlikely the PR left before the next day after arriving, and highly likely the PR was in Canada at least the day before the exit).
What about August 17 through August 29, back in 2015. What proves the PR was in Canada those days? Remember, again, the burden of proving presence those days is on the PR. If IRCC can reasonably infer the POSSIBILITY the PR was not in Canada any of those days, that means the PR has the burden of affirmatively proving presence those days.
For example, can you prove you did not spend a week or ten days in the U.S. during that period of time, back in 2015?
CBSA and IRCC do NOT ordinarily approach most PRs that skeptically. BUT in many circumstances it may be reasonable to do so. And for a PR
cutting-it-close and particularly one cutting-it-so-close as you are contemplating, it would not take much to tip the scales toward more skepticism.
There seems to be a pervasive sense that PRs can rely on CBSA and IRCC counting all days between a reported date-of-entry and the next reported date-of-exit. Sure, that is a typical
INFERENCE. That inference goes like this: so long as there is no indication the PR exited Canada in-between a reported date-of-entry and the next reported date-of-exit, the PR was in fact in Canada between those dates.
IRCC does not rely on this inference alone EVEN for PRs who are well settled in Canada and who have been mostly living and staying in Canada. In a PR card or PR TD application, for example, IRCC requires the PR to include corroborating (supporting) information, including address and work history, and IRCC will often compare the PR's information to information in other sources, ranging from government sources like CBSA travel history records, to open source information such as considering any information a PR appears to have shared on the Internet (LinkedIn appears to be frequently probed for information about PRs).
It is worth remembering that IRCC's inquiries in this regard are not focused much on what will show the PR's presence BUT rather it is mostly focused on looking for indications of inconsistencies, discrepancies, omissions, or other types of error or misrepresentation. This means any MISTAKE by the PR can trigger IRCC to be more skeptical about the PR's accounting of information, especially the PR's accounting of travel dates, and the latter especially so if there are any inconsistencies or discrepancies tending to indicate the
POSSIBILITY the PR was abroad some day the PR reported being present in Canada.
One discrepancy which pops up in more than a few of the officially published IAD decisions, in actual cases, is the PR's reference to job experience in LinkedIn which is NOT reflected in the PR's work history.
The more common discrepancy identified by IRCC is a mistake in the travel history. One or two minor errors, like being off by a day or two, NO big deal. Even a somewhat short omission, like a week or even three, will NOT ordinarily cause IRCC to go into a severely skeptical approach (but of course the PR needs a margin over the minimum to accommodate any such discrepancy). But of course any mistake, even if small, can nudge IRCC toward greater skepticism if there are other reasons to be skeptical.
Like
cutting-it-so-close as to appear NOT really settling in Canada permanently. Add to that some little mistakes, like reporting a date-of-exit based on a passport stamp showing entry into another country on that date, when it is quite likely the exit from Canada was at least a day or more earlier. Again, the latter is ordinarily NO big deal, even though the inaccuracy does show the PR cannot be relied upon to be entirely accurate, but in conjunction with other things tending to raise questions or concerns, and especially in the case of a PR who has been outside Canada more than in Canada (thus appearing to not be fully settled and living in Canada permanently), the scales may tip.
I have barely scratched the surface of little things which can add up to IRCC taking a more severe approach to assessing the PR's declarations of presence. In conjunction with
cutting-it-close, the risks can increase dramatically. To some extent, perhaps a large extent, once it is readily clear the PR has indeed fully settled in Canada, is living in Canada permanently, IRCC tends to NOT be so strict . . . in which circumstances
cutting-it-close is NOT so risky. BUT until and unless it is clear the PR is fully settled in Canada, is living in Canada permanently,
cutting-it-close is risky and
cutting-it-this-close, as close as you are contemplating, can be especially risky.
