Some Context; Further Observations . . . apart from the OP's situation . . .
At the risk of repeating what I have posted before, the requirement to be IN Canada when making a PR card application warrants some further explanation or clarification
apart from the OP's situation. And, perhaps, along with the dramatic increase in the use of AI (mostly behind the scenes), this may also warrant further revision of my view that IRCC does not engage in
gotcha games.
The requirement that a PR be IN Canada when they make the application is prescribed by regulation,
section 56(2) IRPR in particular, which as to this is simple and straight-forward, stating:
An application for a permanent resident card must be made in Canada and include . . .
This regulation goes on to enumerate what must be included in the application.
This was part of the original full scale revision of Canadian immigration law nearly a quarter century ago, and has been in effect since 2004. So being IN Canada when making a PR card application has been a requirement for more than two decades. It was not until June 2022, however, that the application for a PR card was revised so that the PR had to declare they were in Canada to make the application.
(Compare application IMM 5444 (02-2020)E, which asks for the applicant's current address but does not require any declaration the PR is physically located in Canada, with application IMM 5444 (06-2022)E, which was to be used for either a PR card or a PR TD application, and had multiple options in regards to whether the applicant was in or outside Canada, which was in turn soon revised, in IMM 5444 (03-2023), simplifying the options to just two, IN Canada or outside Canada, and based on which box is checked the interactive pdf form would automatically designate the application as either a PR card application (for applicant IN Canada) or PR TD application (for applicant outside Canada).
Thing was, prior to the 2022 changes a lot of PRs were applying for a new PR card even though they were outside Canada when they made the application. It seems most, perhaps nearly all these were nonetheless processed resulting in approved applications and a PR card being issued. Not all, however, and there was a case in which one PR whose PR card application was denied on the basis he was not IN Canada when he made the application appealed. The Federal Court set the decision aside, basically interpreting the regulation requiring a PR card application be made IN Canada did not necessarily require the PR to be in Canada in person (please forgive me if I decline to try unraveling that one), ruling in particular that the fact the PR was not personally in Canada when the application is made is NOT a sufficient ground for denying the application.
CIC/IRCC continued to state, in its instructions, that to be eligible for a new PR card the PR must be IN Canada when they make the application, but because of the FC ruling IRCC was not enforcing it.
Then in 2022 IRCC revised the application form to require the applicant declare whether they were IN or outside Canada.
Some might protest that the FC had already ruled that being IN Canada at the time the application is made is NOT required, so how could IRCC require PRs to be IN Canada when making the application.
That misses the point and the operational effect of adding this to the application. Even though IRCC cannot require a PR to be IN Canada when making a PR card application (per the FC interpretation of the applicable statutes and regulations), IRCC can require them to declare whether they are IN or outside Canada when making the application. The PR's presence in or absence from Canada when making the application is at the least relevant, so requiring applicants to declare this information is entirely legitimate.
Thus, IRCC cannot reject/deny a PR card application on grounds the PR was outside Canada at the time the application was made. But it can deny the application for misrepresentation if the applicant falsely declares they are in Canada when making the application.
The tricky,
gotcha aspect of this is that the 2023 change in the application form in effect forces PRs to claim to be in Canada in order to make an application for a PR card.
I have heard lawyers talk about this in podcasts and claim they can nonetheless successfully apply for a new PR card on behalf of a client outside Canada (since, after all, it appears the FC ruling is still valid, that IRCC cannot enforce a requirement to be IN Canada when applying), but that this requires some creative lawyering. They did not explain how. The OP's post suggested, I thought, a way to do this.
As I initially responded, that would be of much interest to many others who are interested in navigating around the requirement. That is, navigating around it without making misrepresentations jeopardizing their status in Canada.
For now, even if the OPs parents are OK, no problem emerging when they arrive here, no problem emerging in the foreseeable future, this does not represent a way for others to navigate the process. Remember, what works for one is no assurance it will work for someone else, and if it involves stepping over some rules, it is not an indicator of what has good odds of working for someone else.
The AA/AI Side:
Without fully diving into the AA/AI side (see thread titled
Automated Decision-Making -- "Advanced Analytics" -- and AI, yeah that AI, so maybe some GOTCHA), make no mistake, the Canadian government has been dramatically expanding the role of Advanced Analytics (AA) and other AI components (including machine learning) in processing applications and other transactions, including in particular immigration applications and transactions. There is far, far more we do not know in regards to what this involves, and even much more than that we do not know about how this will affect things going forward, notwithstanding some readily accessible information about early pilot projects (time flies, some of these going back seven or eight years), and what might be accessible through carefully composed ATI requests (too much for me to do for now; at the moment, for example, I have on my desk a disc containing many hundreds of still-to-be-read pdf pages of RPD decisions about cessation, recently obtained through my last request, and I have recently increased my paying-workload which also involves a huge amount of researching other subjects of law in other jurisdictions, so lots and lots on my plate, with only a very old brain in an obese body with tired eyes to manage it all). Main thing is that AA and AI are dramatically changing things like triage screening and data analysis, and it is very likely this is dramatically cutting the nature and scope of discretion in processing transactions, quite likely flagging significantly more cases than a human would.
That is, AI likely means more gotcha like decision-making.
That is, the point here is that AA/AI also likely means there is an increasing risk things that used to slide by will get flagged and potentially cause problems. That is
gotcha on a different level (increased interdiction of PRs in RO breach at the PoE for example). Whether that happens immediately, or in the course of processing the particular transaction, or it appears to have not caused a problem but gets flagged and causes a problem later down the road, is a deep and complicated subject for another time, another thread.
That said, see . . .
Given some other conversations of late . . .
Some AI/automated processing related speculation:
It is quite possible that the combination of online applications and machine processing will facilitate some fudging of information, at least during these transition periods (which will take many years), which might make it appear easy to fudge some kinds of information in the short term. Some might even interpret patterns of letting certain things slide to mean it is OK, that IRCC is fine with it. For example, some may think that it is overtly OK to not divulge having had visitor status in other countries in response to Q 13 in a citizenship application (despite Q 13 explicitly asking for disclosure of all immigration status and including visitor status in the drop down list) because so far, with only minimal exception, those who have not divulged past visitor status have not encountered problems because of it. Maybe that should be that they have apparently not encountered a problem -- there are scores and scores of citizenship applicants bitterly complaining they do not know why their application has gotten bogged down in what they believe to be security or other prohibition screening, delaying processing by a year or two longer than most, who subscribe to a TLDR approach to the homework which might (and for many, if not most, likely will) reveal some clues about why their application has run into problems. Just because some applicants have been sailing through the process without a problem, all the way to taking the oath, does not come anywhere near close to confirming this (failing to disclose all immigration status, including visitor status, in response to Q 13) is OK.
In any event . . .
Best approach: Follow the instructions and honestly respond to questions.
