Risk of Being Reported for Residency Obligation Shortfall When Moving Permanently in 2027

[msz1986]

PR Holders – Family of Three

• Landing date (all three): 14 June 2023
• PR card expiry (myself): 6 July 2028
• PR card expiry (wife & daughter): 17 October 2028

We completed a soft landing in June 2023 and stayed for 21 days. We are planning to visit again in August this year for approximately 30 days.

Our plan is to move permanently to Canada in January 2027 (wife and daughter first), and I will join them in February 2027 after wrapping up my commitments.

At the time of permanent relocation:

• My wife and daughter will be short by approximately 1–2 months in meeting the residency obligation.
• I will be short by approximately 4–5 months.

I understand the residency obligation requirements, and I am trying to assess the practical risk at the port of entry.

My questions are:

1. What is the likelihood that either I or my family would be flagged and questioned upon entry when moving permanently?
2. If flagged for further questioning due to the shortfall, what could be the possible consequences considering the short fall period?
3. If we are able to reasonably explain our situation to the CBSA officer, is it possible for them to allow entry without issuing a Section 44 report?

I know a few PR holders who relocated to Canada despite not fully meeting the residency obligation and being only 4–5 months away from PR card expiry, and they were reportedly not questioned. They have advised me not to worry since more than one year remains on my PR card.

Some have also suggested that my wife and daughter may not face issues due to the minor shortfall (1–2 months), and that even if I am questioned due to a larger shortfall (4–5 months), a Section 44 report may not necessarily be issued—especially since my family would already be in Canada.

I would appreciate insights from those with experience or knowledge of similar situations.

Thanks in advance.

 

[armoured]

1. No-one can tell you for sure. You'll hear many different opinions on this, and in the end, it does not matter if I/Bob from accounting/everyone tells you chances are 'low' and then you do get reported.
2. Consequences include being reported under the 44(1) procedure and having to appeal a decision to revoke your PR status(es) and up to and including actually losing PR status.
3. Yes.

If all you are looking for is entirely subjective /guesses/ based on impressions online and a modicum of judgment (from people you don't know and may or may not have any credibility whatsoever, a group that includes me): I would say chances of full report leading to revocation / loss of PR status are 'low.' Don't ask for a percentage. I think low enough that I think for your spouse and daughter, they'd probably just get waved through with no questions. If they did ask questions, my guess is that CBSA officers wouldn't want to spend the time on a 44(1) because they hate doing paperwork that has a decent chance of being overturned later (but: you can always get that one officer who had a bad day or likes paperwork).

Again - don't ask for a percentage. And ex ante probability is meaningless once it's gone against you.

I only have two things to add to this:
-given the severity/importance of potential consequences, you and your family really should consider whether it's possible for one of you - eg your wife and/or daughter - to return early enough to be and remain in compliance with the RO. If one of you and spouse is in compliance, the others can be sponsored anew. Only you can decide whether this extra safety is worth it.
-judging by your comments about other commitments, it is possible you may have ongoing need to travel in the coming next couple of years. If so: every time you cross the border while out of compliance presents some risk of issues (mitigated somewhat if your spouse and family are in Canada, well established/settled, and in compliance or close to it). If you have to travel a lot, long periods, and frequently (i.e. lots of interactions with CBSA and the amount of non-compliance growing every longer), then that risk will increase. (And hence logically - potential value to you of spouse being in compliance - see above.)

I'm not attempting to scare you here, just some input for you to consider.

 

[Buletruck]

PR Holders – Family of Three

• Landing date (all three): 14 June 2023
• PR card expiry (myself): 6 July 2028
• PR card expiry (wife & daughter): 17 October 2028

We completed a soft landing in June 2023 and stayed for 21 days. We are planning to visit again in August this year for approximately 30 days.

Our plan is to move permanently to Canada in January 2027 (wife and daughter first), and I will join them in February 2027 after wrapping up my commitments.

At the time of permanent relocation:

• My wife and daughter will be short by approximately 1–2 months in meeting the residency obligation.
• I will be short by approximately 4–5 months.

I understand the residency obligation requirements, and I am trying to assess the practical risk at the port of entry.

My questions are:

1. What is the likelihood that either I or my family would be flagged and questioned upon entry when moving permanently?
2. If flagged for further questioning due to the shortfall, what could be the possible consequences considering the short fall period?
3. If we are able to reasonably explain our situation to the CBSA officer, is it possible for them to allow entry without issuing a Section 44 report?

I know a few PR holders who relocated to Canada despite not fully meeting the residency obligation and being only 4–5 months away from PR card expiry, and they were reportedly not questioned. They have advised me not to worry since more than one year remains on my PR card.

Some have also suggested that my wife and daughter may not face issues due to the minor shortfall (1–2 months), and that even if I am questioned due to a larger shortfall (4–5 months), a Section 44 report may not necessarily be issued—especially since my family would already be in Canada.

I would appreciate insights from those with experience or knowledge of similar situations.

Thanks in advance.

Keep in mind that by your August visit, you will already be short of RO and at risk of being flagged as being short in CBSA's system (or at worst, reported as being non compliant). If that's the case arriving and leaving again won't improve your chances later on when you do decide to settle. There's always a lot of risk involved with interacting with CBSA more than necessary.

 

[canuck78]

Would add that Canada’s very lax immigration policies are no longer as lax as they once were so what was possible a few years ago may not actually still be possible.

 

[CathyLeen]

Would add that Canada’s very lax immigration policies are no longer as lax as they once were so what was possible a few years ago may not actually still be possible.

BS.

 

[CathyLeen]

Keep in mind that by your August visit, you will already be short of RO and at risk of being flagged as being short in CBSA's system (or at worst, reported as being non compliant). If that's the case arriving and leaving again won't improve your chances later on when you do decide to settle. There's always a lot of risk involved with interacting with CBSA more than necessary.

STOP being an asshole!

 

[dpenabill]

Follow-up to comments by @Buletruck and @canuck78 which warrant being taken seriously . . .

. . . there tends to be a significant delay in reports reflecting RO enforcement trends. Assessing RO enforcement risks is not just rife with uncertainty it is, well, risky. Changes in the risks can happen, and often do happen well before the public (including those tracking these things in forums like this) is aware of the changes. Moreover, the changes which influence the risks are often not publicly shared, some of which is overtly confidential (information that is deliberately not publicly shared), others just not reported in a way that alerts even those following these matters.

Among the more significant changes taking place is the continuous implementation of technology augmenting or even replacing aspects of human screening. This has advanced well beyond the implementation of checklist screening tools and now includes advanced analytics which incorporate AI components supported by continuous upgrades in capturing, maintaining, and accessing personal data in conjunction with analytical processing driven by general data.

Short version of what that means: CBSA is continually upgrading technology which will more readily identify issues including identifying returning PRs likely to be in breach of the RO.

So even with no changes in policy, for PRs in breach the risks of running into RO enforcement issues are almost certainly increasing . . . just due to the increasing likelihood that the computer screen will alert border officials when there is a potential RO compliance issue.

Which leads to cautioning that much of the experience underlying the historic "low risk" assessment is based on PRs in RO breach being waived through without being directly questioned about RO compliance.

This forum is particularly poor in evaluating the difference between the risk of inquiry versus the risk of enforcement when there is an inquiry. Historically many PRs in breach have not been subject to close questioning about RO compliance and thus waived through despite being in breach of the RO. This is not so much due to a lax policy in RO enforcement (though there is clearly still some leniency involved); it has more to do with the extent to which it is not readily apparent many of these PRs are in breach.

This is changing. It is increasingly likely the computer will flag more PRs in breach. Once flagged the risk of RO enforcement action increases dramatically.

It will take quite a long while for the forum, those of us in the public, to see statistically significant changes in the impact this has.

That is, there is good reason for PRs with RO compliance issues to seriously consider the caution underlying the comments by @Buletruck and @canuck78 here.