Family entering Canada with 2 month short on RO

[alex86]

Hello everyone,

We are a family of three. We completed our soft landing in June 2023, stayed in Canada for three weeks, and then returned to our home country.

We are now planning to relocate permanently during the first week of September 2026. Based on our calculations, we expect to be approximately 2 months short of meeting the residency obligation.

Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) supporting documents:

• Child's school admission letter from a Canadian school
• Child's school leaving certificate from our home country
• Residential lease agreement in our name
• Evidence of 4–5 job interviews with different Canadian employers in 2023, along with the rejection emails
• Proof of sitting the Canadian medical residency examination in May 2026

Questions:

1. What are the chances of being admitted without being questioned about the residency shortfall?
2. If we are questioned (either during primary or secondary inspection), how likely is it that the officer will allow us to enter after reviewing the H&C reasons and supporting documents?
3. If we are issued a Section 44 report at the port of entry, does our case appear reasonably strong given the relatively small shortfall and the H&C factors outlined above?

I understand that no one can predict the outcome with certainty, but I would greatly appreciate any insights based on knowledge or personal experience.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Naturgrl]

If your PR cards are valid then enter Canada, and don't leave until you meet RO. You will not be denied entry. You cannot be short two weeks if you only lived in Canada for a few weeks. You are short a couple of years. So come and don't leave. As for H&C there is no case. You haven't even tried to live in Canada so case is not strong. The H&C factors you listed are not even reasons.

 

[Ponga]

What are the H&C reasons?

Rejection letters from Canadian employers will do nothing to substantiate an H&C claim, IMHO.

 

[alex86]

If your PR cards are valid then enter Canada, and don't leave until you meet RO. You will not be denied entry. You cannot be short two weeks if you only lived in Canada for a few weeks. You are short a couple of years. So come and don't leave. As for H&C there is no case. You haven't even tried to live in Canada so case is not strong. The H&C factors you listed are not even reasons.

If your PR cards are valid then enter Canada, and don't leave until you meet RO. You will not be denied entry. You cannot be short two weeks if you only lived in Canada for a few weeks. You are short a couple of years. So come and don't leave. As for H&C there is no case. You haven't even tried to live in Canada so case is not strong. The H&C factors you listed are not even reasons.

Thank you for the response.

Our intent is to stay for good if we enter without any issues. We will still have 22 months remaining when we enter in Sep 26. My only concern is the form 44 being issued at POE so wanted to check if it that risky in our scenario considering if we show our intent to settle based on the documents mentioned.

 

[canuck78]

Thank you for the response.

Our intent is to stay for good if we enter without any issues. We will still have 22 months remaining when we enter in Sep 26. My only concern is the form 44 being issued at POE so wanted to check if it that risky in our scenario considering if we show our intent to settle based on the documents mentioned.

There is always a risk when you don’t meet the already very lenient 2 out of 5 years. How much of a risk is tough to say a lot depends on luck.

 

[armoured]

Our intent is to stay for good if we enter without any issues. We will still have 22 months remaining when we enter in Sep 26. My only concern is the form 44 being issued at POE so wanted to check if it that risky in our scenario considering if we show our intent to settle based on the documents mentioned.

No-one can tell you what the risk is, and of course some statement of a number - well, probability percentages don't matter if the dice come up against you.

That said: it sounds like you will be only two or so months out of compliance, and you'll have close to two years remaining on validiity of your PR card.

In very general terms, CBSA is often ... disinclined, shall we say, to go through the 44(1) process (the paperwork) when the non-compliance is not large. (Or put differently, the more extensive the non-compliance, the higher the risk of their being issues.

As for H&C reasons: I wouldn't rely upon the H&C reasons being 'good or bad' (or the judgments of people who are not CBSA officers about that). You can state the reasons you think delayed you (eg economic uncertainty in 2003, child not finishing school, grandma got upset at her grandkid leaving, 'stuff happens', whatever). The officer must take those things into account, even if they're not particularly compelling reasons. So sure, mention them (concisely!) - or just summarize with moving to Canada was more complicated than anticipated and some affairs had to be wound up/ school year stuff.

Point being, even without a 100% compelling H&C reason, they may still be lenient, and they're more likely to be so when the non-compliance is not that large.

Good luck.

 

[alex86]

Thank you very much for your responses.

Based on the previous comments, we intended to wrap everything up and move as soon as possible. Unfortunately, due to a medical emergency involving an immediate family member, we had to postpone our plans.

Under our revised timeline, we will be approximately 40 days short of meeting the residency obligation when we arrive. We will be entering Canada by air through Toronto, and we have complete documentation relating to the surgery, hospitalization, and subsequent complications.

I understand that no one can predict whether we will be questioned at the port of entry, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:

1. Is a 40-day shortfall significant enough that it could lead to serious consequences, even if we can clearly demonstrate our genuine intention to settle permanently in Canada (for example, through school enrollment for our children, transfer of funds, resignation from our jobs, etc.)?

2. If we are questioned or referred to secondary inspection, would detailed medical records and supporting documentation generally be considered sufficient to explain the shortfall?

3. Based on your experience, are border officers generally willing to consider the circumstances and supporting evidence, or do they tend to apply the residency obligation strictly of the reasons for the shortfall?

I'm quite confused and paranoid because I've seen completely different outcomes in seemingly similar situations. Some people were able to enter Canada without being questioned, even though their PR cards were due to expire within a few months and they had spent only a few weeks in Canada since landing. On the other hand, others were issued a Section 44 report despite still having around 20 months remaining to meet their residency obligation.

 

[Naturgrl]

Thank you very much for your responses.

Based on the previous comments, we intended to wrap everything up and move as soon as possible. Unfortunately, due to a medical emergency involving an immediate family member, we had to postpone our plans.

Under our revised timeline, we will be approximately 40 days short of meeting the residency obligation when we arrive. We will be entering Canada by air through Toronto, and we have complete documentation relating to the surgery, hospitalization, and subsequent complications.

I understand that no one can predict whether we will be questioned at the port of entry, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:

1. Is a 40-day shortfall significant enough that it could lead to serious consequences, even if we can clearly demonstrate our genuine intention to settle permanently in Canada (for example, through school enrollment for our children, transfer of funds, resignation from our jobs, etc.)?

2. If we are questioned or referred to secondary inspection, would detailed medical records and supporting documentation generally be considered sufficient to explain the shortfall?

3. Based on your experience, are border officers generally willing to consider the circumstances and supporting evidence, or do they tend to apply the residency obligation strictly of the reasons for the shortfall?

I'm quite confused and paranoid because I've seen completely different outcomes in seemingly similar situations. Some people were able to enter Canada without being questioned, even though their PR cards were due to expire within a few months and they had spent only a few weeks in Canada since landing. On the other hand, others were issued a Section 44 report despite still having around 20 months remaining to meet their residency obligation.

1. Not sure what you mean by 40 day shortfall. You only lived in Canada for a few weeks and then left so no way you are only 40 days short. You don't renew until you meet RO. You have valid cards so you can re-enter.
2. yes. Show that you all could not move because one of you had medical issues.
3. Your PR cards are valid so not sure what your concern is.

 

[alex86]

1. Not sure what you mean by 40 day shortfall. You only lived in Canada for a few weeks and then left so no way you are only 40 days short. You don't renew until you meet RO. You have valid cards so you can re-enter.
2. yes. Show that you all could not move because one of you had medical issues.
3. Your PR cards are valid so not sure what your concern is.

1. By 40 days short I mean that we will have approx 23 months remaining in our first 5 years from the date of becoming pr when we will return to Canada in August 26. We landed in June 23 and spent 22 days.
2. Understood. Medical issue was with my father in law. We have all the proofs
3. My concern is that despite such minor shortfall and considering my scenario, can they still issue form 44 at poe if questioned? Practical outcomes in such cases?

Thank you

 

[Naturgrl]

1. By 40 days short I mean that we will have approx 23 months remaining in our first 5 years from the date of becoming pr when we will return to Canada in August 26. We landed in June 23 and spent 22 days.
2. Understood. Medical issue was with my father in law. We have all the proofs
3. My concern is that despite such minor shortfall and considering my scenario, can they still issue form 44 at poe if questioned? Practical outcomes in such cases?

Thank you

1. Okay so you don't leave until you meet RO.
2. You could have returned with your child but shouldn't be an issue.
3. You don't have a minor shortfall as you have only spent 22 days in Canada. PR cards are valid so shouldn't be an issue but no one can tell you what CBSA will do. They can do whatever they want.

 

[Buletruck]

There is no distinction between a minor or major shortfall under the requirements. 1 day short or 100 days short are shortfalls. What enters into the discussion is the discretion to, for lack of better words, overlook the shortfall. And that falls to CBSA. So to answer your question 3, with anything less than the required days to meet RO they can issue a 44(1). Will they....impossible to determine (although as some have suggested the level of energy expended to do so seems to make it less likely for anything but the most egregious violations, but that's never guaranteed). Having 700ish days bodes better in a forward looking scenario to meet RO than having 20 days and the ability to almost meet RO in the next few years to CBSA. You can say you plan to stay and be in a flight home tomorrow. Probabilities start to play into the decision.

 

[Efgan]

Thank you very much for your responses.

Based on the previous comments, we intended to wrap everything up and move as soon as possible. Unfortunately, due to a medical emergency involving an immediate family member, we had to postpone our plans.

Under our revised timeline, we will be approximately 40 days short of meeting the residency obligation when we arrive. We will be entering Canada by air through Toronto, and we have complete documentation relating to the surgery, hospitalization, and subsequent complications.

I understand that no one can predict whether we will be questioned at the port of entry, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:

1. Is a 40-day shortfall significant enough that it could lead to serious consequences, even if we can clearly demonstrate our genuine intention to settle permanently in Canada (for example, through school enrollment for our children, transfer of funds, resignation from our jobs, etc.)?

2. If we are questioned or referred to secondary inspection, would detailed medical records and supporting documentation generally be considered sufficient to explain the shortfall?

3. Based on your experience, are border officers generally willing to consider the circumstances and supporting evidence, or do they tend to apply the residency obligation strictly of the reasons for the shortfall?

I'm quite confused and paranoid because I've seen completely different outcomes in seemingly similar situations. Some people were able to enter Canada without being questioned, even though their PR cards were due to expire within a few months and they had spent only a few weeks in Canada since landing. On the other hand, others were issued a Section 44 report despite still having around 20 months remaining to meet their residency obligation.

I recommend to fill arrive can snd scan your pR card by Kiosk. In my case I passed border without problem