A few months short of Residency Obligation in first 5 years. YVR or YYC less likely Sec 44?

[yayclam]

We are a family of four moving from California to Alberta, or British Columbia. Our kids are 8 and 4. We all got our Canadian PR status in Oct 2022, and we bought a house in Calgary, AB in 2023.
In June 2025, we finally started to move, but I started getting pretty sick with depression, anxiety and insomnia, so we couldn't make the move happen (Also heard that the wait to see a psychiatrist in Canada is multiple months long). Our PR card expires in Jan and Jun 2028. We asked an immigration lawyer firm, and they said we should move as soon as possible, and if we move by Jun 2026, then it's likely that we won't get rejected/reported by an CBSA officer, especially if we also show that we already bought a house in Canada to prepare for the move. But the lawyer also said if we get reported, it's unlikely that we can win our case since we are moving so late. What are your experience? What do you think?
If we are planning to move in a few weeks in late January or early February, we have a shortfall of like 3 months. How likely would we get reported for section 44? We are planning to bring the doctor's note, a copy of the title of the house, and the Canadian tax return. Does that help our case with the CBSA officers? or later with the immigration court if we get reported?
I asked Google Gemini about the doctor's note, ideally, the doctor's note should say that I wasn't "fit to travel" and now I am, but the doctor only wrote the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and it negatively affected my life, and now I have improved and I am stable. The doctor said he's uncomfortable to use the "fit to travel" term, as it is too legal for him.
What do you think? Is it worth the risk to quit the job, and sell everything in California to move up? We have passed through Calgary twice, and Vancouver once since getting our PR,. When we weren't already in breach of the RO, we were sent to secondary both times in Calgary(first time for landing, second time maybe because we haven't gotten our PR cards after months of delay), but we passed right through in Vancouver. Should we use Vancouver as our port of entry, since it seems like the probably of getting sent to secondary screening is lower.
Let me thank you profusely in advance for your insights and advice.

 

[Besram]

We are a family of four moving from California to Alberta, or British Columbia. Our kids are 8 and 4. We all got our Canadian PR status in Oct 2022, and we bought a house in Calgary, AB in 2023.
In June 2025, we finally started to move, but I started getting pretty sick with depression, anxiety and insomnia, so we couldn't make the move happen (Also heard that the wait to see a psychiatrist in Canada is multiple months long). Our PR card expires in Jan and Jun 2028. We asked an immigration lawyer firm, and they said we should move as soon as possible, and if we move by Jun 2026, then it's likely that we won't get rejected/reported by an CBSA officer, especially if we also show that we already bought a house in Canada to prepare for the move. But the lawyer also said if we get reported, it's unlikely that we can win our case since we are moving so late. What are your experience? What do you think?
If we are planning to move in a few weeks in late January or early February, we have a shortfall of like 3 months. How likely would we get reported for section 44? We are planning to bring the doctor's note, a copy of the title of the house, and the Canadian tax return. Does that help our case with the CBSA officers? or later with the immigration court if we get reported?
I asked Google Gemini about the doctor's note, ideally, the doctor's note should say that I wasn't "fit to travel" and now I am, but the doctor only wrote the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and it negatively affected my life, and now I have improved and I am stable. The doctor said he's uncomfortable to use the "fit to travel" term, as it is too legal for him.
What do you think? Is it worth the risk to quit the job, and sell everything in California to move up? We have passed through Calgary twice, and Vancouver once since getting our PR,. When we weren't already in breach of the RO, we were sent to secondary both times in Calgary(first time for landing, second time maybe because we haven't gotten our PR cards after months of delay), but we passed right through in Vancouver. Should we use Vancouver as our port of entry, since it seems like the probably of getting sent to secondary screening is lower.
Let me thank you profusely in advance for your insights and advice.

- No difference between YVR and YYC. It seems there are good reasons why you were sent to secondary at YYC, and it would have probably happened at YVR also (note that going to "secondary" upon first landing is standard, so you can discount that occasion in any case). All stories we hear about border crossings are anecdotal, and there is no hard data to make a recommendation. Do what is most convenient.
- Yes, bring any documentation you can.
- Your lawyers comment re: that it is more likely to be admitted at POE without being reported as opposed to winning an appeal seems to square with forum reports. But every case is different. Your lawyer has likely reviewed all facts of your case, so you should trust his/her judgement more than forum opinions (true in general).
- Also agree with the statement that the sooner you move, the better your chances - has been repeated many times in this forum as well.
- Ultimately, you need to decide where you see your future and what risk you are willing to tolerate. The challenge is that you will not know how it goes at the border until you are there, and nobody will be able to tell you with certainty or even give you reliable odds. Even if your risk appears low, you could still be reported. You need to accept this risk - there is no way to mitigate it fully.

 

[canuck78]

Think your biggest risk is moving if you haven’t secured employment these days vs a 3 month non-compliance. Also if you are in need a psychiatric monitoring or even just being followed by a GP also something to consider because likely much longer than a few months to see a psychiatrist and you may not be able to find a GP. As an aside not quite sure why you have a Canadian tax return.

 

[yayclam]

- No difference between YVR and YYC. It seems there are good reasons why you were sent to secondary at YYC, and it would have probably happened at YVR also (note that going to "secondary" upon first landing is standard, so you can discount that occasion in any case). All stories we hear about border crossings are anecdotal, and there is no hard data to make a recommendation. Do what is most convenient.
- Yes, bring any documentation you can.
- Your lawyers comment re: that it is more likely to be admitted at POE without being reported as opposed to winning an appeal seems to square with forum reports. But every case is different. Your lawyer has likely reviewed all facts of your case, so you should trust his/her judgement more than forum opinions (true in general).
- Also agree with the statement that the sooner you move, the better your chances - has been repeated many times in this forum as well.
- Ultimately, you need to decide where you see your future and what risk you are willing to tolerate. The challenge is that you will not know how it goes at the border until you are there, and nobody will be able to tell you with certainty or even give you reliable odds. Even if your risk appears low, you could still be reported. You need to accept this risk - there is no way to mitigate it fully.

Thank you very much for your quick, detailed, and knowledgeable response. You are awesome!

 

[armoured]

If we are planning to move in a few weeks in late January or early February, we have a shortfall of like 3 months. How likely would we get reported for section 44? We are planning to bring the doctor's note, a copy of the title of the house, and the Canadian tax return. Does that help our case with the CBSA officers? or later with the immigration court if we get reported?

Only you can decide this as I understand it's complicated and means taking pretty big steps. Hence IMO only:
-reality is very few that are only about 3 months out of compliance have serious examinations that lead to the 44(1) steps.
-of the documentation and 'narrative' you have about lenience, the doctor's note is nonetheless quite strong. The other factors are positive nonetheless. The fact it doesn't say 'unable to travel' is probably not specifically relevant. "Not recommended to travel" is langauge that would still be useful if the doctor can agree to that. (I'm ignoring tense of this, you figure that out).
-Bottom line is that for a relatively minor RO non-compliance with 'some reasons' (documented), very few CBSA officers will want to spend the time writing this up - they'd mostly rather let you come in and 'find out in real life if you can hack it.' And there's too high chances that it would get overturned, either by the so-called Minister's Delegate or on appeal.

My only minor comment / suggestion is that if one of you can travel in advance of the others - and gets admitted without the 44(1) - it strengthens the case of those who come after ("Mom/Dad is already living here") - and, in a pinch, the one who remains can sponsor the others down the road. So if that's at all manageable, worth considering. The moreso if that allows one to return sooner (while the RO non-compliance is smaller).

 

[yayclam]

Think your biggest risk is moving if you haven’t secured employment these days vs a 3 month non-compliance. Also if you are in need a psychiatric monitoring or even just being followed by a GP also something to consider because likely much longer than a few months to see a psychiatrist and you may not be able to find a GP. As an aside not quite sure why you have a Canadian tax return.

Thank you very much for your quick response, and thank you very much for the caring comment. We initially didn't want to move because we found out the long waits for the psychiatric care. So we were waiting for the mental health to improve before the move. I already asked a few walk-in clinics in Vancouver and Calgary, they seem to be able to refill my presciptions. So I guess I can stick with the same medication until I get to meet a psychiatrist.
I have heard on various places that it is hard to find a job in either Vancouver or Calgary now. I started looking for a job in Vancouver, got to 2 rounds of interviews, but didn't get a job offer. So I can probably show the CBSA officer the emails that I am looking for a job in Canada too, but I haven't successfully found one yet. Luckily, we do have a little bit of rental income from the US, and my spouse will be able to do her free-lance accounting job in Canada. We won't be rich, but we should be OK in terms of feeding ourselves, but if CBSA officers need to see to proof that I already have a job in Canada, then I can't provide that as of now. Hopefully they don't ask for that.
As for the Canadian tax returns, we bought a house in Calgary in 2023, and the insurance company requires the house to be occupied, so we rented out the house. We hired some people to housesit once in a while too before we found a tenant.
Thank you very much for your insights and caring comment again.

 

[yayclam]

Only you can decide this as I understand it's complicated and means taking pretty big steps. Hence IMO only:
-reality is very few that are only about 3 months out of compliance have serious examinations that lead to the 44(1) steps.
-of the documentation and 'narrative' you have about lenience, the doctor's note is nonetheless quite strong. The other factors are positive nonetheless. The fact it doesn't say 'unable to travel' is probably not specifically relevant. "Not recommended to travel" is langauge that would still be useful if the doctor can agree to that. (I'm ignoring tense of this, you figure that out).
-Bottom line is that for a relatively minor RO non-compliance with 'some reasons' (documented), very few CBSA officers will want to spend the time writing this up - they'd mostly rather let you come in and 'find out in real life if you can hack it.' And there's too high chances that it would get overturned, either by the so-called Minister's Delegate or on appeal.

My only minor comment / suggestion is that if one of you can travel in advance of the others - and gets admitted without the 44(1) - it strengthens the case of those who come after ("Mom/Dad is already living here") - and, in a pinch, the one who remains can sponsor the others down the road. So if that's at all manageable, worth considering. The moreso if that allows one to return sooner (while the RO non-compliance is smaller).

Thank you very much for your insightful advice and recommendations. It gives us the much-needed courage to move forward. So you think it's better to have someone go in first? What I am worried about is the first person going in gets reported with 44(1) first. Because if that person gets the 44(1), then it's not likely that we will proceed. I am hoping that the CBSA officer sees that we are moving he whole family then give us the benefit of the doubt, and it's probably better to us all find out either we get in or 44(1) all at once. Thank you very much again!

 

[yayclam]

I told Google Gemini to summarize all the posts in the Residential Obligation section of this forum. Very interesting.

Scenario	Risk Level	Common Outcome
Renewing PR Card while short	Very High	A44 report and potential loss of status.
Airport Entry (Valid Card)	Low	Usually waved through; occasionally a warning.
Airport Entry (Expired/No Card)	Moderate	Secondary inspection; likely a lecture or a report.
Land Border Entry	Low	Most common "safe" route for those non-compliant.

Hopefully these are still true, then we have some good odds coming in. What worries me though, is the tension between the US and Canada dragging down our chance of successfully coming in.

 

[yayclam]

Google Gemini summarizing the difference between the 2 ports of entry, very interesting:

Based on the archives and common reports from the Canada Immigration Discussion Board, choosing between YVR (Vancouver) and YYC (Calgary) when you are a year short on your residency days involves a trade-off between volume and scrutiny.

Here is how the forum community generally compares the two for non-compliant PRs:

1. YVR (Vancouver International Airport)​

• The Vibe: High volume and highly professional. Because it is a massive international gateway, officers see thousands of PRs a day.
• The Advantage: Due to the sheer volume, you are more likely to be processed quickly at the automated kiosks. If your PR card is valid and "pings" correctly, you might just be waved through without ever talking to an officer about your dates.
• The Risk: If you are flagged for Secondary Inspection, the officers here are known for being extremely efficient and "by the book." They have advanced systems and a lot of experience calculating residency gaps. If they catch a 365-day deficit, they are very likely to issue a Section 44 report because they handle these cases daily.

2. YYC (Calgary International Airport)​

• The Vibe: Smaller, quieter, and sometimes described as more "personal."
• The Advantage: Forums occasionally mention that at smaller international hubs like Calgary, officers can (though not always) be more relaxed or willing to listen to an explanation. If you have a clear "story" (e.g., "I'm here to start my job in the oil sector/tech tomorrow"), they may be more inclined to give a warning than start formal revocation paperwork.
• The Risk: Because it's a smaller airport, a "red flag" at the kiosk stands out more. There are fewer people in line, meaning an officer in Secondary has more time to sit down with you and count every single stamp in your passport. You get more "individual attention," which is exactly what you don't want when you're short 365 days.

Feature	YVR (Vancouver)	YYC (Calgary)
Anonymity	Higher (Easier to blend into the crowd)	Lower (More eyes on each traveler)
Efficiency	Very High (Fast, but strict)	Moderate (Potentially more conversational)
Likelihood of Report	Predictable (If caught, they follow the law)	Variable (Depends heavily on the specific officer)
Consensus Pick	Better for "blending in"	Better for "explaining H&C"

 

[Besram]

I would be very cautious basing your decisions on this.

Some of it is very misleading. For example, unless you are a US citizen, you won't even get on a plane without a valid PR card, so the scenario Airport Entry (Expired/No Card) does not make sense for the vast majority of people.

However, for land border entry, it would a make lot more sense to differentiate between having a PR card or not having a PR card, because those that do not can only get to Canada via land border in a private vehicle. Obviously, not having a PR card is definitely a reason for more questions and almost certainly guarantees at least a secondary inspection. So for those people, the risk of getting reported is actually higher.

I also don't agree with the conclusion that a less busy airport carries less risk, because officers have more time. The reverse could also be true - because they have more time, they may be more inclined to question you.

Again - a lot of this is AI is based on forum members' previous speculations and AI filling in the blanks (aka hallucinating), and I would definitely not take this as fact.

My previous advice remains. Don't stress about which airport to go to. There simply isn't reliable data, and in all likelihood it doesn't make a difference. I would just pick the cheapest flights.

 

[yayclam]

I would be very cautious basing your decisions on this.

Some of it is very misleading. For example, unless you are a US citizen, you won't even get on a plane without a valid PR card, so the scenario Airport Entry (Expired/No Card) does not make sense for the vast majority of people.

However, for land border entry, it would a make lot more sense to differentiate between having a PR card or not having a PR card, because those that do not can only get to Canada via land border in a private vehicle. Obviously, not having a PR card is definitely a reason for more questions and almost certainly guarantees at least a secondary inspection. So for those people, the risk of getting reported is actually higher.

I also don't agree with the conclusion that a less busy airport carries less risk, because officers have more time. The reverse could also be true - because they have more time, they may be more inclined to question you.

Again - a lot of this is AI is based on forum members' previous speculations and AI filling in the blanks (aka hallucinating), and I would definitely not take this as fact.

My previous advice remains. Don't stress about which airport to go to. There simply isn't reliable data, and in all likelihood it doesn't make a difference. I would just pick the cheapest flights.

You are really awesome. Thank you very much for the tremendous help! Gemini also advices to just bring personal effects, such as just phones, laptops, medicines, and clothes, and especially avoid bringing gold coins, jewelry, or large amount of cash, so we can fly under the radar using the kiosk, and can avoid filling out BSF186.

 

[canuck78]

Google Gemini summarizing the difference between the 2 ports of entry, very interesting:

Based on the archives and common reports from the Canada Immigration Discussion Board, choosing between YVR (Vancouver) and YYC (Calgary) when you are a year short on your residency days involves a trade-off between volume and scrutiny.

Here is how the forum community generally compares the two for non-compliant PRs:

1. YVR (Vancouver International Airport)​

• The Vibe: High volume and highly professional. Because it is a massive international gateway, officers see thousands of PRs a day.
• The Advantage: Due to the sheer volume, you are more likely to be processed quickly at the automated kiosks. If your PR card is valid and "pings" correctly, you might just be waved through without ever talking to an officer about your dates.
• The Risk: If you are flagged for Secondary Inspection, the officers here are known for being extremely efficient and "by the book." They have advanced systems and a lot of experience calculating residency gaps. If they catch a 365-day deficit, they are very likely to issue a Section 44 report because they handle these cases daily.

2. YYC (Calgary International Airport)​

• The Vibe: Smaller, quieter, and sometimes described as more "personal."
• The Advantage: Forums occasionally mention that at smaller international hubs like Calgary, officers can (though not always) be more relaxed or willing to listen to an explanation. If you have a clear "story" (e.g., "I'm here to start my job in the oil sector/tech tomorrow"), they may be more inclined to give a warning than start formal revocation paperwork.
• The Risk: Because it's a smaller airport, a "red flag" at the kiosk stands out more. There are fewer people in line, meaning an officer in Secondary has more time to sit down with you and count every single stamp in your passport. You get more "individual attention," which is exactly what you don't want when you're short 365 days.

Feature	YVR (Vancouver)	YYC (Calgary)
Anonymity	Higher (Easier to blend into the crowd)	Lower (More eyes on each traveler)
Efficiency	Very High (Fast, but strict)	Moderate (Potentially more conversational)
Likelihood of Report	Predictable (If caught, they follow the law)	Variable (Depends heavily on the specific officer)
Consensus Pick	Better for "blending in"	Better for "explaining H&C"

Truly it comes down to luck and how busy CBSA is that day. As Canada tightens their immigration policy they may become stricter when it comes to not meeting RO but many have much more substantial non-compliance issues. This does mean leaving Canada until you meet your RO risky. You should not renew your PR cards until you meet RO with a bit of a buffer

The job market is very tough especially in some fields and the healthcare system is a disaster at the moment.

 

[scylla]

I told Google Gemini to summarize all the posts in the Residential Obligation section of this forum. Very interesting.

Scenario	Risk Level	Common Outcome
Renewing PR Card while short	Very High	A44 report and potential loss of status.
Airport Entry (Valid Card)	Low	Usually waved through; occasionally a warning.
Airport Entry (Expired/No Card)	Moderate	Secondary inspection; likely a lecture or a report.
Land Border Entry	Low	Most common "safe" route for those non-compliant.

Hopefully these are still true, then we have some good odds coming in. What worries me though, is the tension between the US and Canada dragging down our chance of successfully coming in.

Please do not rely on AI for immigration advice. It's not at the maturity level to give good advice and picks up to much open source info that is misleading or even flat out wrong (e.g., making up stats, making up immigration rules that don't exist). It will get there eventually but do not use it for decision making now.

 

[armoured]

You are really awesome. Thank you very much for the tremendous help! Gemini also advices to just bring personal effects, such as just phones, laptops, medicines, and clothes, and especially avoid bringing gold coins, jewelry, or large amount of cash, so we can fly under the radar using the kiosk, and can avoid filling out BSF186.

This is another example where I don't think Dingus-AI is summarizing what you think - it sounds like general advice intended for those arriving for a visit, or in some cases at border, some other standouts. It just sees a high probability (correlation) of words about CBSA/airport/visa etc and "don't bring too much stuff."

And it may depend on airport, but the ones I'm familiar with, secondary inspection (if you get to that) for immigration is entirely separate from 'customs' - the first happens before getting luggage, they other after. It's literally not the same people - even if it is the same agency - who would process the BSF and the rest.

As for number of bags: if you're a PR and bringing in a bunch of bags, they may have questions about whether any of it is customs-payable (duties to be paid), but that's separate from whether you're 'settling.' If you're settling with a PR card, you bring what you want (massively oversimplifed as there are exceptions). And in your case, showing your settling is (most likely) a plus, even if not a large one.

 

[armoured]

Thank you very much for your insightful advice and recommendations. It gives us the much-needed courage to move forward. So you think it's better to have someone go in first? What I am worried about is the first person going in gets reported with 44(1) first. Because if that person gets the 44(1), then it's not likely that we will proceed. I am hoping that the CBSA officer sees that we are moving he whole family then give us the benefit of the doubt, and it's probably better to us all find out either we get in or 44(1) all at once. Thank you very much again!

You are right that there are trade-offs, I can't say for certain which is better. That said, each individual has PR status on their own - so (for example) if one of you arrived first and got through, hey, arguments are now better. If that person gets a 44(1), that doesn't - directly nor as far as I'm aware indirectly - mean that the spouse will, too. (At least not because they're 'linked' - but because their narrative/factual history overlap to a great degree). Plus there's the factor of whether the one spouse could come signfiicantly before the other and possibly get settled, employed, etc (as well as just having a smaller RO non-compliance).

That said, I'm not pushing this approach, just putting it out as one that could be considered. It may not fit your family needs etc and differences might in most cases by minor or at the margin.