When my PR card expires early next year, I will only fulfill RO a few days over 730 days. Should I wait until I have 760, 790, or 820 days before applying for PR card renewal to avoid secondary review? Is there a general safe cushion there?
If you are currently present in Canada, and well-settled and living in Canada, and planning to stay in Canada while the application is in process (which can take from two months to a year or so, depending), and can reasonably document that your presence in Canada has been 730+ days within the previous five years, it should be "safe" to apply for a new PR card relative to minimal risk of a negative PR Residency Obligation compliance determination which could jeopardize PR status.
What is "safe" in terms of avoiding Secondary Review is far more difficult to forecast and the number of days the PR reports (declares or claims) to have been in Canada is but one factor among many . . . and while more days probably means lower risk, in many or most instances how much so will be less than the influence of other factors. APPEARANCE of having settled in Canada PERMANENTLY is probably the single biggest factor (other than meeting technical requirements, such as 730 days minimum presence).
In particular: While actual proof of presence can always be an issue, the difference between 735 days and 895 days tends to be significantly less than the impact of other factors, and is probably more related to IRCC's perception of the PR's credibility than the number of days. After all, even 895 days within five years is LESS THAN HALF the TIME spent in Canada, suggesting perhaps the PR has not used the grant of PR as the Canadian government intended, which is to settle and live in Canada permanently, UNLESS there are indicators otherwise showing the PR has actually, finally, settled in Canada and is living more or less PERMANENTLY in Canada.
Thus, for example, other factors like the individual's overall immigration history and extent of ties to Canada (especially employment and family), can make the difference.
BOTTOM-LINE: There are risks associated with cutting-it-close. Anything LESS than HALF-TIME in Canada is, obviously,
cutting-it-close, and this increases the risk of non-routine processing, including procedures related to a more formal and strict examination of compliance with the RO, or Secondary Review.
Additional Observation: many underestimate the importance of the purpose for which PR is granted. As long as a PR complies with the minimum presence requirement, Canada will not take away PR status (unless there are other grounds, like criminal inadmissibility). This is NOT INTENDED, however, to facilitate border-straddling lifestyles in which a PR does not centralize his or her life in Canada. IAD decisions are rife with examples emphasizing the importance of the purpose of the PR grant, so that the individual can SETTLE and PERMANENTLY live in Canada.
Thus, for example, the PR who had difficulty making the actual move to settle in Canada, resulting in not actually coming to Canada to live until nearly three years after landing, BUT who THEN DOES SETTLE IN CANADA, more or less PERMANENTLY, who then applies for a new PRC barely in compliance, with say 743 days presence in the relevant five years, is likely to have significantly better odds of more easily and quickly obtaining a new PRC than does the PR with 903 days presence but who has a pattern of presence and travel suggesting he or she has NOT settled permanently in Canada. With the CAVEAT that how it goes in a particular individual's case will vary considerably depending on additional factors, on all the facts and circumstances.
