Is it ok to renew card after completing 760 days?
- Thread starter dican
- Start date
If you are sure about your day count and that its in the preceding 5 year period say from today then sure thing apply. Most applicants with processing issues are those who either don't follow the instructions to submit the required documentation especially passports pages or those who have little in the way of active proof of residence (best evidence is a job).
dican said:
Was inclined to let others respond (such as the post by msafiri, in which I concur), or respond in the first topic where you posted what is basically the same query, which is where this further aspect of it should have been asked. But I think the nature of the inquiry warrants the sort of extended explanation and clarification I tend to post . . .dican said:
Overall, however, the PR who has cut the PR RO close, and particularly one who has delayed applying for a new PR card long after the PR card's expiration because the PR was not in compliance, is mostly at risk for delays in processing, not at risk for losing PR status, so long as, of course, the PR is actually in compliance with the PR RO and remains in compliance.
In other words, 760 days is about as good as 860 days. That is enough to be in compliance. 730 is enough to be in compliance. PR status should not be at risk. But, if CIC has questions, concerns, or especially doubts or suspicions, the process could be delayed, and sometimes the delay can be surprisingly long.
Thus, regarding the risk of non-routine processing and long delays:
First, noting in particular: I have just completed 730+ days . . . and four or so hours later I have just completed 760 days . . .
Hard to point out the significance in the arithmetic without sounding snarky, but . . . well, the arithmetic really matters. Not for the forum of course, not in terms of generally answering your questions, particularly since technically there is no difference between 730+ and 760 or 810, any number of days over 730 constituting compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.
But your question highlights your awareness of why the number matters, which may be described in terms of making favourable impressions and having an PR card application processed timely, versus the prospect a bureaucrat's concerns might lead to further inquiries and potential delays.
There are no definitive answers to such questions.
One might observe the obvious: the closer one cuts it to the minimum, the greater the risk of non-routine processing . . . which could go so far as to invoke a full-blown Residency Determination, which can take quite a long while, and in the course of which the PR is required to substantively prove his or her presence in Canada.
There are, however, many other factors involved, including for example the PRs overall history, including history of presence or absence, but also the extent to which the PR appears well-settled in Canada, versus (say) just barely staying in Canada long enough to retain PR status (with the risk of not having stayed in Canada that long even).
How long can you wait? Do you want to wait? What impact does waiting have on your life and plans?
Here's the rub, well one rub among others: for the PR who was outside Canada for a very long time (more than three years in a five year period) and whose PR is long expired (more than a year), cutting it close very much risks non-routine processing. But, the longer such a PR waits, the longer the PR card has been expired, that too may elevate the risks as well. That is, little may be gained by waiting for a PR in this situation.
This is not about a PR living long-term in Canada, well-settled in Canada, and who has had no need for a PR card and thus has let his or her card remain expired for years . . . this is, rather, about the PR with a history of either non-compliance or borderline compliance with the PR RO and who has managed to return to and (purportedly, by the PRs own accounting) remain in Canada long enough to become in compliance with the PR RO.
After all, CIC's suspicions do not ordinarily arise out of thin air but are based on circumstances or patterns of circumstances. The suspicions may or may not be well-founded, or based on appearances rather than hard facts, but CIC's suspicions are usually derived from something about the individual or the circumstances which cause CIC to have questions leading to concerns leading to doubts and suspicions.
So the real issue is the strength of the PR's proof of presence.
The real question is whether or not the PR has strong objective evidence (evidence more than the PR's declarations of presence plus consistent stamps in the PR's passport and other travel documents) to prove presence, and this includes supporting or corroborating elements like proof of place of abode in Canada, proof of employment or other activity in Canada, and filing income tax returns. Or, if there is any weakness or gap in the proof the PR has, how long will it take to accumulate strong evidence.
Note, for example, what difference will another 10 or 50 or even a 100 days make?
730 days in Canada in total (for preceding five years) suffices. If CIC buys that, no problem. The problem lies in the risk that CIC does not buy the PR's declaration . . . and relative to that, sure, just 735 days is likely to raise concerns for almost any PR . . . but the difference between 750 and 800 days? between 760 and 830 days? such differences are probably not significant. Remember, anyone with a total less than 900 days is obviously someone who has been spending more time outside Canada than in Canada, and if there is any question (let alone doubt) for any particular time period, for such a PR it is rather easy to infer the PR was at least possibly outside Canada (that is, where the PR usually was) . . . and that possibility alone can be problematic, since it is the PR's burden to prove he or she was present in Canada.
To be clear: if the PR's proof allows CIC to infer there is a significant possibility the PR was outside Canada more than 1095 days within the preceding five years, the PR has failed to meet the burden of proof. Technically the burden is beyond a balance of probabilities, and thus technically if the PR's proof is sufficient to show the PR was probably in Canada 730+ that should suffice . . . but the practical reality is that these decisions are not anywhere near precise, so if the evidence leaves CIC doubting that the PR has proven presence, there can be a negative outcome.
The other side of the practical reality for PR card applications, however, for any PR who is not blatantly in breach of the PR RO at the time of applying for the card, is that the main risk is that the PR card application process will be extensively delayed or the PR may have to make a new application. So long as the PR is at least cutting it close and has some substantial documentation to show presence (even if there are gaps or weaknesses), it is highly unlikely the process will result in a full blown Residency Determination with a negative outcome (adjudication of inadmissibility due to breach of PR RO, resulting in loss of PR status).
