+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Leaving with a two days buffer of PR obligation

mira_johnson

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2015
274
10
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
3143
App. Filed.......
01-2017
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
12-2016
VISA ISSUED...
10-2017
LANDED..........
10-2017
Hi folks,
Like many others here I've struggled to keep to residency obligations meeting the 2 out of 5 yrs but based on my calculation I would be able to go to Canada with a buffer of TWO DAYS to be out of the country. How I calculated this was by counting 3 years forward from PR landing day and then counting forward the number of days I spent in Canada after my landing date. I calculated half days in Canada as full days (ie when arriving or leaving canada), since this is what I read on cic website.
This doesn't leave much room for any travel outside the country but I am also slightly concerned that once PR renewal comes, that officers are going to calculate my absence differently or not look close enough and decline/start PR revocation even if I was to practically "exactly" on the day meet my RO obligation.
Going to Canada now is very impractical and Id rather not go through everything I need to do to manage to stay there 2 yrs only to find out 2 years later that they wont renew my PR status.

I know many of you are risktakers some even try to settle past their expiry dates but I'm not one of these people. I like a certain sense of security that I am actually going to succeed.

What would you do in my case, should I stay where I am and not take the leap or is it realistic to not get into trouble with this little buffer? (Is it manageable to stay put for 2 yrs with all family abroad, if you have any experience with that)
PS I understand you have no way of knowing my personal circumstances as for emergencies abroad etc, so I'm more asking for help to interpret how cic might calculate differently or make a too hasty decision without looking thoroughly (they are only humans after all and I've seen threads here implying that they sometimes make unfair/wrong responses).
Is there some way to speak to them already to make sure we are on the same page, are keeping the same records?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mehdimominkhowaja

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
52,959
12,759
Hi folks,
Like many others here I've struggled to keep to residency obligations meeting the 2 out of 5 yrs but based on my calculation I would be able to go to Canada with a buffer of TWO DAYS to be out of the country. How I calculated this was by counting 3 years forward from PR landing day and then counting forward the number of days I spent in Canada after my landing date. I calculated half days in Canada as full days (ie when arriving or leaving canada), since this is what I read on cic website.
This doesn't leave much room for any travel outside the country but I am also slightly concerned that once PR renewal comes, that officers are going to calculate my absence differently or not look close enough and decline/start PR revocation even if I was to practically "exactly" on the day meet my RO obligation.
Going to Canada now is very impractical and Id rather not go through everything I need to do to manage to stay there 2 yrs only to find out 2 years later that they wont renew my PR status.

I know many of you are risktakers some even try to settle past their expiry dates but I'm not one of these people. I like a certain sense of security that I am actually going to succeed.

What would you do in my case, should I stay where I am and not take the leap or is it realistic to not get into trouble with this little buffer? (Is it manageable to stay put for 2 yrs with all family abroad, if you have any experience with that)
PS I understand you have no way of knowing my personal circumstances as for emergencies abroad etc, so I'm more asking for help to interpret how cic might calculate differently or make a too hasty decision without looking thoroughly (they are only humans after all and I've seen threads here implying that they sometimes make unfair/wrong responses).
Is there some way to speak to them already to make sure we are on the same page, are keeping the same records?
Most only renew when they have a few months more than 730 so if there calculations are slightly off it won't be an issue. It may be difficult to secure employment at the moment so I would be prepared financially.
 

mira_johnson

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2015
274
10
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
3143
App. Filed.......
01-2017
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
12-2016
VISA ISSUED...
10-2017
LANDED..........
10-2017
Most only renew when they have a few months more than 730 so if there calculations are slightly off it won't be an issue. It may be difficult to secure employment at the moment so I would be prepared financially.
Thanks. Are you saying it's wise to wait to renew the PR card straight away? I was planning to apply exactly on expiry date or some time before visa expires in case I would need to leave the country following the 2 yrs. I wouldn't be meeting the RO requirement until the expiry date of my visa. Right now processing times is showing 4 months,but after the pandemic who knows..
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
52,959
12,759
Thanks. Are you saying it's wise to wait to renew the PR card straight away? I was planning to apply exactly on expiry date or some time before visa expires in case I would need to leave the country following the 2 yrs. I wouldn't be meeting the RO requirement until the expiry date of my visa. Right now processing times is showing 4 months,but after the pandemic who knows..
What visa is expiring?
 

mira_johnson

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2015
274
10
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
3143
App. Filed.......
01-2017
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
12-2016
VISA ISSUED...
10-2017
LANDED..........
10-2017
Am I interpreting the half day as full day when leaving and entering Canada correctly ? The rules i read regarding this was when calculating citizenships not necessarily about keeping to pr obligations only
 

mira_johnson

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2015
274
10
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
3143
App. Filed.......
01-2017
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
12-2016
VISA ISSUED...
10-2017
LANDED..........
10-2017
Does anyone have any experience with getting an extension of their PR visa like a buffer in case of emergencies right at the border or by calling them?
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
52,959
12,759
Does anyone have any experience with getting an extension of their PR visa like a buffer in case of emergencies right at the border or by calling them?
RO extensions do not exist. You need to leave enough room in your RO to be able to travel if needed.
 

mira_johnson

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2015
274
10
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
3143
App. Filed.......
01-2017
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
12-2016
VISA ISSUED...
10-2017
LANDED..........
10-2017
RO extensions do not exist. You need to leave enough room in your RO to be able to travel if needed.
Even during the pandemic?
 

Copingwithlife

VIP Member
Jul 29, 2018
3,864
1,867
Earth
Even during the pandemic?
Even during the pandemic . You only had to spend 2/5 years in Canada, the country you chose for “ permanent “ residence. That’s only 40%, that’s why there is no extension. It’s lenient as it, any more lenient and you might as well not have any rules
You’re living on the edge applying with literally no buffer.
 

mira_johnson

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2015
274
10
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
3143
App. Filed.......
01-2017
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
12-2016
VISA ISSUED...
10-2017
LANDED..........
10-2017
Even during the pandemic . You only had to spend 2/5 years in Canada, the country you chose for “ permanent “ residence. That’s only 40%, that’s why there is no extension. It’s lenient as it, any more lenient and you might as well not have any rules
You’re living on the edge applying with literally no buffer.
It's what I'm thinking too. It's very non-ideal. But where do you get this info? Your personal opinion or actual response from cic?
 

mira_johnson

Hero Member
Sep 30, 2015
274
10
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
3143
App. Filed.......
01-2017
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
12-2016
VISA ISSUED...
10-2017
LANDED..........
10-2017
I deeply regret not going even with that short amount of buffer. Now I am in the same shoes as many others here wondering how to get around the not meeting RO obligations...
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
You only had to spend 2/5 years in Canada, the country you chose for “ permanent “ residence. That’s only 40%, that’s why there is no extension. It’s lenient as it, any more lenient and you might as well not have any rules . . .
It's very non-ideal. But where do you get this info? Your personal opinion or actual response from cic?
Reminder: The PR Residency Obligation is NOT a condition for keeping PR status. Thus, for example, it is NOT self-enforcing. Thus, for example, a breach does not automatically result in the loss of PR status. Nonetheless, the PR in breach of the RO is "inadmissible," and thus subject to the procedures prescribed for adjudicating inadmissibility, the termination of PR status, and consequences which follow from that.

The RO itself is fairly simple. How it applies and is enforced can tend to be complicated in some situations.


RE NO EXTENSION of Residency Obligation:

The PR Residency Obligation is prescribed by law. It is specifically spelled out in subsection 28(1) and 28(2)(a) in IRPA. See https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-274598

This can only be amended (changed) by an act of Parliament given Royal Assent. IRCC has NO AUTHORITY, NO POWER to revise or amend or change what is prescribed by law. Thus, IRCC has NO power to "extend" the number of days absent a PR is allowed under the law. Note, NOT even the Prime Minister can revise the law (without going through the legislative process involved in tabling and adopting a bill in Parliament).

Many provisions of law allow for some flexibility in application and implementation, or in enforcement. This gets complicated and ranges from what can be governed by regulation to what are powers delegated to agencies or departments of government, typically delegated to a particular "Minister." BUT again, the Residency Obligation itself is explicitly prescribed in the statute . . . so there is no changing the RO itself without going through the process of enacting legislation amending the law itself (zero chance of the RO being amended relative to Covid-19 considerations; and as @Copingwithlife observed, since is it is so lenient, so flexible, there is very little, if any chance Parliament will be changing the law to make it any more lenient).

Even regulatory changes are a big deal, subject to a fairly rigorous procedure, including official notice and usually requiring a period of time for public comment. But the Residency Obligation itself is NOT governed by regulations since, again, it is specifically prescribed in Section 28 IRPA.
Note: IRCC can propose and adopt regulations which specify additional periods of time for which a PR, in effect, gets credit toward meeting the 730 days within five years obligation, that is in addition to those specified in subsection 28(2)(a)(ii) to (iv), such as the accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse abroad credit provided in 28(2)(a)(ii) IRPA), as provided in 28(2)(a)(v); none have been proposed and there is no hint and very little likelihood, which I will explain further below, that there will be any regulations proposed to provide a Covid-related "credit" toward RO compliance.​


RO ENFORCEMENT and RELIEF for BREACHES:

The Residency Obligation has a big escape valve, a relief valve, and that is the discretion granted to officers to allow a PR to keep PR status DESPITE a breach of the RO based on "humanitarian and compassionate considerations." This is prescribed in subsection 28(2)(c) IRPA; again, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-274598

We have not seen any formal let alone official announcements or notices, or otherwise publicized information, regarding any particular policies or practices related to specifically allowing relief due to the impact of Covid-19. I am NOT an expert, and cannot say for sure, but nonetheless I do NOT anticipate the publicizing of any formal policy or practice in this regard.

A specific, formal policy or practice is NOT necessary. The H&C relief valve allows for adequate consideration of ALL relevant factors, INCLUDING Covid-19 related considerations. Of course this involves INDIVIDUAL-specific determinations, based on the particular PR's individual-specific facts and circumstances.

Reminder: the purpose of the grant of PR status is so that the individual can settle and live PERMANENTLY in Canada. There is a tendency to underestimate the importance of what the law intends based on what the law MAY ALLOW. This seems especially so relative to how some PRs approach the RO. Just because the law ALLOWS PRs to, in effect, live abroad more than they live in Canada (up to three years in a five-year period), does not mean the law is intended to facilitate such a lifestyle. And indeed, it is NOT intended to facilitate this, as IAD panels and the Federal Court have repeatedly stated the purpose of PR is to facilitate PERMANENT settlement IN Canada. The law generously ALLOWS extended absences in order to have a structure that will accommodate a wide, wide range of real life contingencies, including home country ties, immigrants might encounter.

Observations Regarding RO Enforcement Generally:

Caveat:
While some RO H&C cases may be relatively simple or at least straight-forward, many are complicated and their outcome can be very difficult to forecast. These sorts of cases and relevant factors are discussed in many topics here. How it goes varies greatly. The variables are many. The dynamics, including how this or that factor can have an impact on the consideration of this or that other factor, can get very complicated.

BOTTOM-LINE in general: Any PR who has failed to comply with the RO is at RISK for losing status. While other factors can loom very large in individual cases, the most common big factor is the number of days IN Canada versus days ABSENT. Generally, the SOONER a PR returns to Canada, the better chance the PR has that he or she will be allowed to keep PR status DESPITE failing to comply with the RO.

There is no clear source, but it is also my impression there tends to be more leeway allowed PRs still within the first five years of when they landed . . . diminishing, of course, the closer to the fifth year anniversary they are. This is not so much due to a policy or practice, as such, but as a natural result of the way H&C factors apply in PR RO breach situations.


Probable Practice Re Covid-19; Practical Examples:

Another CAVEAT: To be clear, once a PR is in breach of the RO there is NO guarantee that H&C considerations will be sufficient for the PR to keep status. A PR who fails to comply with the RO is, simply, at RISK for losing PR status.

Regarding the impact of Covid-19, there should be NO doubt, to the extent that Covid-19, and measures taken in regards to this pandemic, cause a delay in a PR's return to Canada, this will be taken into consideration. This will almost certainly be a significant factor in the H&C analysis for many PRs who fail to comply with their RO.

That is, I am very confident that the impact of Covid-19 will be a positive factor tipping the scales in favour of allowing SOME PRs to keep their PR status DESPITE failing to comply with the RO.

But how so, to what effect, with what outcome in the particular case, that will VARY and vary widely, DEPENDING on the individual PR's situation. Which demands reiterating the caveat that there is NO guarantee. A lot can and in most cases will depend on many additional factors . . . which again tends to get very complicated (which, again, is discussed at-length, often in-depth, in many other topics here).

Again emphasizing the no guarantee caveat, some examples:

PR landed, and thus became a PR, in October 2017, in a "soft-landing," and as of the beginning of 2020 had spent just two weeks in Canada. If this PR has a valid PR card and travels to Canada before the end of this year, my guess is the PR's chances of NOT even being Reported upon arrival at a PoE are very good. Despite having been outside Canada for more than 1095 days since landing and thus being in breach of the RO.​
In contrast, a PR who landed before 2015 and who as of March 1, 2020 had been outside Canada for over three years since the last time he or she was in Canada, probably has a much higher risk of being Reported and NOT allowed to keep status based on H&C relief, when he or she next arrives at a PoE.​
The latter example aside, there is some indication that, PERHAPS, the PoE officials are NOT closely screening PRs for RO compliance these days, such that PERHAPS any PR with a valid PR card arriving at a PoE these days may have good odds of being waived into Canada. Seems likely that egregious cases, obvious cases, are still very much at RISK . . . but for many PRs, and especially those still within the first five years since landing, FOR NOW (with no idea how long this might last, assuming this is happening this way), my GUESS is that there are good odds of not being closely examined as to RO compliance at the PoE.​

Overall, among the many, many factors which can influence how things actually go for a particular individual, among the more salient factors which are likely to have a significant impact --
-- the sooner the PR gets to Canada, the better​
-- the longer the PR was abroad before the pandemic (before March 2020), and especially if the PR was already in breach of the RO before then, the less likely considerations for Covid-19 will save the PR's status​
 
  • Like
Reactions: mira_johnson

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,227
7,755
Regarding the impact of Covid-19, there should be NO doubt, to the extent that Covid-19, and measures taken in regards to this pandemic, cause a delay in a PR's return to Canada, this will be taken into consideration. This will almost certainly be a significant factor in the H&C analysis for many PRs who fail to comply with their RO.

That is, I am very confident that the impact of Covid-19 will be a positive factor tipping the scales in favour of allowing SOME PRs to keep their PR status DESPITE failing to comply with the RO.

But how so, to what effect, with what outcome in the particular case, that will VARY and vary widely, DEPENDING on the individual PR's situation.
It would be interesting if there were data available about the number of reports for non-compliance with RO at ports of entry.

Failing that, self-reported cases here or other public sources (preferably with enough info for outsiders to get some idea whether these are covid/pre-covid compliance issues).

I can't claim to be sufficiently assiduous or attentive here to say - but I do not recall many cases of posters here bringing up being formally reported at border in the last several months. Further, hard to claim a sufficient pre-covid basis of comparison, either.

Mostly the cases I recall here in recent months have been PRTD applications - mostly with clear long-term RO compliance issues, and a handful of PRTD cases that were - from impression only - rather more clearcut cases decided favourably.

But that is nothing more than an impression. I assume any indication of how many cases proceeding to appeals etc will only become visible sometime in future yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mira_johnson