Wanted your advice. The report 44 (1) issued to me shows a higher number of days (nearly 60 days more). He told me that we found you staying more than you claim. Am confused with that as my calculation submitted was carefully done. Does this become representation as all submitted documents by me claim 60 days lower than what IRCC claims which according to me is right!!
Reminder: I am NOT an expert. I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice.
I am especially NOT able to closely analyze personal facts in a specific individual case.
For ADVICE see a lawyer.
I can often offer general observations. But in regards to this particular aspect, there is NOT much more I can offer, other than the reminder that the appeal is a new hearing, effectively a trial de novo of sorts. The IAD Panel will review what you submit and what the officer issuing the 44(1) Report has calculated, and reach its own conclusions about the facts, including about how many days you get credit for being in Canada.
Another reminder: the first question is whether the 44(1) Report is valid in law. This focuses on whether you met the 730 days in Canada obligation or you were short. If the total the IAD concludes is 729 days, that is in breach, the 44(1) Report would than be considered valid in law.
In that event, the next question is whether you should be allowed to keep PR status anyway. We talk about this as the H&C case, the H&C reasons explaining why the PR failed to return to Canada sooner. But this is really about comparing the reasons for not being in Canada with how much time the PR actually was not in Canada, with consideration given to other factors like the extent to which the PR is otherwise established in Canada, and especially considering the impact of losing PR status on any children.
For this question, whether the PR was in Canada 729 days or just 179 days matters a lot. The more short of 730, the more compelling the reasons need to be.
But again, it appears you are in a position calling for the assistance of a lawyer.
