With some exception (will address below), what
@scylla initially responded is the gist of it:
the sooner you get here, the better your chances of keeping PR status.
That's really the key. You have breached the Residency Obligation. You meet the statutory definition of "
inadmissible." Whether or not that results in a decision to terminate your PR status when you return to Canada (typically referred to as "
being Reported," even though there is more to it than that) will depend mostly on how big the breach is. So the sooner you get here, the better chance you have of keeping PR status. Yes, the nature of the reasons why you did not come to Canada sooner can help, and can make the difference, recognizing that some reasons weigh more than others. But arriving here by January 2023 gives you way, way better odds than if you arrive here just a week or even a month before the fifth year anniversary of the date you landed, let alone if you do not arrive here until just a week or three before your PR card expires. Arriving here by December 2022, even better odds. Next week? Even better.
If you are planning on getting here relatively soon, at least early in the coming year, odds should be favourable, favourable enough to go-for-it.
No need to read any more of my comments below.
If in contrast, getting here sooner is not likely . . .
here's the longer explanation:
First, it warrants repeating for emphasis, the sooner you get here, the better your chances of keeping PR status.
In particular, it appears that new PRs (within first five years since date of landing) are still benefitting from significant leniency in the enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation. It also warrants cautioning, however, that the scope of this can change at any time, and actually it could have changed before now, noting there can be, and usually is, a significant lag in time before such changes are known in a forum like this. In fact, it is difficult for us to reliably glean just how strict PoE RO enforcement is at any given moment in time, since we rely mostly on a small number of anecdotal reports in conjunction with following how appeals are decided, the latter lagging long after the border transactions at issue.
Over the course of the previous year, lots of signs signaling lots of leniency in enforcing the RO at the PoE. Going forward, uncertain at best.
Nonetheless, even though being in breach of the Residency Obligation (which it appears you have been for 8 or 9 months now, which you have been as of the day you were abroad more than 1095 days since the date of your landing) puts a PR, such as you, AT RISK for inadmissibility proceedings and loss of PR status upon your arrival at a Port-of-Entry, despite that RISK, for now it still appears that many PRs in somewhat similar situations, particularly those who have relatively reasonable explanations for why they were delayed coming to Canada, are waived into Canada without an inadmissibility Report being prepared against them.
Such leniency is far from guaranteed, far from a free pass. Again, how much in breach of the RO the PR is, as of the date the PR arrives at the PoE, is typically the biggest factor; and yes, H&C considerations explaining reasons for not returning to Canada sooner are a big factor as well, but forecasting the outcome of a particular H&C case (with some exceptions for the more obvious situations, both ends of the spectrum) is well beyond the scope of what anyone here can reliably predict.
I totally agree with what I think
@armoured suggests, that for purposes of discussion and what is hopefully helpful commentary in a forum like this, just a general reference to your H&C reasons is enough detail. No one here can be relied on to assess the weight of the H&C case in detail . . . and certainly NOT qualified to pass judgment on it.
Moreover, there continues to be some persistent misunderstanding here about the way in which a PR's
*reasons* for not returning to Canada sooner are assessed. Just characterizing a PR's reasons as "
excuses" tends to distort how H&C factors are considered, and to be clear, before an inadmissibility Report for a breach of the RO can be upheld and finalized by the issuance of a Removal Officer, ANY and ALL reasons given by a PR explaining why the PR did not return to Canada sooner MUST BE CONSIDERED. And will be (barring those damn
stuff happens exceptions).
So I am not sure what is meant by XXX (Covid or otherwise) "
isn't being accepted as an excuse for failing to meet the residency obligation," but unless an officer has cause to believe the PR's explanation is not credible,
it MUST be accepted (Covid reason included) and taken into consideration, and weighed along with all the other relevant factors . . . among which, sorry to beat this drum so incessantly, the NUMBERS (meaning how big the breach is) loom large and typically largest.
How much weight this or that reason will have, even whether it weighs in favour of allowing relief or toward denying relief, varies greatly, depending not just on the particulars of that reason, but how that reason fits into the whole scheme of things, taken in context. Even factors like staying abroad longer because of a personal employment opportunity, which typically is said to carry very little if any positive weight, in many circumstances (especially for the PR still in the first five years since landing) can be a positive factor helping to tip the scales toward allowing a PR in RO breach an opportunity to keep PR status.
The impact of Covid has been so universal, it is near certain it is a significant factor in what influences border officials screening soft-landed PRs who are late-arriving (your situation, other than the particular family health related family matters, is quite common). Contrary to assertions that Covid is not "
accepted," it is at least highly likely, if not nearly certain, it has been a huge factor underlying how leniently border officials have been and appear to still be in enforcing the PR RO. But this leads back to noting the nature and scope of leniency at the PoE not only can change, but the influence of Covid in justifying relief from a breach of the RO is undoubtedly going to decline and may already be declining.
Again, NO free pass. No guarantees. The whole package matters. In many respects it comes down to the deciding official's assessment of the PR and whether in consideration of all the relevant factors whether the PR deserves an opportunity to keep PR status. That's a hard one to detail or quantify, lots of subjective discretion woven into the fabric of who
*deserves* the opportunity to keep PR status.
Which brings this back to the other, family-related factors. Which are obviously difficult and for which I offer my condolences. Which likewise MUST be considered and will almost certainly be considered and given significant positive weight.
Still, to be sure, no free pass.
To be clear, in particular, it should be remembered that the PR RO is specifically designed to accommodate such difficult and compelling reasons for spending extended periods of time outside Canada. The RO is designed to give PRs, including PRs in situations similar to yours, the flexibility to spend lengthy periods of time abroad including for family reasons. UP to THREE YEARS in any five years, in fact, NO questions asked, NO need to explain, entirely up to the PR to decide their own priorities without having to justify why they were abroad, AS LONG AS the PR spends at least 730 days in Canada during the first five years, and within any five year period following that.
That is, the RO is specifically structured to accommodate extended absences from Canada including those "
due to out of hand issues," or just because the PR chooses other priorities, AS LONG AS the PR spends at least 730 days in Canada during the first five years, and within any five year period following that.
So this loops back, again, to the scope of leniency at the PoE seen in regards to PRs in breach. Looping back to the sooner you get here the better your odds. And then stumbling some running into the H&C case.
H&C cases are complicated. H&C cases are not readily predictable. Compound H&C cases are especially complex and difficult to predict. First there was Covid, then a parent's serious illness, then a parent's death, then the hardship of the other parent's circumstances . . . can the PR even be expected to come to Canada to settle permanently?
No one here can possibly offer a reliable assessment of such a complex H&C case, except to recognize that in conjunction with a smaller breach, the better the odds that border officials will be persuaded to give the returning PR the opportunity to keep PR status.
