My question is that is there any way that we can convince embassy that his family is here and he is going to stay here for good and will complete his obligations.
I largely concur (with a minor quibble, to be addressed) in the observations offered by
@Bs65 and
@spyfy but I especially agree with the observations offered by
@21Goose
While
@21Goose stated the main reason why there is good reason to anticipate a positive outcome, the underlying policy favouring unification of families outweighing a relatively small breach of the Residency Obligation, it is important to recognize the sooner he comes to Canada the better his odds of not being reported, or if reported, the better his odds of still being allowed to keep PR status in an appeal.
BUT, to be clear, to keep his PR status not only is it better to come sooner (even if too late to meet the RO) rather than later, he needs to come AND STAY. And STAY FOR TWO YEARS.
For clarification, about "
PR is expiring on June 18, 2020 . . ." PR status does not expire. His PR card expires June 18, 2020. As the others noted, what is important relative to calculating Residency Obligation compliance is the date he actually landed.
Another clarification, there is no need to deal with an embassy as long as he has a valid PR card.
In any event, if he returns TO STAY in June or July
THIS YEAR, perhaps even a little later, there is a decent chance, maybe even a good chance, he will NOT be reported upon arrival at the PoE (Port-of-Entry). If he is allowed to enter Canada without being reported, he can stay. And as long as he stays long enough (two years), there will be NO PROBLEM keeping PR status. It will be OK if the PR card expires. A PR in Canada does NOT need to have a valid PR card. He just will need to wait TWO years and then apply (to IRCC) for a new card.
THE LONGER EXPLANATION:
Any PR carrying a valid PR card who is not obviously in breach of the RO has a good chance to be waived through by the first examining officer, the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) officer. Here too the chances of being waived through by the PIL officer are better the sooner he comes.
If he is waived through by the PIL officer, he enters Canada without being reported for a breach of the RO. NO problem, then, as long as he stays for the next TWO years, thereby curing the breach. Then he can apply for a new PR card. Again, it is OK if his PR card is expired . . . so long as he does not leave Canada.
But when he arrives at the PoE, of course he might be referred to Secondary and examined about RO compliance, and then reported at the PoE. He would still be allowed to come into Canada. If he is reported, he can and should appeal that. Then he would get to stay while the appeal is pending. If he stays in Canada pending the appeal, odds that the IAD (Immigration Appeal Division) will allow him to keep PR status should be at least fair and probably will be good.
The H&C Case:
It is critical that he be totally truthful in the answers he gives at the border. And not be evasive. Obtaining a favourable decision may very much depend on him making a positive impression.
You identified the best argument in his favour: coming, finally, to stay in Canada with family, and to that he can add that the reason for not coming sooner was that it just took longer than hoped to arrange his finances and settle affairs in his home country before making the final move. Yes, there is a good chance this is persuasive. So even if he is referred to Secondary at the PoE, this argument (or simple statement of how it is) might persuade the examining officer to not even issue a report. No report, he then enters Canada and just has to stay two years to keep his PR status.
But even if that officer issues a Report, the same explanation might persuade the second officer, the one called the Minister's Delegate (who in practice is usually just another officer), to NOT issue a Departure Order. That is, even if the first officer decided to issue the Report, if the other officer decides these reasons are good enough to allow the PR to keep PR status, that officer can decide to not issue a Departure Order and allow the PR to enter Canada . . . and here too, then all the PR needs to do is stay two years.
BUT even if that officer, the Minister's Delegate, decides to issue a Departure Order, again the PR will be allowed to enter Canada and then should appeal . . . and this same argument has a fair chance in the appeal. I would not describe this as "winning" the appeal . . . it is more of an argument that says the individual deserves to keep PR status and by the time of the appeal, when the IAD reviews the case, if the PR has remained in Canada and is settled in Canada with family, there is a good chance the PR will be allowed to keep status on H&C (Humane and Compassionate) grounds.
And that is what the argument, that he is finally coming to stay in Canada with family, is about, H&C reasons for allowing him to keep PR status.
This leads to the quibble I have with the view some express, that:
". . . generally work or business reasons are not accepted as reasons for failing the RO even if other family members are in Canada."
How reasons for not coming to Canada sooner factor into the H&C analysis is far more complicated than linear statements like this reflect, and this includes factors like work or business reasons. CBSA officers and IRCC decision-makers (such as IAD panels) are well acquainted with the contingencies of real life and the difficulties many immigrants face in their effort to make the actual move to settle in Canada. They get it. Thus, while it is true in a very, very general sense that business or work reasons for being abroad are not considered a positive factor supporting H&C relief, if the PR otherwise has a sympathetic case AND the breach is relatively small, and it appears the PR has genuinely intended to make a good effort to actually settle in Canada, the work or business reason can be either a neutral factor or even a somewhat positive one. Moreover, it is important to actually explain this as a reason for not coming to settle sooner, so that the Canadian decision-maker (CBSA or IRCC) understands the real situation. It is not a strong H&C reason, but it is a reason that makes sense and can have some positive influence when it is consistent with circumstances supporting the case that the PR has made a genuine effort to get his act together to get to Canada as soon as he could.
Then the fact that family is already settled in Canada can be what tips the scales in a positive H&C assessment. This is a big factor in the H&C evaluation.
To be clear, H&C cases are TRICKY. The biggest factor is likely (not always but usually) to be how much short of meeting the RO the PR is. So if he can get here just two months or three months short, presenting a PR card valid at the PoE, a card that is valid until the middle of the next year, THEN given the other positive factors, family including children settled in Canada, having spent some significant time in Canada himself, this still being within five years of becoming a PR, and having reasons which make sense, even if those are work or business related reasons which do not excuse staying abroad . . . the odds are probably pretty good.
If an appeal of a PoE Report and Departure Order is necessary, by the time the IAD hears the case he should have another positive factor: the fact that he has settled and stayed in Canada in the meantime.
This latter factor offers a better example illustrating how tricky or finicky the H&C case will often be. In the circumstances here, the PR staying, settling and staying in Canada pending the appeal, can make a real positive difference (to be clear, leaving while the appeal is pending will almost for sure make a real and big difference, but NEGATIVELY). But in many scenarios, the IAD will simply acknowledge this as a positive factor but give it very little weight . . . PRs who made very little effort to settle in Canada sooner and who have minimal ties in Canada, and especially if they barely came to Canada just in time to get here with a valid PR card, typically get very little positive credit for staying in Canada pending the appeal.
The weight of family in Canada is another example illustrating how tricky or finicky the H&C case can be. IAD and the Federal Courts have both expressed the view that the amount of time family has been in Canada and the amount of time the PR has not, might show there is little or NO hardship if the PR does not have status to live in Canada. And little hardship because the spouse can sponsor the other IF and WHEN the PR is actually ready to settle down in Canada. Nonetheless, in the circumstances here, the family settled in Canada will most likely have a good deal of positive weight . . . and here too, if an appeal becomes necessary, if the PR has been staying in Canada pending the appeal, the fact his family is settled in Canada suggests it is likely the spouse will simply sponsor him anyway, and that it should be granted, so the equitable factors favour allowing him to keep status.
This has gone long.
@21Goose gave the short version. That says enough. My long explanation is just that, to more fully explain why I agree with that short version.
