Thanks for the detailed response! Just meant that by living in Canada for only 745 the person would likely end up in SR because her reported stay only exceeded the RO 15 days
Yes. And that does indeed appear to be the typical case:
cutting-it-close triggering the Secondary Review. I concur in that observation emphatically.
And that, indeed, is an important point well worth making for those PRs who might have the view they meet the minimum so
no problem.
Except the problems that come from getting bogged down in a lengthy SR. Including, potentially, going many months without a valid PR card.
Except the problem that could come from IRCC or CBSA not believing the PR's account of days in Canada, which potentially could be a serious problem.
The reason for my clarification, for going into such detail about what SR tends to be about, was in significant part to explain why SR tends to take longer than it should for IRCC to do a Residency Determination (many bogged down in SR will undoubtedly wonder, if the question is compliance with the PR RO, why is it taking so long, that should not take so long) . . .
and that is because the SR tends to be about more than merely doing a Residency Determination, about more than verifying the PR met the PR Residency Obligation.
Which leads to . . .
just being barely over required 730 days that triggered secondary review. In hindsight, I could have applied after I had accumulated more days
I do not mean to beat this to death, but it is obvious many PRs are not sufficiently aware of the risks involved when they are
cutting-it-close. It is apparent that more awareness about the risks of
cutting-it-close could save more than a few PRs a lot of consternation, that is as long as they recognize the risks and take action to reduce them. But here's a clue: another fifty or hundred days in Canada may help but is NOT really enough to make a big difference; the big difference comes by settling permanently in Canada sooner.
While it is possible that another 100 days or so might have been enough to avoid Secondary Review,
even 850 days is still cutting-it-close, close enough that it still means the PR was spending significantly less than half his or her time in Canada during the preceding five years, and thus will still risk if not outright tend to draw elevated scrutiny.
Many, many PRs make the
MISTAKE of approaching the PR RO as if meeting the minimum obligation is enough to satisfy IRCC expectations. IRCC's expectation is that PRs will permanently settle in Canada without undue delay and that they have genuinely planned and prepared to do this as part of making the decision to become a Canadian.
Those who do not permanently settle in Canada, or who do not appear to have permanently settled in Canada, are at elevated risk for being approached skeptically if not with outright suspicion whenever there is a Residency Determination. Scores of IAD panels and some Federal Court justices have repeatedly emphasized the purpose and intent of granting PR status is to facilitate permanent settlement in Canada. If and when it appears that is not the PR's intent, as indicated by the PR's actual actions, by the extent of time spent abroad, or by the pattern of time spent abroad, the PR can anticipate IRCC might review the PR's case with some element of distrust . . . and thus also take the time to review the PR's history.
This is not to say that IRCC takes a harsh approach to those PRs who struggle to get settled in Canada and are
cutting-it-close in terms of finally getting to Canada to stay. But obviously, IRCC does tend to take a lot closer look, a more skeptical look, at PRs whose history fails to show they have permanently settled in Canada.
This is not to say that IRCC takes a negative view of those PRs who do a short-landing and return to their previous home to take time to make the permanent move to Canada. That is actually quite common and anticipated. But when the amount of time that takes goes beyond a year or two, it is natural for IRCC to question, if not doubt, the extent to which the individual was genuinely planning and preparing to make Canada his or her home.
Yes, the new PR has up to three years to make that move. And the PR will indeed be allowed that time to make the move. But impressions matter. Appearances matter. Credibility matters. The closer the PR cuts it, the greater the risk IRCC will question the PR's credibility, going back to the process of becoming a PR itself.
This is something PRs should be aware of and take into consideration. In contrast, there appears to be no shortage of PRs surprised and dismayed when they run into problems after
cutting-it-close, when they have lived outside Canada more than in Canada over the course of four, five years. The relatively lenient approach IRCC long took when dealing with PRs, the fairly lax enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation in previous years (for a long time it was especially lax for PRs who carry visa-exempt passports), appears to be HISTORY. No more. Or at least not nearly so lenient, not nearly the lax enforcement of old.
Bottom line: PRs who do not come to settle permanently in Canada within roughly two years after landing, plus a bit perhaps, can anticipate elevated scrutiny and some collateral difficulties when the time comes to apply for a new PR card or if they need to apply for a PR TD (lost PR card for example)
or even when arriving at a PoE the next time. PRs not yet settled in Canada should be made aware of this.
A further note regarding IRCC's expectation that PRs will permanently settle in Canada without undue delay and that PRs have genuinely planned and prepared to do this as part of making the decision to become a Canadian: an example of how this plays out in actual cases can be seen in cases where the PR pleads H&C reasons based on needing to care for elderly and ill parents. More than occasionally the fact that a new PR's parents needed care has not been sufficient to save the PR's status, the IAD ruling that the PR was aware of his or her parent's age at the time of applying for and becoming a PR, so it is assumed the PR took the obvious risks into consideration in planning for and making arrangements to immigrate permanently to Canada. The new PR takes and is responsible for the risks involved, and is deemed to have accounted for how long the PR RO allows the PR to be abroad, including time abroad to care for elderly parents. Likewise any personal health issues the PR could have anticipated.
Again, it is apparent that many PRs have the mistaken impression that just meeting the PR RO is all that is expected. It is, rather, the very minimum required. Not quite the ABSOLUTE minimum, as there is some room for H&C flexibility over and above the flexibility of allowing three years absence in a five year period, but it is very nearly an absolute minimum. So when a PR is
cutting-it-close, that really is
cutting-it-close and that has real risks, and the potential for causing inconvenience or significant difficulties even without overtly breaching the obligation. PRs should get informed and be smart about this.
