My family's PR cards (me, spouse and kid) are expiring in Dec 2026, we were given positive outcome on report for not meeting the RO, report was not filled and based on H&C grounds officer cleared our H&C approval and issued us PRD letters. When should we apply for the PR cards renewal provided current card is expiring in Dec.
PR Card renewal without meeting RO but with PRD letter from superintendent (H&C)
- Thread starter nissan318
- Start date
Safest approach is to wait to apply for a new PR card ONLY when in compliance with the RO.
That said, for a PR who has established longterm in-fact residence in Canada, and is staying here, it might be OK to make a PR card application even before staying long enough to be in compliance with the RO. This is only true for some PRs (only some, depending on the particular facts in their individual situation), again only if they are settled and living in Canada. Thus, for some it can be relatively safe to apply for a new PR card after a positive H&C adjudication (such as a visa office decision approving a PR Travel Document application, or a decision by a Minister's Delegate setting aside a 44(1) Report).
It is important that the H&C decision is the result of a formal adjudication (not just waived through a PoE for example). Again, that would one of the following:
-- visa office decision approving a PR Travel Document application, or
-- a decision by a Minister's Delegate setting aside a Removal/Departure Order (following hearing on a 44(1) Report), or
-- an IAD decision setting aside a decision denying a PR TD or setting aside a Removal/Departure Order
Anyone considering making a PR card application relying on H&C relief (not staying and waiting until they are in RO compliance), including a PR who has benefitted from a favourable H&C decision, should be settled, living, and staying in Canada before making the application, and continuing to stay . . . continuing to stay until they are in compliance with the RO even if they are issued a new PR card (remember, a new PR card does NOT restart the RO clock). In the meantime . . .
Take care of any business requiring a PR card before the cards expire, such as applying for or renewing provincial health care insurance or drivers' licenses. There is no other need to have a currently valid PR card except for travel to Canada on commercial transport (mostly air travel to Canada), which a PR should not do unless they are in compliance with the RO.
There is no need to rush getting a new PR card (and, in any event, for any PR who is not in compliance with the RO, that makes the card application complex and IRCC is not likely to rush sending a new card no matter how strong their H&C case is) . . .
. . . that is, no rush unless you are not currently settled in Canada, or you have not yet come here to stay, in which case there is a bit of a rush to do that, at the least to get here to stay.
Remember, H&C relief is never prospective. A favourable H&C decision does not protect a non-compliant PR from future RO enforcement if the PR leaves Canada again. Until you are in compliance with the RO it would be foolish to leave Canada and test the reception at the border or airport when you next return. So, to be clear, if keeping Canadian PR status is important to you, do not leave Canada until you are in compliance with the RO.
Even if you are issued new PR cards, remember it would still be foolish (that is, taking an unnecessary risk) to leave Canada until you are in compliance with the RO. (Again, a favourable H&C decision does not protect a PR from future RO enforcement.)
What is the code on the PRTD approval? RC-1? If you didn’t obtain a PRTD what do you mean by a positive report?
Last edited:
Correction:
I made a minor error in my previous post. Even though I correctly referred to "a decision by a Minister's Delegate setting aside a 44(1) Report," in listing the types of decisions a PR might rely on as a positive H&C decision, I subsequently incorrectly referred to a MD decision following a hearing on a 44(1) Report "setting aside a Removal/Departure Order." That too should have referred to a MD decision setting aside a Section 44(1) inadmissibility report.
That, by the way, is likely to be the sort of decision the OP is referencing. The OP should not, however, rely on what is more likely. Before relying on a decision to proceed with making a PR card application without waiting until the PR is in RO compliance, the OP should be sure there was a MD decision setting aside a 44(1) Report.
That is, to be clear, the safest approach is to wait to apply for a new PR card ONLY when in compliance with the RO. It might be relatively safe to apply before that if there was a decision by a Minister's Delegate setting aside an inadmissibility report for H&C reasons following a hearing on the Report.
There is no indication that the other decisions a PR might rely on, to make a PR card application despite still being short of the RO, are in play for the OP. Those include a visa office decision approving a PR Travel Document application (based on H&C relief, and thus coded RC-1) or an IAD decision setting aside a decision denying a PR TD, or setting aside a Removal/Departure Order.
Leading to . . .
Note, there is no indication the "positive report" you reference was approval of an application for a PR Travel Document, as the OP (and family) still have valid PR cards (valid for at least six more weeks).
But what underlies your question is important if the OP and family are actually considering applying for new PR cards before they are in compliance with the RO (thus relying on H&C relief in the assessment of RO compliance) . . . after all, whatever decision ("positive outcome on report") the OP is referencing, the safest approach is to wait to apply for a new PR card. That is, to eliminate (well, to reduce as much as possible) the risk of a PR card application triggering inadmissibility proceedings, they should NOT apply relying on H&C relief unless and until they are in compliance with the RO.
So, as I already framed things:
But, again, there are various circumstances in which, despite still being short of the RO, the risk of triggering inadmissibility proceedings may be low enough that a PR could reasonably elect to make a PR card application.
I addressed one such situation (there are others, but explaining them is complicated and for most PRs in Canada still in breach of the RO, diving into that would be a distraction), the situation the OP appears to be asking about: relying on a decision already allowing H&C relief . . . that is, as the OP phrased it, relying on a "positive outcome on report for not meeting the RO."
As already noted, to be a positive H&C decision a PR might rely on, and based on that elect to proceed with a PR card application despite still being short of RO compliance, it is important that the H&C decision is the result of a formal adjudication. That would one of the following:
Only the second of these appears to be relevant in the OP's situation.
I made a minor error in my previous post. Even though I correctly referred to "a decision by a Minister's Delegate setting aside a 44(1) Report," in listing the types of decisions a PR might rely on as a positive H&C decision, I subsequently incorrectly referred to a MD decision following a hearing on a 44(1) Report "setting aside a Removal/Departure Order." That too should have referred to a MD decision setting aside a Section 44(1) inadmissibility report.
That, by the way, is likely to be the sort of decision the OP is referencing. The OP should not, however, rely on what is more likely. Before relying on a decision to proceed with making a PR card application without waiting until the PR is in RO compliance, the OP should be sure there was a MD decision setting aside a 44(1) Report.
That is, to be clear, the safest approach is to wait to apply for a new PR card ONLY when in compliance with the RO. It might be relatively safe to apply before that if there was a decision by a Minister's Delegate setting aside an inadmissibility report for H&C reasons following a hearing on the Report.
There is no indication that the other decisions a PR might rely on, to make a PR card application despite still being short of the RO, are in play for the OP. Those include a visa office decision approving a PR Travel Document application (based on H&C relief, and thus coded RC-1) or an IAD decision setting aside a decision denying a PR TD, or setting aside a Removal/Departure Order.
Leading to . . .
Note, there is no indication the "positive report" you reference was approval of an application for a PR Travel Document, as the OP (and family) still have valid PR cards (valid for at least six more weeks).
But what underlies your question is important if the OP and family are actually considering applying for new PR cards before they are in compliance with the RO (thus relying on H&C relief in the assessment of RO compliance) . . . after all, whatever decision ("positive outcome on report") the OP is referencing, the safest approach is to wait to apply for a new PR card. That is, to eliminate (well, to reduce as much as possible) the risk of a PR card application triggering inadmissibility proceedings, they should NOT apply relying on H&C relief unless and until they are in compliance with the RO.
So, as I already framed things:
But, again, there are various circumstances in which, despite still being short of the RO, the risk of triggering inadmissibility proceedings may be low enough that a PR could reasonably elect to make a PR card application.
I addressed one such situation (there are others, but explaining them is complicated and for most PRs in Canada still in breach of the RO, diving into that would be a distraction), the situation the OP appears to be asking about: relying on a decision already allowing H&C relief . . . that is, as the OP phrased it, relying on a "positive outcome on report for not meeting the RO."
Note . . . regarding other situations in which it would be relatively safe to make a PR card application despite still being in breach of the RO, a fairly obvious example would be to apply if the PR has been in Canada (no exits) for 23 months, and is continuing to stay, even though they are still 30 days short. This would be relatively safe because by the time the application is being processed, a PR who continues to stay here is in RO compliance. To be clear, however, this is still not a good approach since it would be a complex application likely to get tangled in delays, whereas waiting just another month, to apply after meeting the RO, after staying two full years straight, has very good odds of little or no delay at all.
As already noted, to be a positive H&C decision a PR might rely on, and based on that elect to proceed with a PR card application despite still being short of RO compliance, it is important that the H&C decision is the result of a formal adjudication. That would one of the following:
-- visa office decision approving a PR Travel Document application (based on H&C reasons, so coded RC-1), or
-- a decision by a Minister's Delegate setting aside an inadmissibility report following a hearing on the 44(1) Report, or
-- an IAD decision setting aside a decision denying a PR TD or setting aside a Removal/Departure Order
Only the second of these appears to be relevant in the OP's situation.
Clearly hadn’t seen the previous posts. Agree that renewing PR card always a risk in this scenario.
Has the child received PR? We have seen other situations where PR was delayed significantly in a similar scenario.
Similar threads
