PR Renewal with ~750 days - Query - Pls help

[thedippaar]

I became PR in April 2014 and stayed in Canada for few days before moving to USA for work. Between April 2014 till Feb 2017, I came to Canada on short trips and stayed for a day or two and sometimes a week.Total days ~40.

In March 2017, I relocated back to Canada and living here since then; but I had traveled out of Canada couple of times. From March 2017 to Mar 2019, I have completed ~710 days.
My Question is

- Can I count those ~40 days as PR days and include it for renewal?
- Should I wait for 4-5 weeks and apply for PR Card renewal?
- Will there be any delays if I apply with 730 days and few more? How long will it take?

 

[scylla]

I became PR in April 2014 and stayed in Canada for few days before moving to USA for work. Between April 2014 till Feb 2017, I came to Canada on short trips and stayed for a day or two and sometimes a week.Total days ~40.

In March 2017, I relocated back to Canada and living here since then; but I had traveled out of Canada couple of times. From March 2017 to Mar 2019, I have completed ~710 days.
My Question is

- Can I count those ~40 days as PR days and include it for renewal?
- Should I wait for 4-5 weeks and apply for PR Card renewal?
- Will there be any delays if I apply with 730 days and few more? How long will it take?

1. You can count any days that fall within the last 5 years before you apply to renew your PR card.
2. Your call. You want to make absolutely sure you have at least 730 days and can prove these days if asked.
3. Yes - when you apply with 730 days or just above 730 days this can trigger secondary review and result in much longer processing times.

 

[thedippaar]

1. You can count any days that fall within the last 5 years before you apply to renew your PR card.
2. Your call. You want to make absolutely sure you have at least 730 days and can prove these days if asked.
3. Yes - when you apply with 730 days or just above 730 days this can trigger secondary review and result in much longer processing times.

Thanks Scylla.
(1) During those 40+ PR days in Canada between Apr 2014 and Feb 2017 (while I was working/residing in USA) I was put up at a hotel in Canada or at a friends place. I didn't have my own place (Canada residential address). You say I can still count them for RO?
(2) I traveled to Canada by road while I was working in the US. How can I prove for the ~40days? What evidence do I need to submit?
(3) But the policy states minimum 730 days for RO, would that still trigger secondary review? How many days should I have, to avoid secondary review or delays?

 

[21Goose]

Thanks Scylla.
(1) During those 40+ PR days in Canada between Apr 2014 and Feb 2017 (while I was working/residing in USA) I was put up at a hotel in Canada or at a friends place. I didn't have my own place (Canada residential address). You say I can still count them for RO?
(2) I traveled to Canada by road while I was working in the US. How can I prove for the ~40days? What evidence do I need to submit?
(3) But the policy states minimum 730 days for RO, would that still trigger secondary review? How many days should I have, to avoid secondary review or delays?

1. If you are physically present in Canada, it counts. Proving it might be more difficult of course.
2. Hard to say. What evidence do you have? Did you use your credit card to buy stuff in Canada during those 40 days? Did you stay in a hotel? Do you have receipts?
3. Will let @scylla answer, but I don't think there's a firm number of days. Probably depends on how strongly you can prove the 730 days.

 

[Buletruck]

The closer you are to 730 days, the more likely your application will be subject to secondary review. A couple of other things to keep in mind:

1. It’s up to the applicant to prove they were in Canada when they say they were. If there is any doubt, you need to supply the proof.
2. As it’s already April, days you have resided in Canada in 2014 have or are very close to dropping off your calculations it’s important that you meet the required days on the date of submission or risk failing to meet RO

 

[thedippaar]

Thanks 21Goose & Buletruck

 

[yanesrahn]

My suggestion try to have some buffer days, and also for the 40+days you will need to be totally sure.. they can asked you for support.. like passport stamps, if the travels were to US I94 report etc.. bank movement anything that can proof you were here, good luck!

 

[dpenabill]

I have a vague recollection that I may have already addressed this query elsewhere . . . in the event I haven't . . .

(3) But the policy states minimum 730 days for RO, would that still trigger secondary review? How many days should I have, to avoid secondary review or delays?

While there is an apparent correlation between cutting-it-close in the number of days present in Canada and referrals to Secondary Review, there are other factors which also increase the risk of a referral to Secondary Review (and thus potentially a lengthy delay in being issued a new PR card). Perhaps the most salient factor is a perception the PR is living outside Canada or the PR has extensive ongoing employment or residential ties outside Canada.

While imprecise and far from uniform, there is an elevated risk of SR for any PR who has been in Canada less than half the time (less than 900 days within the last five years) and who does not appear to be fully settled and permanently living in Canada. Obviously, the fewer days in Canada, the more the risk. But additionally, the less well-settled in Canada, that too increases the RISK even if the total days in Canada are more.


Factual RO compliance inquiry; referral to local office (not SR):

Note, when a PR applies for a new PR card, if IRCC perceives or suspects the PR might not be currently (at the time the PR card application is made or at any time after that) in compliance with the Residency Obligation, that does NOT ordinarily trigger a SR referral, but rather a referral to a local office to conduct a formal, factual inquiry into RO compliance.


EXPLANATION:

The IAD and Federal Court have repeatedly, and emphatically, stated that the purpose of PR is to facilitate PERMANENT SETTLEMENT and RESIDENCE IN CANADA, and that this is to be taken in consideration when interpreting how the rules governing the Residency Obligation are to be applied.

Thus, while many focus on the NUMBER of days, by the time a PR is approaching, let alone passing, the fifth year anniversary of landing in Canada, IRCC is also considering the extent to which the PR appears to be fully settled and permanently living in Canada.

Thus, for the 730 days in 5 years Residency Obligation the EMPHASIS is on this being a MINIMUM. And it is worth remembering this is considered (by CBSA, IRCC, the IAD, and the Federal Court) to be a very liberal, lenient obligation which is intended to allow Permanent Residents some flexibility for dealing with compelling contingencies, like family emergencies back home, unusual personal circumstances requiring an extended absence, or other emergencies.

It is NOT intended to facilitate living or working abroad for extended periods of time, and especially NOT to facilitate continuing to live abroad and keeping PR status by spending periodic periods of time in Canada.

SURE, if a PR can satisfactorily prove (to a total stranger bureaucrat decision-maker, who has a broad scope of discretion in deciding what the facts are) that he or she was actually present in Canada 730 days within the preceding five years, that meets the RO. And technically the burden of proof is the same standard applicable to all: beyond a balance of probabilities. But direct proof of presence for all days the PR claims to have been present can be difficult, especially so for a PR whose presence is not rooted in a traditional living and working in Canada lifestyle. In contrast, if the PR has been outside Canada more than in Canada (less than 900 or so days within the preceding five years), it can be reasonable for a decision-maker to INFER the PR was where the PR usually was (as in NOT in Canada) any days which are at all in question.

OVERALL: IRCC policy guidelines suggest that the more common reason for Secondary Review is a PR's absence from Canada while the application is pending. Forum anecdotal reporting, in contrast, suggests a high correlation between SR and PRs who are cutting-it-close in RO compliance. My personal sense (for whatever that is worth) is that SR is a way for IRCC to, in effect, hold the PR card application for awhile to see if the PR is actually settled in Canada, or at least staying long enough there is no basis for doubting RO compliance.

Bottom-line, those who are cutting-it-close, for RO compliance, face a substantial risk of SR and a lengthy processing period before being issued a new PR card . . . and cutting-it-close is not merely about twenty or fifty days or even a hundred days.

That said, other than the risk of SR leading to a lengthy delay in being issued a new PR card, 730 within five years meets the RO. And if in the meantime the PR has in fact settled permanently in Canada, there should be little or no risk of losing PR status.

 

[thedippaar]

Thanks dpenabill

I have a vague recollection that I may have already addressed this query elsewhere . . . in the event I haven't . . .



While there is an apparent correlation between cutting-it-close in the number of days present in Canada and referrals to Secondary Review, there are other factors which also increase the risk of a referral to Secondary Review (and thus potentially a lengthy delay in being issued a new PR card). Perhaps the most salient factor is a perception the PR is living outside Canada or the PR has extensive ongoing employment or residential ties outside Canada.

While imprecise and far from uniform, there is an elevated risk of SR for any PR who has been in Canada less than half the time (less than 900 days within the last five years) and who does not appear to be fully settled and permanently living in Canada. Obviously, the fewer days in Canada, the more the risk. But additionally, the less well-settled in Canada, that too increases the RISK even if the total days in Canada are more.


Factual RO compliance inquiry; referral to local office (not SR):

Note, when a PR applies for a new PR card, if IRCC perceives or suspects the PR might not be currently (at the time the PR card application is made or at any time after that) in compliance with the Residency Obligation, that does NOT ordinarily trigger a SR referral, but rather a referral to a local office to conduct a formal, factual inquiry into RO compliance.


EXPLANATION:

The IAD and Federal Court have repeatedly, and emphatically, stated that the purpose of PR is to facilitate PERMANENT SETTLEMENT and RESIDENCE IN CANADA, and that this is to be taken in consideration when interpreting how the rules governing the Residency Obligation are to be applied.

Thus, while many focus on the NUMBER of days, by the time a PR is approaching, let alone passing, the fifth year anniversary of landing in Canada, IRCC is also considering the extent to which the PR appears to be fully settled and permanently living in Canada.

Thus, for the 730 days in 5 years Residency Obligation the EMPHASIS is on this being a MINIMUM. And it is worth remembering this is considered (by CBSA, IRCC, the IAD, and the Federal Court) to be a very liberal, lenient obligation which is intended to allow Permanent Residents some flexibility for dealing with compelling contingencies, like family emergencies back home, unusual personal circumstances requiring an extended absence, or other emergencies.

It is NOT intended to facilitate living or working abroad for extended periods of time, and especially NOT to facilitate continuing to live abroad and keeping PR status by spending periodic periods of time in Canada.

SURE, if a PR can satisfactorily prove (to a total stranger bureaucrat decision-maker, who has a broad scope of discretion in deciding what the facts are) that he or she was actually present in Canada 730 days within the preceding five years, that meets the RO. And technically the burden of proof is the same standard applicable to all: beyond a balance of probabilities. But direct proof of presence for all days the PR claims to have been present can be difficult, especially so for a PR whose presence is not rooted in a traditional living and working in Canada lifestyle. In contrast, if the PR has been outside Canada more than in Canada (less than 900 or so days within the preceding five years), it can be reasonable for a decision-maker to INFER the PR was where the PR usually was (as in NOT in Canada) any days which are at all in question.

OVERALL: IRCC policy guidelines suggest that the more common reason for Secondary Review is a PR's absence from Canada while the application is pending. Forum anecdotal reporting, in contrast, suggests a high correlation between SR and PRs who are cutting-it-close in RO compliance. My personal sense (for whatever that is worth) is that SR is a way for IRCC to, in effect, hold the PR card application for awhile to see if the PR is actually settled in Canada, or at least staying long enough there is no basis for doubting RO compliance.

Bottom-line, those who are cutting-it-close, for RO compliance, face a substantial risk of SR and a lengthy processing period before being issued a new PR card . . . and cutting-it-close is not merely about twenty or fifty days or even a hundred days.

That said, other than the risk of SR leading to a lengthy delay in being issued a new PR card, 730 within five years meets the RO. And if in the meantime the PR has in fact settled permanently in Canada, there should be little or no risk of losing PR status.