hello Sir
I Stayed in Canada for 10 days from 16September 2015 till 26 september and then came back to my home country now I want to go back I need to show my 10 days stay in Canada to meet RO can I show the counterpart of boarding pass of the airline which I took back home with my name and travel date as a proof. Thanks in advance
IF a PR is asked to prove presence in Canada, for purposes of a PR Residency Obligation determination, the PR may proffer any relevant evidence tending to show or corroborate his or her time in Canada. So yes, a PR can present such evidence and it should be considered. That will not in itself actually prove presence in Canada.
Evidence is proof if it is sufficient to establish the fact in question. Even assuming the boarding pass is taken to be an accurate document showing you traveled that day, left Canada that day, that does not directly prove anything about where you were any other day. It may be more or less good evidence to support an inference that you were in Canada some previous days up UNTIL that day, and thus support the inference you were in Canada from the date of a known entry into Canada until that day.
BUT let's be frank: Canada is NOT likely to challenge your compliance with the PR Residency Obligation over a mere ten days which you claim to have been present in Canada. That is NOT how things work.
In particular, ten days one way or the other is NOT likely to make much difference in how CBSA approaches things at a PoE UNLESS CBSA has some additional concern about the PR.
And NOT likely to make much difference in how IRCC weighs the evidence of presence UNLESS:
-- it is processing a PR card application and the PR is living outside Canada (or is outside Canada for long enough to be thought of as living abroad) while the PR card application is in process, or
-- it is a visa office abroad processing a PR Travel Document application, or
-- there is some additional concern about the PR (suspicion of misrepresentation for example)
Thus, for example, if a PR who left after landing, who spent a total of just ten days in Canada soon after landing, arrives at a PoE before the 11th day after the third year anniversary of landing, the PR is technically in compliance with the PR RO. But more than that, this PR is NOT likely to face any problems about RO compliance (other than possibly being cautioned about the RO). If there is a challenge, it is very likely something else has triggered it.
Until the second half of Harper's reign at PM, or so, at any time during the first five years it appeared to be fairly safe to return to Canada with a valid PR card UNLESS it was blatantly obvious the PR had been away for MORE than three years. Then CBSA began screening some late returning PRs more closely . . . and in the actual cases addressed in officially published decisions, eventually we began seeing PRs reported even though their card was still valid for another year, then some with a card valid for a year and a half, or so.
Any PR actually in breach is now at risk. Obviously. But appearances and by how much matters. Risks can range from high probability of being reported to a minimal risk of even being questioned. In a number of topics others and I have gone into some detail about numerous factors which influence the risks of being questioned. And, separately, the risks of being reported IF and WHEN questioned about RO compliance.
If and when questioned about RO compliance at a PoE, if there is little or no question the PR has credit for 720 days, or so, including when that is based on the number of days remaining until the fifth year anniversary of the day the PR landed, and the PR reports having been in Canada an additional ten days, there is NOT going to be anything more negative than a caution about the RO UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IS A CONCERN.
There seems to be some tendency, among some forum participants, to put way too weight on technical details.
Sure, sometimes the technical details make the difference. Thus, for example, if a PR was last in Canada three years plus some days ago, no calculation is necessary to recognize the PR is in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. And since both CBSA and IRCC are legally obligated to apply and enforce the law, there is a very substantial risk the PR will be challenged about compliance and have an opportunity to present his or her reasons for not returning to Canada sooner. That is, even if this is just over the line, because it is clearly over the line both CBSA and IRCC are obligated to approach and address it accordingly.
And, in contrast, if a PR arrives at a PoE the day before the PR's third year anniversary of the day the PR landed, even if it is obvious the PR was abroad 1093 days, and is thus
cutting-it-very-very-close, there is no question the PR is technically in compliance with the RO and CANNOT be reported . . . cautioned (even admonished) about the RO, but NOT reported (recognizing, however, the CBSA border officer can make a note to FOSS about the amount of absence so as to alert other officers to be aware of this in future encounters with the PR).
So, again, yes, in particular or peculiar circumstances technical details can matter. And YES, of course, reporting facts accurately is very important. If a PR boards a trans-Pacific flight before midnight and arrives at his destination on a date two days later, it is an error to report the date of exit based on the entry date stamp in his passport; accurate date of exit is the date of actual exit.
BUT in practical terms many technical details are not so important, and particularly NOT, NOT USUALLY, as to totaling calculations . . . thus, a total calculation as to a day or three or thirteen, one way or another, tends to be of little import. Many other factors, including many aspects of how things APPEAR, will tend to have more or a lot more influence in how things go.
For example: if a PR shows up at a PoE three years and two months after the day of landing, at the PoE it is very unlikely CBSA will challenge the PR's compliance with the RO UNLESS it is readily apparent the PR was last in Canada three years or more ago.
I often emphasize the risks involved when
cutting-it-close, but to some extent it works the other way as well: if CBSA or IRCC merely apprehend the PR is
cutting-it-close, and there is no reason for concern beyond that, it is NOT likely CBSA or IRCC will challenge the PR . . . again,
unless there is some additional reason for concern.
EASY EXAMPLE: The PR who returns to Canada just in time to NOT be reported and then stays . . . the conventional wisdom is this PR should wait at least TWO years to apply for a new PR card. If the PR makes the application five weeks SOONER than that, and is technically NOT in compliance with the PR RO, so long as the PR continues to STAY in Canada, that is NOT likely to cause a problem. The PR card application five weeks before the two years has about the same odds of being referred to Secondary Review as an application five weeks AFTER two years . . . and eventually both will most likely result in a new card being issued.
The risk the PR takes applying five weeks early is that IRCC opens it right away and schedules an interview for a PR RO determination on a date before the PR manages to reach the two year mark, and thus potentially facing a negative decision and Departure Order. BUT this is highly unlikely. (Actual odds vary with how much before reaching the two years the PR is, among other factors, compared to how long IRCC is taking to open and process PRC applications.) There is also some risk that even if IRCC does not process the application until after the PR has stayed two full years, technically it can deny the application for the new card . . . but as long as the PR is IN Canada, this is highly unlikely and this should be easily overcome by an appeal.
Make no mistake: obviously, if a PR has been outside Canada for three years, or nearly three years, but manages to come into Canada without being reported, the best course to follow is to wait the full two years before applying for a new card. Or making any other application to IRCC. Engaging in any transaction with IRCC while in breach has at least some risk of losing PR status.
IN THE MEANTIME: Remember that days in Canada NO LONGER will count if and when they were more than five years ago. Thus, days in Canada at the time of landing and shortly thereafter will NO LONGER get credit when a PR card application is made five years later. REMEMBER too that a valid PR card does not, in itself, mean much. In particular, i
t is NOT relevant to the calculation for PR RO compliance. It may be a factor in whether a PoE officer has questions (for a PR still within five years of landing, returning to Canada after an extended absence, less likely to be questioned if the card is still valid for at least close to two years, more likely to be questioned the sooner the card expires . . . but again, the date of expiration has NO relevance to the actual calculation of RO compliance).