Like 1040 out of 1095 days spent out of country when I applied for the renewal.
To be clear: what matters are the number of days IN Canada within the previous five years. To be in compliance with the Residency Obligation that requires 730 days IN Canada within the previous 1825 days.
Only if you made the PR card application BEFORE the fifth year anniversary of landing, would less than 1095 days outside Canada show you were in compliance with the RO. And that calculation needs to be based on days out of Canada since the day of landing, not just the most recent three years (1095 days).
BUT since your PR card has expired, it is clear you are past the fifth year anniversary of landing. So, for sure, your compliance with the PR RO requires at least 730 days IN Canada within the previous five years.
So, again, even if you met the RO as of the day the application was made, if you leave Canada and then have not been IN Canada at least 730 days within the five years prior to the day you return to Canada, your PR status will be at risk. (Again, there are many factors which will influence how much risk there is; so the risk will vary depending on YOUR particular facts and circumstances.)
Which brings this around to the observation by
@canuck78 which echoes my previous comments, regarding whether or not you have PERMANENTLY settled in Canada. If not, and you leave for an extended period of time, that will indeed significantly increase the risk of RO enforcement and losing PR status for inadmissibility.
The only way to avoid the risk of losing PR status is to STAY in Canada long enough to be in RO compliance and NOT LEAVE Canada for any length of time that would result in not complying with the RO; that is, to ALWAYS have spent at least 730 days IN Canada within the previous five years.
If only more people understood that. Those who are lucky enough to get away with it either had a compelling reason, a lenient processing officer, or lucky enough to get one of the so called “lazy, no good, incompetent, doesn’t do his/her job” officer that a lot of people complain about when their processing takes a long time.
Mostly yes.
It is worth clarifying, however, that the chances of getting waived through by a “
lazy, no good, incompetent, doesn’t do his/her job” border official are probably VERY LOW. Contrary to the commentary by some forum participants, CBSA officers tend to be professional, competent, diligent, and have a far better grasp of the relevant facts and circumstances than many here give them credit. Some of the slack given PRs might be, occasionally, in dereliction of duty, but it warrants remembering that
PRs are Canadians (not Foreign Nationals; this distinction made by IRPA)
and thus are due considerable deference.
That is, over and above the leniency hardwired into the 2/5 obligation itself, which allows PRs a great deal of deference in managing their personal life, allowing PRs broad flexibility with no questions asked, in addition to that the manner and means of enforcing the RO is also lenient and flexible. After all, even though in breach of the RO, unless the PR does something requiring a Residency Determination (RO compliance calculation) or otherwise triggers a RO compliance examination, Canada will NOT pursue enforcement of the RO. Thus, those PRs who have been given permission to actually enter Canada without triggering RO enforcement, despite being in breach of the RO, can stay, live, work, go to school, and so on, with no apprehension that IRCC or CBSA will come after them, no fear of inadmissibility prosecution (as long as they do not make an application requiring a Residency Determination UNTIL AFTER they have stayed long enough to be in compliance with the RO).
Another salient illustration of this is the difference made if a PR is abroad without a valid PR card. Big difference between that PR somehow getting to Canada and applying for permission to enter Canada at a PoE versus that PR applying for a PR Travel Document while abroad. The latter is PRESUMED to not have valid PR status. That is, the deference in enforcement given to PRs in Canada, and PRs physically entering Canada, does not apply when a PR is applying for a PR TD. This is a specific limitation on the deference given PRs as prescribed by statute.
There are a few forum participants, who appear (so it seems) motivated by an anti-immigrant agenda, who express disdain for the amount of deference and leniency exercised in RO enforcement.
In contrast, however, there are also more than a few PRs who mistake this deference and leniency for license, almost to the point of expecting they are entitled to keep PR status despite failing to stay in compliance with the RO. It can be difficult to fairly frame the nature and amount of risk, which will vary considerably. Leading back to the primary message:
The only way to avoid the risk of losing PR status is to STAY in Canada long enough to be in RO compliance and NOT LEAVE Canada for any length of time that would result in not complying with the RO; that is, to ALWAYS have spent at least 730 days IN Canada within the previous five years.
