Reapplying for PR - Lots of Time Outside of Canada

[dpenabill]

Do we have any knowledge here in the forums about thresholds for cutting it close? For example, if I gain 760 days, would this be a safe option for lesser scrutiny?

@Besram has covered most angles very well. Including caveats.

Some Additional Observations:

I will be a bit more blunt, however, and caution that when officials are weighing *evidence* of presence in Canada, the purpose of the grant of PR status is a factor. It may not be addressed out loud, so to say, but it is nonetheless a looming factor. The purpose of the grant of PR status is so the individual can settle and PERMANENTLY live in Canada. When the evidence suggests the individual is not settled and PERMANENTLY living in Canada, obviously that invites increased scrutiny.

So yes, of course, duh, the absence of a long-term residence or regular employment in Canada, and especially their combination, tends to telegraph this PR has not settled in Canada permanently and therefore it will be prudent, if not necessary, to more closely examine the facts and verify them, to more thoroughly weigh the evidence in determining whether or not the PR was actually in Canada all the days the PR claims to have been in Canada. Moreover, the lack of a long-term residence or regular employment in Canada in itself tends to invite questions about where the PR actually was during those periods. And obviously, the more transient an individual's lifestyle, the more difficult it will be for that individual to submit proof of being in Canada during such periods of time.

On the other hand, IRCC does NOT engage in gotcha games. They are not looking for technical reasons to take a PR's status. This works very much in favour of the PR who has encountered some difficulty making the move to permanently settle in Canada, but who finally manages to get to Canada to settle and stay, and even if that PR falls a little short it is not as if IRCC will pounce on the shortfall in order to take away his or her PR status. Not so much those who appear to be gaming the system to keep PR status without actually settling in Canada permanently.

As for "cutting-it-close," this is merely descriptive. It is not something I have ever seen discussed in any official context. I often refer to cutting-it-close for illustrative purposes, to emphasize various risks involved when a PR is not clearly well-settled and living in Canada permanently. There are two particularly significant risks: one is largely practical, the risk that something will happen to compel a PR to go abroad or stay longer abroad, when the PR has no margin left to do so and still be in compliance with the RO. The other is mostly procedural, the risk that cutting-it-close will trigger increased scrutiny and thus non-routine processing which can result in lengthy delays.

As for what constitutes "cutting-it-close," no rocket-science necessary. But it does depend on a wide range of factors, with the number of days IN Canada looming as the largest, but of course other factors like the PR's credibility, the pattern of presence and absence, the appearance of gaming the system, the extent to which the PR appears settled in Canada or at least in the process of making the move to settle in Canada. Among others. It is my sense that any time a PR who does not otherwise appear well-settled in Canada is outside Canada more than in Canada, that tends toward "cutting-it-close." Remember, if there is any doubt about where a person was during a particular period of time, it is REASONABLE to infer they were probably where they were most of the time. And if that was outside Canada, it is reasonable for an official to infer the PR was probably outside Canada any periods of time the PR has not directly proven he or she was actually in Canada.

 

[NPconnoisseur]

@Besram has covered most angles very well. Including caveats.

Some Additional Observations:

I will be a bit more blunt, however, and caution that when officials are weighing *evidence* of presence in Canada, the purpose of the grant of PR status is a factor. It may not be addressed out loud, so to say, but it is nonetheless a looming factor. The purpose of the grant of PR status is so the individual can settle and PERMANENTLY live in Canada. When the evidence suggests the individual is not settled and PERMANENTLY living in Canada, obviously that invites increased scrutiny.

So yes, of course, duh, the absence of a long-term residence or regular employment in Canada, and especially their combination, tends to telegraph this PR has not settled in Canada permanently and therefore it will be prudent, if not necessary, to more closely examine the facts and verify them, to more thoroughly weigh the evidence in determining whether or not the PR was actually in Canada all the days the PR claims to have been in Canada. Moreover, the lack of a long-term residence or regular employment in Canada in itself tends to invite questions about where the PR actually was during those periods. And obviously, the more transient an individual's lifestyle, the more difficult it will be for that individual to submit proof of being in Canada during such periods of time.

On the other hand, IRCC does NOT engage in gotcha games. They are not looking for technical reasons to take a PR's status. This works very much in favour of the PR who has encountered some difficulty making the move to permanently settle in Canada, but who finally manages to get to Canada to settle and stay, and even if that PR falls a little short it is not as if IRCC will pounce on the shortfall in order to take away his or her PR status. Not so much those who appear to be gaming the system to keep PR status without actually settling in Canada permanently.

As for "cutting-it-close," this is merely descriptive. It is not something I have ever seen discussed in any official context. I often refer to cutting-it-close for illustrative purposes, to emphasize various risks involved when a PR is not clearly well-settled and living in Canada permanently. There are two particularly significant risks: one is largely practical, the risk that something will happen to compel a PR to go abroad or stay longer abroad, when the PR has no margin left to do so and still be in compliance with the RO. The other is mostly procedural, the risk that cutting-it-close will trigger increased scrutiny and thus non-routine processing which can result in lengthy delays.

As for what constitutes "cutting-it-close," no rocket-science necessary. But it does depend on a wide range of factors, with the number of days IN Canada looming as the largest, but of course other factors like the PR's credibility, the pattern of presence and absence, the appearance of gaming the system, the extent to which the PR appears settled in Canada or at least in the process of making the move to settle in Canada. Among others. It is my sense that any time a PR who does not otherwise appear well-settled in Canada is outside Canada more than in Canada, that tends toward "cutting-it-close." Remember, if there is any doubt about where a person was during a particular period of time, it is REASONABLE to infer they were probably where they were most of the time. And if that was outside Canada, it is reasonable for an official to infer the PR was probably outside Canada any periods of time the PR has not directly proven he or she was actually in Canada.

Thank you for such a detailed explanation of what amounts to "cutting it close". Hope I am not hijacking the OP's thread. But I have a question along the lines of what is the best option for me.

I have returned to the US shortly after my soft landing and I received my PR card in July 19. I have plans to moving to Canada permanently but I have a great job in the US which made think about cutting it close and moving to Canada permanently so that out of 5 years, I accumulate the required 730 day residency time to renew my PR card. Having read your detailed post I am beginning to wonder what would be the sound strategy for me.

I understand it's me who has to decide what's best for me. But I don't want to game the system by appearing to accumulate 730 day for RO solely for renewal. I would like to know what would be in your book considered "safe" for my case so that I can work here in the US peacefully for a bit before moving to Canada permanently.

 

[JJN]

Thank you for such a detailed explanation of what amounts to "cutting it close". Hope I am not hijacking the OP's thread. But I have a question along the lines of what is the best option for me.

I have returned to the US shortly after my soft landing and I received my PR card in July 19. I have plans to moving to Canada permanently but I have a great job in the US which made think about cutting it close and moving to Canada permanently so that out of 5 years, I accumulate the required 730 day residency time to renew my PR card. Having read your detailed post I am beginning to wonder what would be the sound strategy for me.

I understand it's me who has to decide what's best for me. But I don't want to game the system by appearing to accumulate 730 day for RO solely for renewal. I would like to know what would be in your book considered "safe" for my case so that I can work here in the US peacefully for a bit before moving to Canada permanently.

I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I want to renew to keep my options open. There's a strong chance that I'll move back to Canada eventually as I am full-time employed (working remotely) for a Canadian-based company, but for now, I have the freedom to travel, so I'm taking advantage of that.

 

[dpenabill]

I want to renew to keep my options open.

I have returned to the US shortly after my soft landing and I received my PR card in July 19. I have plans to moving to Canada permanently but I have a great job in the US which made think about cutting it close and moving to Canada permanently so that out of 5 years, I accumulate the required 730 day residency time to renew my PR card. Having read your detailed post I am beginning to wonder what would be the sound strategy for me.

I understand it's me who has to decide what's best for me.

How much either of you come to Canada, including whether you come to stay, is indeed very much YOUR decision to make.

As is oft discussed in this forum, Canada deliberately implemented a very lenient PR Residency Obligation which allows immigrants a great deal of flexibility in how they individually make the move to settle in Canada, including when. Indeed, a new immigrant can do a soft-landing and then not come to Canada at all for up to THREE YEARS with NO QUESTIONS asked. Of course a border official may caution or advise the PR, arriving in Canada after nearly three years absence, about the need to comply with the RO, but there is NO risk, none at all, that any negative action will be taken against the PR who has spent just one day in Canada, doing a soft-landing, who arrives in Canada prior to the third year anniversary of landing, no matter how close it is to the third year anniversary.

That alone gives new immigrants rather wide latitude in deciding when to actually make the move and settle in Canada.

And there are many, many anecdotal reports from PRs given a significant amount of flexibility beyond that. No guarantees if and when a PR falls short of complying with the RO (to be in breach of the RO is to be at RISK of losing PR status), but many benefit from rather lenient practices in the enforcement of the RO.

The parameters of such leniency are near impossible to know. The variables influencing how things go are numerous and many are difficult to gauge. The PR's credibility, for example, looms as a large factor. But it is rather difficult to quantitatively measure the credibility factor. And that is just one factor. And we all know that close-call decision-making can be influenced by what the decision-maker perceives the individual deserves, and yes this is in the most broad and vague sense of what "deserves" means. A friendly smile can sometimes tip the scales. Or have no influence. Some say it is a lot about "luck," but that is not true. Sure, we cannot map and quantify all the relevant factors which will influence the outcome, so it may seem like luck, but it is the actual facts and circumstances in the individual case that mostly dictate how things will go. And we know some of the factors which in particular tend to have more influence. Number of days IN Canada looming large. Nature and extent of ties IN Canada looming large. Among many others discussed in numerous other topics here.

But I don't want to game the system by appearing to accumulate 730 day for RO solely for renewal. I would like to know what would be in your book considered "safe" for my case so that I can work here in the US peacefully for a bit before moving to Canada permanently.

Let's be honest. You do not "want to game the system by appearing to accumulate 730 day for RO solely for renewal," BUT you want to accumulate enough days to comply with the RO without actually coming to settle in Canada. Isn't this a lot like that trial going on in the states, where the President said to his European Ambassador "No quid pro quo, but I want this for that" (that is, asserting there be no quid pro quo but demanding a quid pro quo)? Looks like he will be acquitted so I guess it works. Got a feeling it might work better for some and not work at all for others, tending to go in favour of those with many millions to throw around.

The good news, for you, is again the fact that IRCC does NOT play gotcha games. PRs who comply with the PR Residency Obligation are generally "safe" no matter how much or how obviously they are manipulating things. Those who meet the RO are NOT inadmissible and it is not as if IRCC will go digging for technicalities to strip them of their PR status.

Of course this is subject to some caveats. There are the risks I describe in my previous post. Canada can change the rules along the way. And if it is too blatant, perhaps this or that CBSA or IRCC official will be the exception and go digging for technicalities or otherwise make negative inferences which many might disagree with but nonetheless are within the bounds of what constitutes a "reasonable" decision.

I am a very, very strong advocate of transparency and accessibility to all the information available which will help individuals better navigate the system, help them to make the best decisions they can depending on their personal circumstances and their personal priorities. I strongly believe in open government.

BUT I will also continue to be frank about this, if not blunt, personally I prefer to not help anyone manipulate the system. I recognize that the more information and knowledge individuals have, the easier that makes it to manipulate the system, to exploit the system's weaknesses, to maneuver through loopholes, and this can have rather a detrimental impact on the system and negative impact on how well the system works for others (note, for example, the draconian slowdown, almost a total shutdown of processing citizenship applications in 2012, was in large part a response to widespread abuses facilitated by a number of crooked consultants; a few thousand abusing the system made things very, very difficult for the hundreds of thousands of others who deserved an easier, faster path to citizenship). Nonetheless, I weigh in on the side of the right of the populace to have access to the rules, policies, and practices, and to be able to rely on those rules, policies, and practices being uniformly applied, even when they are maneuvering through loopholes or such.

Overall, I make a concerted effort to help illuminate what the rules are, and as best we can discern how they apply and what the procedures are related to the application and enforcement of the rules. I rely on those who use this information to do so fairly and honestly. I am not judging anyone when I say this. Just trying to explain the boundaries of my input.

 

[sunny soni]

Respected members

I want some information regarding PR Card Renewal. In last 5 years, I made 2 trips to my home country. First trip is for 173 days and second trip is for 7 days. Now I am going to renew my PR card. In total 5 years, I have 4 years and 6 months of presence in Canada. I know that I should be atleast have 730 days of presence in Canada to renew my PR card. I read somewhere that If a PR is present outside of Canada for 6 months or more, it shows that his future intentions of not living or settling in Canada permanently which can put a question mark for his PR card renewal. Is that true. ? Under what circumstances, PR Card renewal can go in Secondary review.? Still being present in Canada for more than 730 days, Can 6 months or more outside of Canada can put PR card renewal application for secondary review or red flag ? Under what circumstances and appication for PR Card renewal can go for Secondary review.

Replies will be highly appreciated.

 

[canuck78]

Respected members

I want some information regarding PR Card Renewal. In last 5 years, I made 2 trips to my home country. First trip is for 173 days and second trip is for 7 days. Now I am going to renew my PR card. In total 5 years, I have 4 years and 6 months of presence in Canada. I know that I should be atleast have 730 days of presence in Canada to renew my PR card. I read somewhere that If a PR is present outside of Canada for 6 months or more, it shows that his future intentions of not living or settling in Canada permanently which can put a question mark for his PR card renewal. Is that true. ? Under what circumstances, PR Card renewal can go in Secondary review.? Still being present in Canada for more than 730 days, Can 6 months or more outside of Canada can put PR card renewal application for secondary review or red flag ? Under what circumstances and appication for PR Card renewal can go for Secondary review.

Replies will be highly appreciated.

You have a very strong history of living in Canada. You shouldn’t worry and secondary review is highly unlikely.

 

[canuck78]

Thank you for such a detailed explanation of what amounts to "cutting it close". Hope I am not hijacking the OP's thread. But I have a question along the lines of what is the best option for me.

I have returned to the US shortly after my soft landing and I received my PR card in July 19. I have plans to moving to Canada permanently but I have a great job in the US which made think about cutting it close and moving to Canada permanently so that out of 5 years, I accumulate the required 730 day residency time to renew my PR card. Having read your detailed post I am beginning to wonder what would be the sound strategy for me.

I understand it's me who has to decide what's best for me. But I don't want to game the system by appearing to accumulate 730 day for RO solely for renewal. I would like to know what would be in your book considered "safe" for my case so that I can work here in the US peacefully for a bit before moving to Canada permanently.

Unfortunately there are many in a similar position to you that do not take into account that there can be family emergencies and you may need to travel for business once you arrive in a Canada. When returning close to not meeting RO you can really limit yourself. We have seen people run into situations where there is a family emergency and then they aren’t compliant with RO but also when people arrive in Canada and aren’t compliant with RO and then are asked to travel for business and either don’t have a valid PR card or risk being reported at each entry.