My PR Card expired in May 2019 and I have not fulfilled my Residency Obligations. My wife and son have completed their residency and got their PR renewed recently for next 5 years.
To be clear: it is not possible to "complete" residency for purposes of maintaining PR status. The PR Residency Obligation is ongoing, and each new day is a new five year period of time within which the PR needs to have spent at least 730 days.
I understand you to mean they are in compliance with the PR RO and have been issued new PR cards. As others have observed, this does not mean that PR is renewed, let alone for "next 5 years."
I have sent in my application for renewal stating facts clearly and expressing my commitment to fulfill the residency in case the authorities consider my application favourably.
Failing to comply with the RO means you need to show sufficient H&C reasons for IRCC to allow you to retain PR status. H&C cases are almost always tricky and most are difficult.
NOTE: the odds IRCC will issue you a new PR card based on this application are probably LOW or very LOW. Perhaps you applied with a compelling H&C case, but none of your posts suggest that is at all likely.
how do I visit Canada at all ?
As others have observed, a PR abroad without a valid PR card has two options:
-- apply for a PR Travel Document, or
-- travel to the U.S. (if you have status which allows this) and then to a Canadian PoE using private land transportation
There is a third option. You can surrender your PR status and then, as a Foreign National, apply for a visitor's visa. If you take this approach, when you are ready to come to Canada to settle and stay, not just "
visit," your spouse can sponsor your application for family class PR . . . but of course to do that your spouse will need to meet the sponsor eligibility requirements (not be on social assistance for example) and you will need to still be in a qualifying, genuine relationship.
Based on what you have posted, the latter appears to be the most practical option reasonably feasible.
RE: PR TD application . . . since it appears that the PR TD approach is still being considered . . .
1. Can I apply for a PRTD from my place of residence which is outside of Canada ? I see in the PRTD forms that residency obligation completion is required. If so, how can I apply for PRTD. At the same time, at many places, it is stated that people whose PR Card has expired can visit Canada based on PRTD. I don't understand this apparent conflict of rules.
There is no conflict in the rules. A PR abroad needs proper documentation of status in Canada in order to board a flight to Canada (this is true for Canadian citizens as well). For Canadian PRs that proper documentation is either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document. A PR abroad without a valid PR card is entitled to be issued a PR Travel Document upon proof of identity, PR status, and admissibility. To prove admissibility the PR needs to prove compliance with the PR's obligations, meaning proof that the PR has complied with the PR Residency Obligation . . . OR has sufficient H&C reasons that the Visa Office should allow the PR to retain status and issue a TD so the PR can return to Canada.
There is, however, a statutory presumption that a PR abroad without a valid PR card does NOT have valid PR status. This just more clearly means the PR has the burden of submitting proof of identity, status, and compliance with PR obligations (proof of admissibility).
RISK in making PR TD application:
This brings up the query posed here:
To help the OP, I have one question of clarification:
Applying for a PRTD is still the bigger gamble though, right? What I mean is: The flight-to-US-then-land-border route might mean that he gets reported, but still he is guaranteed to make it to Canada since they will let him in even if reported. If on the other hand he applied for a PRTD, the result might be that his status is revoked and he would then need a visitor visa to enter Canada.
It appears the OP may not have a passport that will allow travel via the U.S. Which would require the OP to apply for and be issued a PR TD in order to come to Canada . . . OR surrender status and apply for and obtain a visitor visa.
If an application for a PR TD is denied, the PR can appeal. If the PR has been in Canada within the previous year, the PR can then apply for and will usually be issued a special PR TD so the PR can come to Canada pending the appeal.
IF flight-to-US-then-land-border route is possible . . . assuming the OP does, however, have a passport that will allow travel via the U.S.:
Even if the OP applies for and is denied a PR TD, the OP could then, still, come to Canada via the flight-to-US-then-land-border route SO LONG AS --
-- the PR TD denial is timely appealed and the trip is made while the appeal is still pending, or
-- the trip gets the OP to the Canadian PoE BEFORE the time to file an appeal has lapsed (as I recall, for a PR TD denial this is sixty days from date of decision denying the PR TD)
Additionally, if the OP has been visiting Canada, and thus has been present within one year prior to appealing the denial of the PR TD, the OP can then make and should be issued a special PR TD to come to Canada pending the appeal. (Same as where the PR cannot travel via the U.S.)
RE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING REPORTED AT PoE AND DENIED A PR TD:
"Reported" tends to be used rather imprecisely in this forum, and is used in reference to different events, different sorts of being reported.
I will address the formal procedure involved when, at a PoE, a PR is issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility on the basis of non-compliance with the PR RO . . . then, with some exceptions, when a PR is issued the 44(1) Report that is immediately followed by an interview (sometimes via telephone) with another CBSA officer who has "Minister's Delegate" status (can be the reporting officer's superior or just another officer), who will decide (1) if the report is valid in law (is the PR short of complying with the RO), and if YES, then (2) has the PR presented sufficient H&C reasons to justify allowing the PR to retain status. If the decision as to H&C reasons is "no," then the PR is then and there, at the PoE, issued a Departure Order. (Among the more common "exceptions" are those cases where a Minister's Delegate is not available, so the PR is asked for contact information and advised there will be a follow-up interview/hearing . . . which ordinarily will be SOONER rather than later, and following which the same decisions are made, (1) was the report valid in law, and (2) should PR keep status for H&C reasons.)
The issuance of a 44(1) Report and Departure Order has the same legal effect as a Visa Office denying a PR TD application. Both are decisions terminating the PR's status. Both are subject to the PR's right of appeal, and thus do not take effect any sooner than the end of the time period in which an appeal can be made, and if an appeal is made, not until the appeal is dismissed or withdrawn. (Obviously, if the appeal is granted, neither take effect.)
The difference is that when the PR is being Reported at the PoE, the PR has already made the trip to Canada and will be allowed to enter Canada. The PR denied a PR TD will also be allowed to enter Canada, but of course first the PR needs to physically get there (and either have an appeal pending or get there before the time to appeal has lapsed).
ANOTHER PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE:
It is apparent that Visa Office decision-makers tend to be more strict, even severe, in enforcing the PR Residency Obligation. It appears, with a lot of emphasis on "APPEARS," that a PR has significantly better odds of NOT being reported at the PoE, or if reported, still allowed to retain PR status for H&C reasons, than the same PR in the same situation (except not actually arriving in Canada) applying for a PR Travel Document.
That noted, the difference might mostly be about being at the doorstep and actually coming into Canada when the PR is at a PoE. A key factor in the interpretation and application of the RO is the purpose of the grant of PR status itself: so the individual can come to Canada to settle and stay. Being at the door coming into Canada is a necessary and key part of actually doing that. Once at the door, it is likely this sometimes, maybe oft times, pushes the needle enough to give the PR the benefit of doubt, to allow the PR a further chance. (Obviously this is not likely to have that influence if the PR appears to merely be coming to "visit" rather than stay.)
