PR card renewal/passprt copies/exit/entry record

I doubt very much it would have made any difference.

The "right" pile became the normal processing pile (meaning, I think, it will not even be examined again until four months or so from the date of receipt) as soon as they identified a residency question and asked for additional documents. I was not sure of this, but my understanding is that urgent processing is a courtesy extended only to clearly qualified applicants, and basically any issue/question will result in an "urgent application" not being processed on an urgent basis. Thus, once there is an issue, the "right" pile becomes the normal processing pile.

I have given this particular thread a lot of attention because I think kfq's circumstances represent a common problem and some common confusions about the process, even though personally I think the residency obligation is very clear, and how it works is clear, and how it affects eligibility to obtain a new PR card is clear. Still, one sees this sort of problem or confusion again and again, including, as in the situation with Naseh, PRs who actually put their status at risk by prematurely applying (that is before being in compliance with the residency obligation) to renew the PR card.

For information I had my travel record fom CBSA  before applying for renewal . It takes about 5 weeks to get that record from CBSA

That is, of course, part of the process.

What I hope people get, however, is that whenever it says something "can" be determined, that also means it might not, and thus when conducting an objective self-assessment of one's own case, it is important to look for and understand what about one's case might trigger the negative side of that determination.

Merely reporting exit and entry dates is not always sufficient. It may be, and if the individual's history and circumstances corroborate those dates, yes, as it states in what kfq bolded in the above quote, that may be sufficient to persuade the examining officer that the residency obligation has been met. Circumstances or history or other clues may, in contrast, compel an officer to evaluate additional evidence of presence or absence, including the possibility of requiring a personal interview.

It is still up in the air whether kfq will be required to attend an interview. As I have said, it will be appreciated if kfq will, as kfq has indicated a plan to so do, keep us updated as to how this actually goes. While such information will not guarantee that someone else in a similar situation will be handled the same, it will confirm what happens in kfq's case is at least a substantial possibility for those in similar circumstances. And, as I have said, I suspect there are many who are indeed in similar circumstances.

Honestly, I have the sense you might not get an interview, that you might just get a notice to pick up the PR card at the local office. (There could be a note in your file, to the effect that when you appear to pick up the new card that some questions be asked and that they be particularly in tune to being sure it is you, and such, but that would not be a formal residency examination.)

I like to be prepared for less than the best news, though, and in your situation, I agree, being prepared to wait and being prepared to go to a residency examination interview, is the prudent thing to do.

Not sure what I can offer, though, in terms of specifics. I suspect it would mostly be a confirmation of travel, examination of your passport/travel documents, and so on. Otherwise they should explicitly communicate to you, ahead of time, what documents you should bring to the interview (if they want proof of where you lived, for example, or of your employment, and so on).

Only a few people have been willing to report their circumstances in similar situations here, so there is not a lot of contextual/experience based background information to go on here. Mostly, I suspect, but again I do NOT really know, they would mostly go over your history and confirm some details, get a sense for whether or not you are telling a true story . . . and of course if you had 735 days as of the date you applied, as time goes by I assume you are adding to that number (though those days longer ago than five years fall out of the calculation, as I have noted before), it should go OK. I suspect it is mostly about confirming things, that you are who you are, that your passport reflects what you have previously submitted, perhaps some life in Canada type questions to get a sense of whether or not you really have been in Canada when you say you have.

If you want to fully gear up for a more intense residency examination, of course you can do your best to gather up as many documents and records as possible that show the dates you were actually in Canada, that show activities you engaged in while in Canada. I doubt it will come to that (for those, who on the contrary applied for a new card when they were significantly short of the 730 day threshold, they might expect the higher degree of scrutiny . . . and of course they risk being issued a removal order, not merely failing to obtain a new PR card and having to re-apply).

Worst case scenario is having to re-apply. And that does not seem likely.

Good idea to be prepared.

One thing I am not certain about is whether the PR residency calculation is on the same basis as the citizenship calculation (for which either, but not both, of days of departure or days of arrival will count . . . so, in effect, the number of midnights in Canada is what counts); I get the impression that it is rarely evaluated that closely for purposes of compliance with the PR residency requirement, but again this is a side of things not reported that well by those affected here, which is, again, why your input is important and appreciated. Not much for you to do, though, but wait for another eight or so weeks to see what comes next.