Does entering Peace Arch Provincial Park count as physical presence in Canada?
<p>With travel across the US-Canada border being highly restricted (even citizens/PRs need to quarantine for two weeks on arrival), many Canadian permanent residents living and working in the US near the Canadian border may have difficulty meeting the <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/pr-card/understand-pr-status.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">residency requirements</a> of being in Canada for 730 days in a five year period. (Being in Canada for any part of a day counts as a whole day in Canada)</p>

<p>One can enter some (very limited) parts of Canada legally though. For example, one can enjoy 9 hectares of Canada by entering <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Arch_Park" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Peace Arch Provincial Park</a>, which just <a href="https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/covid-19-families-reunited-as-peace-arch-provincial-park-reopens/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reopened today</a>, and many married couples separated by the border got to see and hug each other. </p>

<p>Would someone living near such parks be able to meet the Canadian permanent residency requirements by going to such parks every day? Assume that one can provide evidence e.g. photographs with timestamps, and social media checkins. Assume that one is also be willing to mount a legal challenge should the Canadian authorities deny that entering the park counts as physical presence in Canada.</p>

<p>Exact wording might matter here, so I looked up the law. It says "a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are physically present in Canada". <a href="https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-274598" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 28(2)(a).</a> </p>

<p>If you visit the Canadian side of the park, you're "physically present in Canada". It would therefore appear that this would meet the requirement.</p>

<p>I am by no means an expert in Canadian immigration law, though.</p>

canada