Stats on how often people are reported aren't published / available.worriedanxious007 said:
Yes - you can legally work in Canada while you wait for the hearing. (I believe the hearings now happen within a month?)
If CBSA don't track exits to Europe, how can a border officer know when you left
- Thread starter worriedanxious007
- Start date
Yes - you can legally work in Canada while you wait for the hearing. (I believe the hearings now happen within a month?)
What CBSA tracks versus what data sources CBSA can access are two hugely different things.worriedanxious007 said:CBSA don't track exits per se/ you need to be more informed before commenting. Your passport does not record travel information only personal data.
Note, for example, that we do know for certain that CBSA can routinely access records reflecting all exits to the U.S. by FNs and PRs (later this year this will include Canadian citizens as well, and that it is specifically intended that this information be shared so as to enhance enforcement of not just the PR RO but entitlements and benefits as well, like EI and social assistance, health care insurance, and so on). But you are right, CBSA is not tracking these exits. Rather, the U.S. is tracking all entries into the U.S. from Canada, and Canada has access to these records, thus effectively giving Canada access to records of exits to the U.S. by FNs and PRs.
It would be incredibly remarkable for CBSA to have access to this information and not have comparable access to similar exit information regarding travel to countries other than the U.S. Border controls between Canada and the U.S. are almost always significantly less comprehensive, less extensive, less intrusive than they are for travel to and from countries other than the U.S.
About a year ago I did some research into the various (publicly disclosed) data systems maintained by CBSA, which is separate from the CIC information banks (some of which I refer to below; CIC has been nice enough to compile this information bank stuff in one page easily found), and what is publicly known about the extent to which information is captured, retained, and most significantly shared. It is staggering, truly staggering. I posted this somewhere, in one forum or another, with links, but I do not recall where that post is off the top of my head. At the least, though, it reflected that CBSA was, at the least, increasingly maintaining information about both exits as well as entries, in addition to the much greater extent to which it had access to information beyond that which it captured and maintained itself.
For just a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg regarding information captured, maintained, and shared by CIC alone, take a look at the description of information banks, or data banks (see this CIC web page) CIC maintains, including the listed purposes, uses, sharing, and time period for which the information is retained, for data information banks such as:
-- Determination of Permanent Resident Status
-- International Service: Overseas Immigration Case Files (hint: much of a PR's original application is retained for 65 years)
-- Permanent Resident Card
-- Permanent Resident Data System
-- Immigration Case File
-- Query Response Centre Records
(among others of less interest relative to this issue)
More scrutiny, stricter enforcement, more getting caught; POE examinations:
Generally, yes, my observation that in recent years CBSA and CIC have elevated the level of scrutiny, pursued enforcement more often and more strictly, and that consequently more are getting caught, is the sort of generalization which ordinarily begs for documentation. And in this regard, perhaps I have grown a bit cavalier relative to this particular issue because for anyone who has spent much time, even a bit of effort, following this in the recent past, this trend should be obvious.
There is, however, no one definitive source which reflects or reports this. (See quote of my sources below)
At the POE it is not so much that an individual's passport itself, or PR card, contains a lot of data. It is that the Travel Documents are keyed to codes (such as the passport number is keyed to the individual's Canadian immigration client number) which essentially can open access to information in the data systems maintained by CBSA (obviously this is about what is seen and accessed on a CBSA computer screen at a POE), which includes FOSS (especially any flags in FOSS), with links to the GCMS, and in turn likely access to much of what is maintained in the information banks and systems used by CIC and CBSA.
I do not know what the actual interface looks like, but I think the threshold portal, once a particular client is loaded, is the basic CBSA identity information screen (this could be essentially a FOSS portal screen). My sense is that there is only a small amount of information about an individual in these screen views (a lot would be distracting), mostly vital statistic and identity related stuff, and status information (status itself, key dates like date of landing for PRs, and so on), and probably some information like date of last entry into Canada, last address in Canada, nature of employment (if entered), perhaps names of immediate family members, and so on, but also with any FOSS flags prominently displayed. And there are probably easy links to additional, more detailed information, and probably links to search/query screens to facilitate further inquiries.
The PIL (Primary Inspection Line) officer usually spends only a small amount of time with the individual and is mostly engaged in making a decision, a screening decision, whether or not to waive the traveler through or to refer the traveler to Secondary for a more thorough examination. Obviously CBSA does not divulge the criteria employed for referring individuals to Secondary, but as I have said most people would be surprised by the extent of information the officer has to compare with the individual seeking entry, and while the flaws and holes are many (as reported by the purported CBSA officer's online posting), their capacity to identify reasons for concern is generally greater than what many if not most apprehend. And of course the policies and practices are over-inclusive, sending more people to Secondary than the number who actually have problematic circumstances (but not so many as to unnecessarily bog down the flow of travelers).
Once referred to Secondary that is where it is likely a CBSA officer will engage in pursuing access, sometimes extensive access, via the computer, to a vast array of information about the individual (for example, one check that is almost always done, I believe, is a RCMP and U.S. criminal records check). The extent to which the officer in Secondary actually probes for more information will vary, ranging from just some perfunctory checks (often to just confirm some of the relatively basic information about the individual) but possibly being expansive, and on occasion remarkably expansive.
Odds are at least very substantial that a PR who has no record of entry for several years will be referred to Secondary regardless of how long the PR declares he or she was outside Canada.
Overall odds of encountering a probing examination at the POE:
We do not know. Following this stuff for years, though, it is safe to say that the odds of elevated scrutiny at the POE for a returning PR, even one in possession of a currently valid PR card (a few years ago this seemed to be all that was needed to enter relatively unexamined), increase substantially depending on (1) how long it has been since the PR was last in Canada (regardless of what the PR reports, acknowledging though that undoubtedly more than a few succeed in a waive through based on a false report), and (2) the extent of time spent in Canada (rougher correlation since the extent to which this is identified by a POE officer will vary considerably).
While we do not know the odds even for a returning PR who was last in Canada more than three years previous, the majority of indicators (including some recent anecdotal reports by participants who were cautioned about the prospect of being reported and issued a Removal Order who nonetheless have expressed surprise that that is indeed what happened when they came to Canada) tend to indicate absent strong H&C reasons for retaining PR status, the odds are not good.
Like I have said, both CIC and CBSA can access and see a great deal more information about an individual than most people realize.Some sources my comments derive from:
-- personal conversations with acquaintances and friends who are PRs in my community (among whom some are increasingly paranoid even though they are well in compliance with the PR RO); this is a very small sample
-- several years of following anecdotal reports by PRs in this forum and other similar forums; these are sporadic and relatively still a quite small sample, these reports being subject to the inherent unreliability of anonymous online posting, and of course the group tends to be populated by a disproportionate share of those with problematic circumstances
-- published IAD decisions regarding administrative appeals from the denial of PR Travel Document applications and administrative appeals from Removal Orders; numbers of these are not huge, but large enough I do not read them all, although I would say I read enough to get the gist of the process in practice and over time the trends
-- officially published Federal Court decisions where judicial review of IAD decisions has been sought; numbers are fairly small, but I have been reading nearly all these for years
-- officially published Federal Court decisions related to review or mandamus in citizenship cases; only a small percentage of these cases involve issues regarding PR status and the PR Residency Obligation, but given the increase in enforcement a significant number of these cases have popped up in the last few years (I have tried to read every citizenship case published for several years now, so I have probably read all such cases in the last few years, allowing that I may have missed some here or there, but rarely since I tend to glance at every case published involving CIC to discern whether a citizenship or PR admissibility issue is involved)
-- of course I read and frequently refer to the IRPA and the Immigration Regulations (such as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations[/url in particular), and CIC online resources including the respective Operational Manuals, and am continually cross-checking all of what is reflected in the above sources with what I know from these official sources of primary information.
Key Operational Manuals relative to this issue include:
-- -- [url=http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf]ENF 4 Port of Entry Examinations
-- -- ENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports
-- -- ENF 6 Review of reports under A44(1)
-- -- ENF 1 Inadmissibility
-- -- ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
And two particularly critical and informative ones:
-- -- ENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status
-- -- ENF 27 Permanent Resident Card
There are also, periodically, Operational Bulletins published in which specific issues and procedures related to PRs and residency issues are addressed. These are not always readily accessible at the CIC site, particularly the ones which specifically deal with manner or method of conducting investigatory processing. There was one in particular which I just noticed is not listed or no longer listed (I do not always keep track of how I come across some documents) regarding PR Residency Determinations.
In other words, there is a great deal of information, much of it in flux, most of it periodically changing.
The published decisions are some of the more revealing sources since they are, foremost, official and actual cases, and they often at least paraphrase the procedural history (sometimes including information obtained in the course of a POE examination for example) as well as, occasionally, the position and arguments made by the Minister's Delegate (offering insight into the mindset inside CIC, which evolves over the years . . . and regarding which my observation is that a clear trend toward being more aggressive, thorough, and strict is well apparent).
Frankly, this barely scratches the surface.
Part of following this stuff demands regular cross-comparisons of information in various sources. Information, including news releases as well as Operational Bulletins about the initiation and implementation of GCMS, in conjunction with information about changes in law and regulations (including regularly reading the Canada Gazette, where official notice is given of adopted laws, proposed changes to regulations, and related information), such as the U.S./Canada initiative to enhance border control and record keeping, news releases about implementation of enhanced technologies (billions spent in the last ten years to dramatically upgrade technologies for information collection, retention, and accessibility functionality), and a wide range of other sources of information.
Want a glimpse of the scope and detail of information the Canadian government keeps regarding an individual immigrant? Take a look at the description of information or data banks (see this CIC web page), including purposes, uses, sharing, and time period for which the information is retained, for data information banks such as:
-- Determination of Permanent Resident Status
-- International Service: Overseas Immigration Case Files (hint: much of a PR's original application is retained for 65 years)
-- Permanent Resident Card
-- Permanent Resident Data System
-- Immigration Case File
-- Query Response Centre Records
Consider the recently proposed changes to regulations published in the February 28 issue of the Canada Gazette regarding sharing information relative to both the Citizenship Act and IRPA.
Sorry about some problems with the links in the sources cited, and aspects of that which is still in a very rough draft form. I mostly wanted to give some idea that many of us (many others obviously use these same sources for information) actually make a concerted effort to provide real information, as best we can, about what happens and how things work, and that we are not merely spouting off unfounded opinons.
In this regard, it should also be noted that of course none of us knows everything. And, indeed, CBSA and CIC do a lot to keep the public uninformed about its methods for screening people.
And all of us make mistakes.
But there is virtually no doubt about the trend by CIC and CBSA, under the Harper government, to elevate scrutiny and increase strict enforcement relative to the PR Residency Obligation.
These observations are not about discouraging anyone, not about fear-mongering, but rather to inform people what they are up against so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Some PRs abroad need to decide whether it is worth giving up a job abroad for example. Some want to know more about what H&C reasons might be persuasive so that they are not reported, and allowed to retain their PR status. Everyone deserves to know that what passes for relatively innocuous fudging in other aspects of life can, in the course of a POE examination, tip the scales quickly and heavily in a negative direction.
As I noted previously, we have seen participants come here, acknowledge the cautions, and later when they in fact came to Canada were surprised that they were reported and issued a Removal Order. Some though did indeed have genuine H&C reasons and while not always successful in persuading the POE officers (which tends to be, so far as we can discern, the best chance the PR in breach has of retaining PR status) they at least establish the groundwork for their appeal.
In this regard, it should also be noted that of course none of us knows everything. And, indeed, CBSA and CIC do a lot to keep the public uninformed about its methods for screening people.
And all of us make mistakes.
But there is virtually no doubt about the trend by CIC and CBSA, under the Harper government, to elevate scrutiny and increase strict enforcement relative to the PR Residency Obligation.
These observations are not about discouraging anyone, not about fear-mongering, but rather to inform people what they are up against so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Some PRs abroad need to decide whether it is worth giving up a job abroad for example. Some want to know more about what H&C reasons might be persuasive so that they are not reported, and allowed to retain their PR status. Everyone deserves to know that what passes for relatively innocuous fudging in other aspects of life can, in the course of a POE examination, tip the scales quickly and heavily in a negative direction.
As I noted previously, we have seen participants come here, acknowledge the cautions, and later when they in fact came to Canada were surprised that they were reported and issued a Removal Order. Some though did indeed have genuine H&C reasons and while not always successful in persuading the POE officers (which tends to be, so far as we can discern, the best chance the PR in breach has of retaining PR status) they at least establish the groundwork for their appeal.
Wow thank you for the extensive insight!! After considering what you say I wonder what you think of my next plan. As opposed to simply turning up after four years away, if i were to be back in Canada at least once a year as from the two years before returning, would this at least alleviate the major situation of lengthy absence even if RO is not met fully, just to in fact be in Canada more often between now and completing studies here in Europe? Just wondering whether you think this can help my case
Say if i returned for a month in 2016, 2017, then back permanently 6 months before PR card expiry in 2018
Trying to predict what the border crossing experience is likely to entail in the future is more speculation than forecasting.
The best way to preserve PR status is to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. Then even if there is an examination at the POE, a little bit of proof probably goes a long way.
Sometimes life forces us to make hard decisions. Stuff happens. Sometimes we are compelled to take risks. Sometimes we must sacrifice one thing for another.
Overall, though, even if the NDP or the Liberals form the government this fall after the election, hard to see the trend change. It seems likely there will be more scrutiny, more extensive and intrusive record keeping, more control, for the near future if not the foreseeable future. All facilitated by continually advancing technologies and the willingness of the government to make big investments in adopting and employing enhanced technologies. (Some of this is being propelled by U.S. influences, but it is a general trend in many countries in this increasingly security conscious, if not security-obsessive world. Some of the less talked about aspects of Bill C-51, relative to information sharing, will probably have a major impact, assuming Bill C-51 becomes law prior to the election.)
All that said, sure there are many ways to manipulate things, ways to in effect improve one's chances of retaining PR status despite failing to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. More than a few have done so. More than a few will continue to try. And CBSA and CIC are diligently engaged in a campaign to minimize the extent to which this is successful.
The best way to preserve PR status is to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. Then even if there is an examination at the POE, a little bit of proof probably goes a long way.
Sometimes life forces us to make hard decisions. Stuff happens. Sometimes we are compelled to take risks. Sometimes we must sacrifice one thing for another.
Overall, though, even if the NDP or the Liberals form the government this fall after the election, hard to see the trend change. It seems likely there will be more scrutiny, more extensive and intrusive record keeping, more control, for the near future if not the foreseeable future. All facilitated by continually advancing technologies and the willingness of the government to make big investments in adopting and employing enhanced technologies. (Some of this is being propelled by U.S. influences, but it is a general trend in many countries in this increasingly security conscious, if not security-obsessive world. Some of the less talked about aspects of Bill C-51, relative to information sharing, will probably have a major impact, assuming Bill C-51 becomes law prior to the election.)
All that said, sure there are many ways to manipulate things, ways to in effect improve one's chances of retaining PR status despite failing to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. More than a few have done so. More than a few will continue to try. And CBSA and CIC are diligently engaged in a campaign to minimize the extent to which this is successful.
My recent observation during my departure from Canada in January 2015.
CBSA is scanning your boarding pass before entering for security check. There is a CBSA officer with a scanner at the entrance, will scan your boarding
pass, which will capture the information .Previously no scanning.
My conclusion your exit is recorded now.
CBSA is scanning your boarding pass before entering for security check. There is a CBSA officer with a scanner at the entrance, will scan your boarding
pass, which will capture the information .Previously no scanning.
My conclusion your exit is recorded now.
These discussions always end up the same -- Can't tell what the border officer will do . . . -- and I'm curious that we never hear anyone asking the next logical question: What happens if I cross into Canada on a little dirt farming road in the middle of Saskatchewan? Once I'm in the country, I'm a legal PR. I know that this is not something that most people on this forum will endorse, but I lived in the San Juan Islands for some time, and people there (and the Canadian Gulf Islands), cross back and forth pretty freely by boat. Is crossing the border at an unmonitored point a misdemeanor or a felony?
Hi
2, By the way, both US and Canada have sensor along the border, especially the US>
1, It is an indictable offence.on-hold said:These discussions always end up the same -- Can't tell what the border officer will do . . . -- and I'm curious that we never hear anyone asking the next logical question: What happens if I cross into Canada on a little dirt farming road in the middle of Saskatchewan? Once I'm in the country, I'm a legal PR. I know that this is not something that most people on this forum will endorse, but I lived in the San Juan Islands for some time, and people there (and the Canadian Gulf Islands), cross back and forth pretty freely by boat. Is crossing the border at an unmonitored point a misdemeanor or a felony?
2, By the way, both US and Canada have sensor along the border, especially the US>