Abe G. Weit said:
in regards to your question, the questioning took place at the booth (not a secondary) at a sleepy crossing in New Brunswick. i'd estimate ~3 minute interview - combination of questioning about why I had not yet settled and a thorough explanation of the rules regarding maintaining PR status.
Thanks.
The typical experience at the smaller, more remote crossings, is indeed different than it is at the Douglas Peace Arch POE, or the Detroit-Windsor tunnel crossing, or the Niagara area crossings including Fort Erie and Queenston Heights, so it is not unusual to see a report of a more in-depth interview at the PIL for such a POE. These smaller crossings do often involve more extensive screening at the PIL and thus generally there is not much to extrapolate from them relative to any general practice or policy. (In the somewhat distant past I actually had a visa issued right at the PIL booth, at a somewhat small POE, as unusual as it is for Americans to be issued visitor's visas let alone for that process to take place right at the PIL booth rather than in secondary.)
But your description of the exchange and explanation does indicate, it seems to me, that CBSA officers working the POE are indeed being instructed to screen returning PRs more than it appears they did in the past.
While for some time we have seen the conducting of residency examinations, the issuance of 44(1) reports and Removal Orders taking place at the POE, in the last year the anecdotal reports of this have increased significantly while, at the same time, anecdotal reports of
no problem at the POE by PRs in breach of the PR Residency Obligation have declined dramatically.
For many this is good news, CBSA actually enforcing Canada's immigration laws. For some PRs, of course, this is not good news. The days of easily slipping back into Canada and staying long enough to get back into compliance with the RO, seem to be approaching an end.
In any event, reports like yours help to keep us informed about what can happen on at least some occasions, and in conjunction with other information can help us recognize patterns . . . such as the increasing extent to which CBSA is engaged in enforcing the PR Residency Obligation.
Rob_TO said:
I have no doubt that CBSA can see all sorts of information upon an initial scan. What I was wondering and what is not certain, is if by scanning a passport the CBSA agent automatically sees the specific info that the individual is a PR of Canada. I'm not sure if this info is displayed automatically to the agent by default, or if the agent needs to do a quick secondary search to cross-reference against a PR database. No matter how quickly an agent could check, if it's a secondary process done at their own discretion there could be situations where PRs that don't state they are PRs, could be let in as visitors, depending if the agent decides to check them or not.
I too do not really know for sure what is seen on the monitor when the PIL officer scans the Travel Document. But being somewhat familiar with a typical government interface (allowing for the continuous upgrades and changes being implemented), I am very confident that it displays at minimum basic identity information, and most likely indicates basic status information including, for example, the individual's CIC client number (if the individual has a CIC client number) and probably status itself.
What probably varies extensively is the extent to which the PIL officer visually checks all the details in the information on the screen . . . and perhaps that is often, if not usually a minimal check beyond confirming identity and the absence of flags. That is, the officer's visual scan of the information on the monitor is probably rather perfunctory if not cursory for citizens, PRs, and many visa-exempt visitors, so long as there is nothing tickling the PIL officer's concerns or curiosity.
That is, I
believe (don't know for sure) the information is there (including PR status, maybe even Canadian address if there is one in the system), but often not looked at. Once the officer confirms the concurrence of the person he sees with the person indicated in the Travel Document and with the person identified on the monitor, which can take a mere three or five seconds, while in the meantime the PIL officer asks the
questions-of-the-day, and subject to the individual's answers to the questions or any customs issues, if there is nothing flagging the individual, that results in a waive through (noting that the vast majority of referrals to secondary are for customs not immigration).
Beyond that, I believe it is very easy for the PIL booth officer to tap/click a link to more detailed information, no need to form a query.
Long before I became a PR, and thus back when the technology was far less sophisticated than it is currently, on multiple occasions I was asked very particular questions at the PIL which reflected the officer had, right there in front of him (sometimes her), certain specific information about me well beyond basic identity data. While sometimes remarkably detailed, these exchanges were very brief, indicating the information was right there in front of the officer with no need to go searching for it. And this was before I even applied for PR, many years ago now.
(A note which may be of interest for some: some of the information about me which the PIL officer referred to was erroneous, obviously based on previous exchanges at a POE in which an officer made notes reflecting an inference based on what I said, not what I actually said, which inference was in fact erroneous. . . . yes, long before becoming a PR I had a bit of a complicated border-stradling lifestyle (again, yes, there was a woman to blame) which meant I often spent a considerable amount of time in secondary, for immigration purposes, at this or that POE.)
For the vast majority of returning PRs, there is no reason for the PIL officer to even glance at much of the detail I believe there is on the opening interface screen, let alone take a link to see more detail.
It may be worth noting, additionally, that for those individuals driving their own vehicle into a land POE, assuming that vehicle has previously been driven into Canada by that individual, I am fairly confident the opening interface screen usually displays a significant amount of information about that individual
before the individual even presents a Travel Document to the PIL officer. (There have been occasions in the somewhat recent past during which the PIL officer glanced at my TD with it in his hand still outside the booth window and did not appear to even scan it . . . this would happen when I was alone in the vehicle, and I believe my entry information was still entered into their databases, based on my identity popping up from the scan of my vehicle's license plate, the PIL officer only needing to glance at my TD sufficient to confirm the concurrence of identity before waiving me through.)
Overall:
My bet is that for PRs, regardless of which TD they display (so long as it is linked to their identity in the CIC systems), status as a PR is indicated (not prominently, just an entry next to the code for status), and I think that at least the Province of last reported Canadian address for Canadian PRs is indicated. Probably a "Y" or "N" indicated next to a code for identifying whether the Canadian PR is a resident or non-resident (again, as last known).
What I really wonder about is the extent to which the PIL officer can readily glance at entry history. From experience I know that in secondary they will sometimes look at an individual's entry history (indeed, I have personally gone through an interview in secondary during which they printed out my entry history, to the extent they had it (at that time it was extensive but also incomplete -- I crossed the border a lot in the old days) and went over it with me, and that was well before I even applied for PR, many years ago now, back when I was merely one more Foreign National visiting Canada -- back when the entry history was for sure incomplete since at least half the time they did not even ask to see, let alone scan my ID, including times I was driving a rental not my own car). I suspect even the PIL officer can readily tap a link to at least indicate the most recent entry including at which POE, and perhaps even this information appears on the initial interface screen.
Once referred to secondary: It is almost without doubt that the officers in secondary can readily access full GCMS/FOSS records as well as CBSA travel history. This includes a name-record check into the RCMP and U.S. NCIC criminal records databases (access to the U.S. criminal records may be a mirror database rather than directly into NCIC).
