Congratulations. Thanks for sharing your experience. I am in a similar situation . Please if you don’t mind me asking how old is your daughter. As my son is 26 years old and I am sponsoring him. Thank you
PR Card successfully Renewed - H&C grounds / Not meeting RO
- Thread starter Canadahelpme123
- Start date
Sponsoring your son on what basis? Sponsorship of dependent minors only possible while under 22 years.
Looks like the son applied for H&C so not being sponsored. Unclear on what grounds he is applying given he is 26 and should be able to work towards an economic program.
You have mixed up on posts. This discussion is about applying PR card when not meeting RO and trying to get a card with H&C ground. So people already have PR status here. And to apply to sponsor a dependent (under 22 years old), it's better/should be meeting RO.
This is VERY different for apply to become PR under H&C as what your son is trying to do. And you are NOT sponsoring him. It's strange for a young person to apply under H&C. Did he consider any of the economic stream?
Then why share your story ?
People assume now , just because, that you managed to get it , that others will
Then people wonder why Canadians have lost faith in the system
And there are freebies . You’re in no position to start saying that there aren’t
Last edited:
v
Agreed.
Think this was just OP's way of agreeing with your statement on not pushing the envelope - as OP won't, OP wants to warn others not to either if it's not too late for them to avoid it. (I.e. they should move to Canada NOW before they fail to meet RO rather than wait and let it fall short and then hope to get H&C approved).
I think, to help those who received the warning too late, even if it's not able to help everyone.
Exactly why we need to warn - don't count on or rely on freebies. So I also agree 100% on this,
Agreed.
Think this was just OP's way of agreeing with your statement on not pushing the envelope - as OP won't, OP wants to warn others not to either if it's not too late for them to avoid it. (I.e. they should move to Canada NOW before they fail to meet RO rather than wait and let it fall short and then hope to get H&C approved).
I think, to help those who received the warning too late, even if it's not able to help everyone.
Exactly why we need to warn - don't count on or rely on freebies. So I also agree 100% on this,
It was only a few months but that does not matter. I had to apply to renew my PR because the Minister Delegate who was assigned my 44(1) report wanted me to do so. He clearly told me and my attorney that he would "No action" my 44(1) report if we apply for PR renewal and explain our H&C grounds in the renewal application.
Don't be spreading false hopes by telling people there are freebies. I have explained why I shared my story. If it does not help you, ignore it and move on.
Every case is different and unique in its own way. Don't assume ... use attorneys and expert opinions. Stories and testimonials are for help but not "rule of thumb"
The latter later . . . First from back in early May:
Extensive detail is indeed good information. Much appreciated.
Your story, however, demands a big red flag, a caution: just in procedural terms your situation is uncommon, probably unusual if not highly unusual (will explain below), so there are very few other PRs who, as you reference, are "in similar situation." And, even for those who are, for the rather few other PRs who might be in a similar situation procedurally, it is highly unlikely they are factually in a similar situation in terms of the merits of their H&C case.
The only general lesson learned is to lawyer-up when tangled in inadmissibility proceedings. That, however, is a lesson well known by all but fools. (Albeit not affordable for many.)
While others have offered useful observations, the following summed things up quite nicely:
Indeed, the main thing that your story illustrates, as SuperMarco phrased it, is that you were given a "chance" to keep your PR status despite the breach of the RO.
That is, to put it in more concrete terms, what your story illustrates and which might, possibly, "help whoever else might be in similar situation," is that
Your story offers near ZERO insight into how, in particular, things are likely to go for other PRs even if they are in a similar situation (let alone just roughly in a similar situation).
To be clear . . . the detail described is both interesting and useful, so again appreciated, even though what appears to be your point (or as SuperMarco refers to it, "the final point") probably misses the point and is off the mark. It is interesting and useful in that it helps to fill in the picture, helping the forum better understand some of the procedural nuances that can be involved. But it is not all that useful in any particular case, definitely not an illustration of what other PRs in breach of the RO can expect let alone rely on, no matter how similar their case is . . . except, again, one obvious and overriding aspect: yeah, lawyering-up can make the difference. For those tangled in inadmissibility proceedings who can afford a lawyer, getting a lawyer involved as soon as possible can make the difference.
Meanwhile, the detail helps those of us whose participation here is to help others (in contrast to those looking for help), in that it illustrates some procedural nuances including uncommon procedures. These have been discussed and explained at length and in some depth here in numerous threads (see, for example, just one among many examples, my procedural observations nearly a year ago here).
The Point . . . ????
This experience does not detract from the conventional wisdom about NOT making a PR card or sponsorship application while in breach of the RO.
It might appear that the OP's experience illustrates an example in which a PR card application relying on H&C relief has gone OK for a PR in RO breach. That appearance is deceptive. As the OP (@Canadahelpme123) acknowledges:
The OP's case is actually way different, not at all similar to the somewhat common case in which a PR in breach of the RO has returned to Canada and is considering whether to proceed with a PR card or sponsorship application. I will get to that. But (for the record one might say), we should be clear about the conventional wisdom.
The conventional wisdom in this forum is unequivocal:
I concur in the conventional wisdom. And even though that comes with a caveat, that is recognizing that quite a few PRs in breach manage to proceed with a PR card or sponsorship application without any serious problems, without triggering inadmissibility proceedings even, to be clear I nonetheless very much emphatically concur in the conventional wisdom to WAIT. (Why, and factors relevant to perhaps why not, is itself a complicated subject which has been addressed in other threads; and, of course, there are situations in which waiting is not a practical option, situations in which a PR in RO breach is more or less compelled to take their chances.)
One problem, among many, is that given the number of known cases in which PRs did not wait and it went OK (and for many it not only went OK but was successful with relatively little delay), these cases have invited more than a few to say, probably many more to think, "it worked for Jack or Jill, so it is OK."
NO, no with emphasis. "It worked for Jack" (and Jill and Joe and more) ONLY means it is POSSIBLE it will be OK, that it MIGHT work. The safe approach is to NOT engage (if this is possible) in any transaction with IRCC or CBSA that will involve a RO assessment (such as a PR card application) or has a high risk of triggering a RO assessment (like a sponsorship application). Don't do it unless you have to do it. It might go OK, but the odds playing Russian Roulette are better (the odds playing Russian Roulette are actually quite good, five to one it goes OK, just not anywhere near good enough to make it a safe bet).
Most PRs in breach of the RO have no choice. Many will need a PR TD just to return to Canada, so there is no chance of avoiding a RO compliance assessment and, moreover, a PR TD application necessarily involves an overt status decision. So the PR TD application puts it on the line; if the H&C case falls short, the decision denying a PR TD is a decision that terminates PR status (subject to right of appeal . . . a complicated enough tangent in itself).
PRs in RO breach who can travel to Canada (whether that is by using a still valid PR card to fly here or traveling to a PoE on the U.S./Canada border) must make an application for permission to physically enter Canada; while they cannot be denied physical entry, the PoE examination can lead to inadmissibility proceedings, as it did for the OP (again, @Canadahelpme123).
The latter is part of what makes the OP's case different from the vast majority of cases in which a PR in breach is considering making a PR card application, and for the OP the procedure which followed was especially outside the norm, way outside. I vaguely recall, but only vaguely, at most a couple other anecdotal reports of cases in which a PR has been offered a favourable decision in a pending inadmissibility proceeding conditioned on making a PR card application. At the most, the very most, this is clearly NOT at all common, and frankly I suspect it is actually so unusual that for practical purposes there simply are no other PRs in a similar situation.
The conventional wisdom is about those situations in which, one way or another, a PR in breach of the RO is IN Canada, and considering whether to stay and wait long enough to get into RO compliance BEFORE making a PR card application.
Again, that is not the situation the OP was in. As usual I have taken the long way around to make a relatively simple point: this case, the OP's experience, does not change the conventional wisdom.
Beyond that . . . more to come . . .
Extensive detail is indeed good information. Much appreciated.
Your story, however, demands a big red flag, a caution: just in procedural terms your situation is uncommon, probably unusual if not highly unusual (will explain below), so there are very few other PRs who, as you reference, are "in similar situation." And, even for those who are, for the rather few other PRs who might be in a similar situation procedurally, it is highly unlikely they are factually in a similar situation in terms of the merits of their H&C case.
The only general lesson learned is to lawyer-up when tangled in inadmissibility proceedings. That, however, is a lesson well known by all but fools. (Albeit not affordable for many.)
While others have offered useful observations, the following summed things up quite nicely:
Indeed, the main thing that your story illustrates, as SuperMarco phrased it, is that you were given a "chance" to keep your PR status despite the breach of the RO.
That is, to put it in more concrete terms, what your story illustrates and which might, possibly, "help whoever else might be in similar situation," is that
(1) H&C relief for a breach of the RO is available in some cases;
(2) assistance from a qualified lawyer (even if just detailed advice) can be very useful; and
(3) how it goes procedurally can vary considerably from case to case
Your story offers near ZERO insight into how, in particular, things are likely to go for other PRs even if they are in a similar situation (let alone just roughly in a similar situation).
To be clear . . . the detail described is both interesting and useful, so again appreciated, even though what appears to be your point (or as SuperMarco refers to it, "the final point") probably misses the point and is off the mark. It is interesting and useful in that it helps to fill in the picture, helping the forum better understand some of the procedural nuances that can be involved. But it is not all that useful in any particular case, definitely not an illustration of what other PRs in breach of the RO can expect let alone rely on, no matter how similar their case is . . . except, again, one obvious and overriding aspect: yeah, lawyering-up can make the difference. For those tangled in inadmissibility proceedings who can afford a lawyer, getting a lawyer involved as soon as possible can make the difference.
Meanwhile, the detail helps those of us whose participation here is to help others (in contrast to those looking for help), in that it illustrates some procedural nuances including uncommon procedures. These have been discussed and explained at length and in some depth here in numerous threads (see, for example, just one among many examples, my procedural observations nearly a year ago here).
The Point . . . ????
This experience does not detract from the conventional wisdom about NOT making a PR card or sponsorship application while in breach of the RO.
It might appear that the OP's experience illustrates an example in which a PR card application relying on H&C relief has gone OK for a PR in RO breach. That appearance is deceptive. As the OP (@Canadahelpme123) acknowledges:
The OP's case is actually way different, not at all similar to the somewhat common case in which a PR in breach of the RO has returned to Canada and is considering whether to proceed with a PR card or sponsorship application. I will get to that. But (for the record one might say), we should be clear about the conventional wisdom.
The conventional wisdom in this forum is unequivocal:
-- best to WAIT to make a PR card application ONLY when in compliance with the RO
-- best to WAIT to make a family class sponsorship application ONLY when in compliance with the RO
I concur in the conventional wisdom. And even though that comes with a caveat, that is recognizing that quite a few PRs in breach manage to proceed with a PR card or sponsorship application without any serious problems, without triggering inadmissibility proceedings even, to be clear I nonetheless very much emphatically concur in the conventional wisdom to WAIT. (Why, and factors relevant to perhaps why not, is itself a complicated subject which has been addressed in other threads; and, of course, there are situations in which waiting is not a practical option, situations in which a PR in RO breach is more or less compelled to take their chances.)
One problem, among many, is that given the number of known cases in which PRs did not wait and it went OK (and for many it not only went OK but was successful with relatively little delay), these cases have invited more than a few to say, probably many more to think, "it worked for Jack or Jill, so it is OK."
NO, no with emphasis. "It worked for Jack" (and Jill and Joe and more) ONLY means it is POSSIBLE it will be OK, that it MIGHT work. The safe approach is to NOT engage (if this is possible) in any transaction with IRCC or CBSA that will involve a RO assessment (such as a PR card application) or has a high risk of triggering a RO assessment (like a sponsorship application). Don't do it unless you have to do it. It might go OK, but the odds playing Russian Roulette are better (the odds playing Russian Roulette are actually quite good, five to one it goes OK, just not anywhere near good enough to make it a safe bet).
Most PRs in breach of the RO have no choice. Many will need a PR TD just to return to Canada, so there is no chance of avoiding a RO compliance assessment and, moreover, a PR TD application necessarily involves an overt status decision. So the PR TD application puts it on the line; if the H&C case falls short, the decision denying a PR TD is a decision that terminates PR status (subject to right of appeal . . . a complicated enough tangent in itself).
PRs in RO breach who can travel to Canada (whether that is by using a still valid PR card to fly here or traveling to a PoE on the U.S./Canada border) must make an application for permission to physically enter Canada; while they cannot be denied physical entry, the PoE examination can lead to inadmissibility proceedings, as it did for the OP (again, @Canadahelpme123).
The latter is part of what makes the OP's case different from the vast majority of cases in which a PR in breach is considering making a PR card application, and for the OP the procedure which followed was especially outside the norm, way outside. I vaguely recall, but only vaguely, at most a couple other anecdotal reports of cases in which a PR has been offered a favourable decision in a pending inadmissibility proceeding conditioned on making a PR card application. At the most, the very most, this is clearly NOT at all common, and frankly I suspect it is actually so unusual that for practical purposes there simply are no other PRs in a similar situation.
The conventional wisdom is about those situations in which, one way or another, a PR in breach of the RO is IN Canada, and considering whether to stay and wait long enough to get into RO compliance BEFORE making a PR card application.
Again, that is not the situation the OP was in. As usual I have taken the long way around to make a relatively simple point: this case, the OP's experience, does not change the conventional wisdom.
Beyond that . . . more to come . . .
A sidebar regarding "freebies" . . . resisting the temptation to get into the technical weeds, to define "freebies" perhaps . . .
Actually the temptation was to couch these particular observations as a sideshow rather than a sidebar. There are no technicalities in regards to freebies, no technical freebie definitions or distinctions. As @Copingwithlife observed, and @abff08f4813c affirmed, the OP (@Canadahelpme123) more or less was the beneficiary of a freebie, mostly meaning a chance to keep PR status despite failing to comply with the obligations a PR has.
And to be clear, in regards to . . .
I understand why someone in the OP's situation might pushback on the view they benefitted from a freebie. Obviously the outcome for the OP came at a very substantial cost and effort, not at all free. (This alone is a big part in why the detail the OP has provided is useful, illustrating what a PR in breach may be up against even though they have a strong H&C case.)
Nonetheless, for the OP there appears to have been more than one freebie. Some of the more significant instances:
It is difficult to discern how much impact these had. The particular H&C considerations at stake probably had (and per the rules should have had) a lot of influence in how this went. In addition to the costs involved, the role of H&C considerations probably further explains the OP's rejection of the freebie label, that is that what happened, how this went, was not gratuitous but, rather, due to the OP's particular situation, the merits of the OP's H&C case looming large.
As entertaining chasing that rabbit into Alice country might be, the unknowns are overwhelming, the speculation unilluminating.
Meanwhile, the fact that the lawyer was able to intercede on the OP's behalf while inadmissibility proceedings were still pending, that is before the MD's review of the Report was completed, looms very large.
In any event . . . the point of this freebie sidebar . . . is to highlight just how different the OP's situation is compared to the typical case in which a PR in RO breach has been allowed back into Canada and is wondering if it would be OK to proceed with a PR card (or sponsorship) application.
In particular . . .
Preparation of a 44(1) Report at the PoE:
Contrary to how it is often described (erroneously described) in this forum, being the subject of a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility attendant a PoE examination is NOT, not usually, just the beginning of the process for revoking PR status. That process is usually completed while the PR is still in the PoE. If a Report is prepared, the standard procedure is for another officer to review the Report while the PR is still there in the Poe and either:
Even though it is not uncommon, suspending review of the Report until a later time is not the usual procedure. We cannot say how it would have gone if another officer had immediately conducted the MD's review, as usual, since that would have depended on the strength of the H&C case the OP presented then and there. But this alone distinguishes the OP's situation from most cases. As I noted above, this gave the OP an opportunity to establish physical residence in Canada, a factor which could have had significantly positive influence in a later H&C assessment. And, perhaps most importantly, it gave the OP an opportunity to get a lawyer involved at a critical stage.
Length of Delay in Reviewing the Report:
We have limited information about how it goes in these unusual situations where a 44(1) Report has been prepared at a PoE but the MD's review is delayed (I have discussed how and why this sometimes happens elsewhere), but most of the information we have indicates that the MD makes contact with the PR within days or a few weeks. Longer periods have been reported, so it is no surprise that for the OP it was around four months later the MD made contact. But this is not the norm.
A key factor, of course, is whether the MD has contact information that will actually facilitate contacting the PR.
This brings up another tangent to this case, a tangent which at this juncture, however, is not worth chasing far. I wonder, for example, if it was the sponsorship application in August 2024 that provided the contact information facilitating the MD's contact in September 2024. If so, that might have benefitted the OP. Remember, once the 44(1) Report was prepared, the OP's days in Canada would no longer count toward meeting the RO. While establishing actual residence in Canada, and the days in Canada after that, would have some positive H&C weight, that typically (so far as we can discern) is rarely enough to tip the scales in favour of the PR (in contrast, actual cases illustrate that leaving Canada in the meantime hurts the H&C case, typically by a lot).
Impossible to quantify with any degree of precision, but the OP very likely benefitted from how the timing of things worked out, taking long enough for the OP to establish in fact residence and demonstrate an overall intent consistent with the grant of PR status, an intent to settle permanently in Canada. And time to get a lawyer working on the OP's behalf.
Leading to . . .
Allowing Lawyer To Intercede With MD's Review:
This aspect of the OP''s situation is what most distinguishes the OP's situation from others. Generally PRs do not have a right to have a lawyer present during a hearing/interview with a MD, and no right at all to have a lawyer actively address the MD. I cannot say, or even guess, how often or in what circumstances lawyers are nonetheless allowed to actively engage with an officer acting in the role of a MD's delegate (another reason why lawyers get paid is some have connections and can exert influence not reflected in written rules), but my sense is this is unusual and perhaps highly unusual. In addition to understanding the rules (it is clear there is no right to a lawyer's representation in these hearings/interviews) this is, in part, based on what has been said by lawyers engaged in a couple podcasts, podcasts that seem very reliable.
So the fact that a lawyer was able to intercede with the MD in the OP's case looms large, very, very large. I may be over-estimating the influence this had (my sense is it likely made a big difference), but there is no doubt this is well outside norms. That is, it is not likely there is a significant number of other PRs in "similar situations."
Or as some here have framed it . . . the OP was lucky. (Noting, however, I dislike the connotations of luck/lucky even though I appreciate the intersection of permutations and probabilities; yeah, a lot is given to what some characterize as chance, but what's in the cards is what's in the cards.)
That said . . .
Actually the temptation was to couch these particular observations as a sideshow rather than a sidebar. There are no technicalities in regards to freebies, no technical freebie definitions or distinctions. As @Copingwithlife observed, and @abff08f4813c affirmed, the OP (@Canadahelpme123) more or less was the beneficiary of a freebie, mostly meaning a chance to keep PR status despite failing to comply with the obligations a PR has.
And to be clear, in regards to . . .
On the contrary, we see scores and scores of examples in which Canadian immigration clients (both FNs and PRs) benefit from a rather gratuitous exercise of leniency in the enforcement of Canadian immigration law and regulations. The most frequent illustration of such freebies is a PR in breach of the RO casually waived through a PoE without even being questioned about RO compliance.
I understand why someone in the OP's situation might pushback on the view they benefitted from a freebie. Obviously the outcome for the OP came at a very substantial cost and effort, not at all free. (This alone is a big part in why the detail the OP has provided is useful, illustrating what a PR in breach may be up against even though they have a strong H&C case.)
Nonetheless, for the OP there appears to have been more than one freebie. Some of the more significant instances:
-- delay in concluding the inadmissibility proceedings at the PoE, giving the OP time to obtain assistance from a lawyer before the Minister's Delegate reviewed the 44(1) Report
-- delay in reviewing the Report giving the OP time to get established in Canada without being subject to a Removal Order
-- allowing the OP's lawyer to intercede in the MD's review of the 44(1) Report
It is difficult to discern how much impact these had. The particular H&C considerations at stake probably had (and per the rules should have had) a lot of influence in how this went. In addition to the costs involved, the role of H&C considerations probably further explains the OP's rejection of the freebie label, that is that what happened, how this went, was not gratuitous but, rather, due to the OP's particular situation, the merits of the OP's H&C case looming large.
As entertaining chasing that rabbit into Alice country might be, the unknowns are overwhelming, the speculation unilluminating.
Meanwhile, the fact that the lawyer was able to intercede on the OP's behalf while inadmissibility proceedings were still pending, that is before the MD's review of the Report was completed, looms very large.
It is not certain this made the difference, since again the dominant factor should have been (per the rules) and quite likely was the substantive H&C considerations. However, the reason why lawyers get paid as well as they often do (not always; that's another story) is they tend to be more persuasive, which as their detractors often complain can be about being smooth (no temptation to claim to have been there, done that, with perhaps some isolated exceptions in another time and place, long ago and far away), but for good lawyers it is mostly about knowing what matters and being able to present their client's case with a focus on that, on what matters (this is more difficult, often more tricky, and typically far more important than many admit).
In any event . . . the point of this freebie sidebar . . . is to highlight just how different the OP's situation is compared to the typical case in which a PR in RO breach has been allowed back into Canada and is wondering if it would be OK to proceed with a PR card (or sponsorship) application.
In particular . . .
Preparation of a 44(1) Report at the PoE:
Contrary to how it is often described (erroneously described) in this forum, being the subject of a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility attendant a PoE examination is NOT, not usually, just the beginning of the process for revoking PR status. That process is usually completed while the PR is still in the PoE. If a Report is prepared, the standard procedure is for another officer to review the Report while the PR is still there in the Poe and either:
-- issue a Removal Order (a decision that terminates PR status, subject to the right of appeal), or
-- set aside the Report (which for a PR in breach of the RO would be based on H&C grounds), allowing the PR to keep status
Even though it is not uncommon, suspending review of the Report until a later time is not the usual procedure. We cannot say how it would have gone if another officer had immediately conducted the MD's review, as usual, since that would have depended on the strength of the H&C case the OP presented then and there. But this alone distinguishes the OP's situation from most cases. As I noted above, this gave the OP an opportunity to establish physical residence in Canada, a factor which could have had significantly positive influence in a later H&C assessment. And, perhaps most importantly, it gave the OP an opportunity to get a lawyer involved at a critical stage.
Length of Delay in Reviewing the Report:
We have limited information about how it goes in these unusual situations where a 44(1) Report has been prepared at a PoE but the MD's review is delayed (I have discussed how and why this sometimes happens elsewhere), but most of the information we have indicates that the MD makes contact with the PR within days or a few weeks. Longer periods have been reported, so it is no surprise that for the OP it was around four months later the MD made contact. But this is not the norm.
A key factor, of course, is whether the MD has contact information that will actually facilitate contacting the PR.
This brings up another tangent to this case, a tangent which at this juncture, however, is not worth chasing far. I wonder, for example, if it was the sponsorship application in August 2024 that provided the contact information facilitating the MD's contact in September 2024. If so, that might have benefitted the OP. Remember, once the 44(1) Report was prepared, the OP's days in Canada would no longer count toward meeting the RO. While establishing actual residence in Canada, and the days in Canada after that, would have some positive H&C weight, that typically (so far as we can discern) is rarely enough to tip the scales in favour of the PR (in contrast, actual cases illustrate that leaving Canada in the meantime hurts the H&C case, typically by a lot).
Impossible to quantify with any degree of precision, but the OP very likely benefitted from how the timing of things worked out, taking long enough for the OP to establish in fact residence and demonstrate an overall intent consistent with the grant of PR status, an intent to settle permanently in Canada. And time to get a lawyer working on the OP's behalf.
Leading to . . .
Allowing Lawyer To Intercede With MD's Review:
This aspect of the OP''s situation is what most distinguishes the OP's situation from others. Generally PRs do not have a right to have a lawyer present during a hearing/interview with a MD, and no right at all to have a lawyer actively address the MD. I cannot say, or even guess, how often or in what circumstances lawyers are nonetheless allowed to actively engage with an officer acting in the role of a MD's delegate (another reason why lawyers get paid is some have connections and can exert influence not reflected in written rules), but my sense is this is unusual and perhaps highly unusual. In addition to understanding the rules (it is clear there is no right to a lawyer's representation in these hearings/interviews) this is, in part, based on what has been said by lawyers engaged in a couple podcasts, podcasts that seem very reliable.
So the fact that a lawyer was able to intercede with the MD in the OP's case looms large, very, very large. I may be over-estimating the influence this had (my sense is it likely made a big difference), but there is no doubt this is well outside norms. That is, it is not likely there is a significant number of other PRs in "similar situations."
Or as some here have framed it . . . the OP was lucky. (Noting, however, I dislike the connotations of luck/lucky even though I appreciate the intersection of permutations and probabilities; yeah, a lot is given to what some characterize as chance, but what's in the cards is what's in the cards.)
That said . . .
Excellent point. A bit complex to me. Many thanks. What i seem to understand is that if HC is accepted, if once landed in Canada and make the PR card application right after, there is a risk to get like rejected. If what i understand is correct, it looks strange to me.
This has been covered with you before several times. If you are approved for a PRTD under H&C, this does not guarantee the PR card will be approved as well. For example, if you come to Canada on the PRTD, apply for the PR card, and then leave Canada. It is possible you may run into issues getting an approved PR card. You really need to make a decision and do something or forget about coming to Canada.
That's definitely one scenario that should be avoided, but from OP's earlier posts I think the concern from OP is more with the risk of getting a section 44(1) report after getting PRTD approved on H&C, landing in Canada, and then applying for a PR card right away while actually starting the process of getting settled in and living in Canada.... (see e.g. https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...-after-approval-of-prtd.772702/#post-10154075 for the theoretical example of a PRTD applied for with H&C, and being approved but without the RC-1 code: edit: you point out a similar risk in https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...or-re-apply-for-pr-card.872869/#post-11074543 ).
I understand now why OP was interested before in doing things like renewing a DL or health card while overseas... because by the time OP is ready to move back, all such IDs would have long expired, so without the ability to safely apply for a PR card for two years, OP might have a hard time coming up with acceptable IDs for different and various everyday life situations.. (though I guess that most non government uses would be happy with just the foreign passport or FP + PRTD, along with one or two pieces of mail as proof of address.)
Many thanks. Sorry, i know the discussion is not knew but it was not clear to me. In fact, i found weird that the same administration say yes for PRTD and no for PR card. I understand of course what you said previously, that if you land again with PRTD and go back before receiving the PR card, this is a critical albeit logical bad consequence. Thank you again.
Similar threads
