A legitimate success story or . . .
There is a lot we do not know about how all this went down, and there are significant incongruities in the OP's reporting, including some evasiveness and indications of misrepresentation. This includes what the OP reports here, where there are no significant consequences for lying, as well as in the transactions with IRCC for which there can be serious consequences. The possibility of suffering those consequences, by the way, never goes away; there are more than a few documented cases reflected in IAD decisions illustrating misrepresentation prosecutions brought many years after a misrepresentation, including misrepresentations made in PR card applications. If inadmissibility proceedings are later brought, typically that is attendant a later transaction with IRCC.
In any event we do not know, based on the OP's reporting, whether this is:
The latter is possible. This could be a straight-up, legitimate success story. The OP's reports here indicate a huge amount of information was submitted with the application. So, given that in conjunction with the information that is included in the application itself, in regards to address history and travel history, unless there were more egregious misrepresentations than merely checking the in-Canada box, despite not being in Canada, that suggests IRCC was given plenty of notice the PRs were outside Canada. So this could simply be a success story. Remember, the FC has ruled that being outside Canada when the application is made is not a sufficient basis for denying the application for a PR. (In an earlier post above I discuss this aspect in more depth.)
It might even be believable that this is the story, a legitimate success story, if not for the incongruities in the OP's reporting here. Among aspects of the OP's version that are incongruous, if not outright inconsistent, there is the questionable timeline and the questionable mailing of PR cards in this scenario. After all, if the information submitted made it clear the PRs were outside Canada and remained outside Canada, were not living in Canada and thus not truthfully having a Canadian residential address, for example, it is not likely IRCC would mail the PR cards.
That story would be more believable if there was a lawyer or consultant involved.
How it goes for one person is not a good indicator of how to do things or how it will go for others. That is unless (of course) how it goes is consistent with what happens for others and, AND, it is consistent with what the rules, practices, and policies are. There's a lot here suggesting the OP's story is not consistent with what happens for others, and not consistent with the rules, practices, or policies.
Even if, as I detail above, the OP is relating a legitimate success story, that success would undoubtedly be based on the particular circumstances for the OP's parents, which clearly involved many details specific to them. Thus, even if it is a legitimate success story, it does not offer a map for others to follow.
This is true, assuming there were misrepresentations, which seems likely. Not just long-term but for life.
If the PR card application made it clear the PRs were outside Canada, that might make checking the in-Canada box merely an inconsistency not a misrepresentation. Timeline and mailing of cards suggest otherwise, as you previously discussed (above, last year in October), and OP's admission about breaking "a lot of rules" more than suggest something is off here . . . but based on what is shared here it is nonetheless difficult to conclusively say whether this is just a story, or a got-away-with-it (for now) story, or a legitimate success story.
Not really. Once the wife has shot and buried her husband in the back yard, even if it was justifiable homicide it would not be a surprise if she takes whatever risks are necessary to get-away-with-it rather than fess up.
Thing is, weighing the risks taken here would depend, in part, on what visa office would handle a PR Travel Document application relying on H&C relief (the more appropriate approach the OP's parent should have taken if they could not return to Canada before their PR cards expired).
Maybe.
But since there is obviously a lot to this story that has not been honestly shared here, other PRs should not see this as offering an opportunity or, even, as a significant weakness in enforcement. Especially going forward. Again, enhanced data capturing in conjunction with expanding use of AI (especially the advanced analytics components), will undoubtedly shrink system integrity leaks considerably. And for now, given growing anti-immigrant sentiments, the trend still seems definitely toward more strict enforcement. Notwithstanding those stuff-happens instances.
If there were misrepresentations made in the PR card application, especially if more than, or other than checking the in-Canada box, it would probably still be a good idea for them to consult with a lawyer and be upfront about what in the PR card application was not true, misleading, or evasive. Or, at least do that before they make another PR card application or engage in some other transaction with IRCC.
There is a lot we do not know about how all this went down, and there are significant incongruities in the OP's reporting, including some evasiveness and indications of misrepresentation. This includes what the OP reports here, where there are no significant consequences for lying, as well as in the transactions with IRCC for which there can be serious consequences. The possibility of suffering those consequences, by the way, never goes away; there are more than a few documented cases reflected in IAD decisions illustrating misrepresentation prosecutions brought many years after a misrepresentation, including misrepresentations made in PR card applications. If inadmissibility proceedings are later brought, typically that is attendant a later transaction with IRCC.
In any event we do not know, based on the OP's reporting, whether this is:
-- a they-got-away-with-it (for now) story, or
-- just a story (timeline and mailed PR cards, alone, raise questions about the veracity of the OP's account here), or
-- whether the details in the application and how they were presented were sufficient to result in, as the OP reports, successfully having new PR cards issued and mailed
The latter is possible. This could be a straight-up, legitimate success story. The OP's reports here indicate a huge amount of information was submitted with the application. So, given that in conjunction with the information that is included in the application itself, in regards to address history and travel history, unless there were more egregious misrepresentations than merely checking the in-Canada box, despite not being in Canada, that suggests IRCC was given plenty of notice the PRs were outside Canada. So this could simply be a success story. Remember, the FC has ruled that being outside Canada when the application is made is not a sufficient basis for denying the application for a PR. (In an earlier post above I discuss this aspect in more depth.)
It might even be believable that this is the story, a legitimate success story, if not for the incongruities in the OP's reporting here. Among aspects of the OP's version that are incongruous, if not outright inconsistent, there is the questionable timeline and the questionable mailing of PR cards in this scenario. After all, if the information submitted made it clear the PRs were outside Canada and remained outside Canada, were not living in Canada and thus not truthfully having a Canadian residential address, for example, it is not likely IRCC would mail the PR cards.
That story would be more believable if there was a lawyer or consultant involved.
How it goes for one person is not a good indicator of how to do things or how it will go for others. That is unless (of course) how it goes is consistent with what happens for others and, AND, it is consistent with what the rules, practices, and policies are. There's a lot here suggesting the OP's story is not consistent with what happens for others, and not consistent with the rules, practices, or policies.
Even if, as I detail above, the OP is relating a legitimate success story, that success would undoubtedly be based on the particular circumstances for the OP's parents, which clearly involved many details specific to them. Thus, even if it is a legitimate success story, it does not offer a map for others to follow.
This is true, assuming there were misrepresentations, which seems likely. Not just long-term but for life.
If the PR card application made it clear the PRs were outside Canada, that might make checking the in-Canada box merely an inconsistency not a misrepresentation. Timeline and mailing of cards suggest otherwise, as you previously discussed (above, last year in October), and OP's admission about breaking "a lot of rules" more than suggest something is off here . . . but based on what is shared here it is nonetheless difficult to conclusively say whether this is just a story, or a got-away-with-it (for now) story, or a legitimate success story.
Not really. Once the wife has shot and buried her husband in the back yard, even if it was justifiable homicide it would not be a surprise if she takes whatever risks are necessary to get-away-with-it rather than fess up.
Thing is, weighing the risks taken here would depend, in part, on what visa office would handle a PR Travel Document application relying on H&C relief (the more appropriate approach the OP's parent should have taken if they could not return to Canada before their PR cards expired).
Maybe.
But since there is obviously a lot to this story that has not been honestly shared here, other PRs should not see this as offering an opportunity or, even, as a significant weakness in enforcement. Especially going forward. Again, enhanced data capturing in conjunction with expanding use of AI (especially the advanced analytics components), will undoubtedly shrink system integrity leaks considerably. And for now, given growing anti-immigrant sentiments, the trend still seems definitely toward more strict enforcement. Notwithstanding those stuff-happens instances.
If there were misrepresentations made in the PR card application, especially if more than, or other than checking the in-Canada box, it would probably still be a good idea for them to consult with a lawyer and be upfront about what in the PR card application was not true, misleading, or evasive. Or, at least do that before they make another PR card application or engage in some other transaction with IRCC.
