Thanks @canuck78 for the information. It seems from post that I can't go by Air to Canada with expired PR Card, even I can't apply for Canadian Visit Visa or Tourist Visa as I am still a PR and PR Revocation has started, so the only option left to go via US Land border. But "You will have to continue fighting to see whether you are able to stay".. What does it mean ? Fighting with whom and why ?
RO Appeal
- Thread starter 7890033455
- Start date
Fighting to keep your PR status. It is very far from guaranteed that you can keep your PR and remain in Canada.
Thanks friend. I don't mind if I can't keep PR but I will try till end as per norms and process because I do respect Country's law.
As I was not present in Canada in last 365 days before Appeal, I am not eligible to present F2F hearing.
Once I get the hearing date, I can enter to Canada through US Land Boarder and appear the hearing.
I feel I can explain better in Face to Face hearing than Tele Conference hearing.
Hope I am not doing any wrong.
Will appreciate if get some opinion from pother members.
If the PR can travel to Canada via the U.S., and thus approach a land PoE via private transportation, there is NOTHING wrong at all in the PR traveling to Canada while an appeal is pending. Indeed, in some cases (particularly close call cases) the PR can significantly improve his or her chances of a successful appeal by coming to Canada and living in Canada pending the appeal.
To board a flight to Canada (with some exceptions, like for U.S. citizens) a PR needs either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document. For a PR who is appealing the denial of an application for a PR TD, and who has not been in Canada within the previous year, that means traveling via the U.S. is the only option to come to Canada pending the appeal (in some situations an application for a special PR TD to attend the hearing might be granted despite no presence within the previous year, but in most cases this is not available).
Caution: As previously observed, given the extended length of your absence, it seriously warrants considering how much you want to invest in pursuit of keeping PR status.
Some Additional Observations Relative to Various Aspects of the Discussion Here:
I do not mean to detract anything from some good observations and astute commentary by other forum participants above. That said, I tend to quibble a bit about certain terms, like "luck," since individual facts actually loom far, far larger and are far more influential in how things go than is chance. To the extent references to the impact of "luck" are about chances like the chances of a winning number on a roulette wheel, luck in that sense has very LITTLE influence in how things go when a PR is in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. For example, how much the PR has been outside Canada versus how many ties the PR has in Canada, is a factor which looms way, way larger than chance factors (like whether the decision-maker is in a bad mood that day).
I also quibble some with the term "fighting." Even though there are some adversarial aspects, generally the procedures and the processes are NOT adversarial unless review is pursued in the Federal Court (which is rare), so "fighting" tends to misleadingly exaggerate the extent to which the process is a contest of some sort. I recognize some probably refer to "fighting" to mean making an affirmative, concerted effort to advance one's case. Which is OK. BUT it is important to recognize the procedure and process facilitates multiple opportunities for a PR to present his or her case, to proffer information, evidence, and persuasive reasons in favour of the PR's case. The IAD, for example, mostly wants to know the facts, and it will then apply its authority and discretion to judge how the law applies to what the facts are. This is NO WHERE NEAR akin to a BATTLE, no fighting as such necessary.
Notwithstanding my quibbles with such terms, the gist of many observations above by other forum participants are valid and informative, and should be given due consideration.
There is, however, another tangent in the above discussions which tends to gloss over the reality that the differences in individual cases actually do make a difference, a BIG DIFFERENCE.
Let us be clear: NOT ALL PR RO COMPLIANCE CASES ARE CREATED EQUAL.
Sure, this is a trite statement. We all realize that there are important differences in specific individual cases. No one doubts that the particular facts and circumstances vary considerably from case-to-case, and similarly that such differences can have a big impact on how things go.
BUT it is worth emphasizing the extent to which we know how some factors have a lot more influence than other factors. And while we cannot for-sure predict the outcome in an individual case, in some situations certain known facts will illuminate the nature of the RISKS and offer some indication as to more or less probable outcomes.
Not everyone fully explains "on what basis" they prescribe a very small chance of success, but many of the participants here obviously make a concerted effort to offer only opinions for which there is a well-founded basis. (And to the extent unfounded opinions are offered, there will usually be someone to correct or at least clarify.)
Not all cases are created equal. And not all opinions are equal. One of the most positive aspects of this forum is that it provides those with questions an opportunity to seek and receive informed and well-reasoned opinions.
Two recent scenarios being discussed in this forum readily illuminate how profoundly different the PR's chances can be, and what reasoned opinions look like relative to such differences:
-- appeal by a PR who has been outside Canada for a full decade, with minimal establishment in Canada prior to the absence
-- appeal by a PR who has been back and forth, having multiple entries into Canada, who now has an established home in Canada where the PR's spouse is permanently settled, who has multiple children well-settled permanently in Canada, and pending the appeal the PR has obtained employment in Canada with a Canadian employer, and has effectively centralized his or her life in Canada
It is EASY, real EASY to forecast for the first PR above, the "very small chances" an appeal will be successful. In contrast, it should have been relatively easy to forecast the other PR had at least a reasonably good chance of succeeding in the appeal of a 44(1) Report issued at the border (while the PR was still within the first five years since landing) . . . and indeed, the PR described has recently reported getting a positive decision in the appeal. (I realize that the latter PR had been advised by some, here, the chances were poor, but in looking at the older posts those opinions were not offered by regulars known to be conscientious participants and to be fair to those who posted negative opinions about the odds, they were responding to a fairly bare bones account of the facts, and in particular some key facts were not revealed until later.)
WHICH LEADS TO RECOGNIZING THE RANGE OF CASES HERE:
The OP in this thread, @7890033455, has a very different case than does @MUSTAFACAN, and in turn their cases are quite different than @fateh88's situation. These cases range from a very small chance of saving PR status, for @7890033455, to (it seems to me) significantly better odds of saving PR status for @fateh88 (subject to what happens next and what @fateh88 does going forward).
In particular, @fateh88 does not, so far as I see reported, actually have an appeal pending, nor even a negative decision for a PR TD application, nor have a 44(1) Report issued. And @fateh88 still has a valid PR card. And is still within the first five years of the date of landing. These circumstances make @fateh88's case very different from both @7890033455 and @MUSTAFACAN.
Indeed, as discussed in other topics, there is a huge outstanding contingency which will have a big, big impact on @fateh88's chances to keep PR status: whether or not @fateh88 is reported upon arrival at a PoE. For a PR in breach of the PR RO, the best chance of keeping status is to return to Canada as soon as possible and hope to be allowed into Canada without being reported. The PR who gets into Canada without being reported only needs to stay long enough to cure the breach, and that will allow the PR to keep status. In the meantime, the most flexible and lenient examination of PR RO compliance tends to be at a PoE. The PoE provides the best opportunity to persuade an officer to NOT make a decision leading to the loss of status.
We do not know the statistics, how many appeals are won versus lost. We know a lot are lost. The trail of woe is well documented in published IAD decisions. It is well apparent that PoE examinations tend to be more favourable, to PRs, than either visa office decisions for PR TD applications or IAD decisions for appeals.
A key point of this is largely to emphasize how important it is to recognize the differences in individual cases and to take the differences into consideration when comparing forum posts and assessing how they might apply in yet another case. As I have noted, for example, for @7890033455 there is a real question about how much effort to invest in trying to keep PR status, given the rather poor prognosis, but for the PR with the means to come to Canada pending an appeal, who can readily afford to do this, the fact of living and working and being present in Canada pending the appeal can be a factor which tips the scales favourably and thus may very well be worth the effort. DEPENDS.
In any event, there are scores of discussions in this forum about how many of the various factors can influence the outcome for a PR in breach of the PR RO. There is no need to go into the RO appeal process blind. There is a lot of information here which can be used to assess one's own situation, to identify what information and evidence and reasons are important to present (whether that is to a PoE officer upon seeking entry, or to the IAD in an appeal). It almost always helps to be realistic. To be practical. But, to be sure, HONESTY is imperative. Nothing will sabotage a PR's chances any faster or more negatively than to be suspected of evasiveness, let alone deceit or outright fraud.
Thanks for the detail reply and valuable time you took to write.
In my particular case with all the options being considered i am planning to revoke my current PR by mailing revoke application.
And trying again under express entry for both me and my wife.
Will it be a bad influence on my next application, thats what i am trying to figure out.
Thanks again for the time
Thanks.
For the new application should i mention that i have been a PR holder before.
And attact a letter explaining why I left my previous status?