To everyone other than the OP: sorry. This will be something of a rant, from the soapbox one might say.
Please skip.
Otherwise it appears the OP will not be offended since the OP has definitively declared they "
couldn't care less about any pontification." They might not want to hear it, but of course what gets posted here in response to queries is not the OP's choice. So, in light of the OP's other rather gratuitous comments, most notably insinuations about Canadian bureaucrats engaging in "
vigilantism," with a sigh . . .
Hi everyone, years ago we applied for PR in Canada and landed for few days. We were planning to return to Canada the following year and spent considerable amount of time applying for jobs, but after sending hundreds of resumes didn't receive a mere invitation to an interview (for comparison: if we sent 10 resumes in the US, we would get at least one invitation to an interview, and possibly land a job). Anyhow, we decided to stay in US and not risk going to Canada to spend our life savings while looking for a job.
It seems like we are still permanent residents of Canada (although in breach of residency requirement). As of now, we are not planning to move to Canada. And, to be honest, it doesn't matter much if we eventually (formally) loose our permanent residency. So, this thread and questions is more out of curiosity:
If we were to some day cross Canadian border as American citizens, what would be chances of being reported/stopped at border for being Canadian permanent residents? How strictly the requirement is being enforced?
P.S. Do not get emotional and do not lecture me about laws and requirements of Canada, I am aware of both as it relates to PR obligation. Mind your own business and don't teach me morals. I am just curious, as to what the chances of retaining PR are, should I ever decide to come to Canada. I am asking for ANECDOTAL evidence (not statistics per se, but personal experiences of individuals in similar circumstances). I am US Citizen with above average income and stable job in professional field, and at the end of the day I couldn't care less about any pontification from "holier than though" types. I look for a simple, unemotional reflection on a true state of affairs at the border, as it relates to individuals who landed but never lived in Canada for 5 to 10 years. Thank you for your understanding.
My guess, just a guess, you will not like my response. Trolling tends to get me emotional. The soapbox beckons. So let me say upfront, if I may be allowed,
thank you for your understanding.
And if this response does not drip with Canadian-politeness, my excuse is that I am an immigrant here and one with deep roots in my old country, with some deeply entrenched and hard-to-shake rather unpleasant habits and attitudes, or perhaps, as some might say, handicapped, the product of a bad start in a bad place.
Thing is, you could have answered the question yourself, as best you could, however you might, if you did not want answers you do not want to see or hear. I will not accuse you of being a fool, you seem to very well know what you are doing, but I will express some suspicion that you are at the least disingenuous. You posted, in an open forum on the internet, rather obviously aware that your query was likely to invite some responses you do not want to see or hear. And, moreover, you went to some pain to derisively describe those whose responses you did not want to see, before they so much as had a chance to respond, painting them, inter alia, as "
'holier than though' types," and did this in your very first post here (at least while using a mutation of the
White Fang author's name).
The more obvious targets of your derision are easily identified. It's true they rather often intrude with precepts rooted in
the-rules-are-the-rules and should be enforced postures, except their version of what the rules are tends to be more strict than the actual rules, and quite a lot more strict than actual practice in how the rules are applied and enforced. I tend to disagree with them often. Sure, one might suspect, some are motivated by moralizing. But there is no need to go there. Usually. Targeting motives is usually a distraction, and ad hominem. Addressing how things actually work, as best we can discern, usually works, or at least is the best we can do.
But sometimes the motive is the message.
So, let's be clear, your "P.S." demand,
your lecture to forum participants about how they can or cannot respond, tells the tale well enough. Never mind the internal contradictions in what you claim to be asking. After all, anecdotal experiences can only reflect what sometimes happens and without context or reliable statistics, will not ordinarily let alone necessarily reflect or indicate what is common, let alone what is the norm, let alone "
a true state of affairs." Never mind the blatant fishing expedition, raising a question about just what it is you are fishing for, since you so explicitly make it clear you really have no reason to be interested in living in Canada, or even much if any interest in visiting Canada.
Forgive me if I am wrong apprehending your "curiosity" to be a pretense, and
thank you for your understanding.
In that case, I will offer a summary of what you could have easily learned from just perusing a few threads in this forum about this subject.
Port-of-Entry Examination of PRs as to Residency Obligation Compliance, for PRs Returning to Canada After an Absence of Three Plus Years:
Most PRs are NOT questioned much if at all about RO compliance upon arrival at a PoE (I never was, not in many dozens of crossings while I was a PR).
While the query asked about coming here after being gone five years, which would typically mean the PR is arriving at the PoE without a valid PR card, if the absence has been for more than three years, even if the PR presents a valid PR card it is more or less obvious there is a RO compliance question, since it is impossible to meet the RO (without some exception applying) if the PR was last in Canada more than three years ago.
So, at the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) the screening official will ordinarily, but not always, recognize there is, potentially, a RO compliance issue if a PR applying for entry into Canada (such application is made by just showing up at the PIL) has either been outside Canada more than three years or does not present a currently valid PR card. It is not the PIL officer's job to conduct further screening, but rather to refer the traveler to Immigration Secondary. If the referral to Secondary is specifically about RO compliance questions, obviously that results in more extensive questioning about RO compliance.
There are other reasons why a PR might be referred to Immigration Secondary (in contrast to a referral to Secondary for merely customs screening) . But if there is such a referral, there is a significant risk that will include questions about RO compliance; might even be that with any referral to Immigration Secondary, it is likely there will be at least some questions aimed at verifying RO compliance.
Other factors also may trigger a referral to Secondary by the PIL officer for questioning about RO compliance. Some PRs must be referred to Secondary (such as a PR carrying a one-year PR card).
In contrast, anecdotal reports suggest that on more than a few occasions a PR who is in breach of the RO, including some way in breach, are just waived into Canada by the PIL officer. This appears to be about PRs carrying a visa-exempt passport, and perhaps even more so those presenting a U.S. passport, and mostly PRs who do not say anything to the PIL officer about being a Canadian PR. More than a few PRs outside Canada long in breach of the RO, and without a PR card, will actually attempt a return to Canada this way, hoping to be waived through. If they succeed, they can FIX their RO problem by staying for two years, without leaving, before applying for a new PR card. Not so easily done as it might sound. But more than a few try.
So the PIL is the biggest fork in the path determining whether a PR faces a more or less strict RO compliance examination upon returning to Canada. If the PIL officer waives the PR through, no RO compliance examination, no 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility for a breach of the RO.
Most indications are that this is less and less likely going forward. Electronic scanning of passport by PIL will almost always (not always but almost) identify the traveler to be a Canadian PR.
Once a PR is referred to Secondary and is questioned about RO compliance, the PR who is for sure in breach, and by a lot, and who is not making a strong H&C case for keeping PR status, the odds of being issued the 44(1) Report are probably VERY HIGH.
A traveler with a U.S. passport, or even one carrying another visa-exempt passport, might be waived through if the examining officer is satisfied the individual is just visiting, not intending to stay. Could be because there is no reason to do all the paperwork since the traveler will be allowed into Canada anyway (either after renouncing PR status and allowed in as a visitor, or allowed in as a PR "under enforcement" subject to the right to appeal) and will soon be leaving . . . let some other officer do the paperwork, next time. This seems to have been common in the not-so-distant past but as the border screening process has gotten more formal over the years, it seems very likely even this will be less and less common going forward.
