Io way of thinking

[Total]

Do you think that a VO when making a decision on pr renewal and is looking to not approve the request is also thinking that if this goes to appeal the pr may win.

In other words do they not use their discretion to approve an application with some minor discrepancy and not tie up the courts for something minor.

Do VO's get reprimanded for refusing PR on such cases or are there no repercussions

 

[Bs65]

There are rules/guidelines to be met for renewal and if not met then outcome is clear there is no discretion as PR is not a right it has to be earned in the first place and maintained as per the rules .

Thousands of renewals are processed every month so doubt whether any VO has the time or inclination to second guess if an appeal is likely or whether an appeal may be successful they have guidelines to follow. What is the definition of minor discrepancy anyway given if really minor the applicant would likely be given the opportunity to correct.

And your last statement are you looking for VOs to be reprimanded/fired for doing their job given some decisions may not go the way the applicants wanted for good reason but if they appeal as entitled to do then due process is followed one way or the other but whatever the outcome the VO has done their job to the best of their ability even if an applicant has a grudge about the decision. And although i have no inside information my expectation would be that any refusal, not all ,could be subject to a secondary VO case review anyway and not always an individual VO decision so reprimand the whole department ?

Not sure this discussion /speculation serves any purpose

 

[Total]

Just a thought that is all

I asked because I read some appeals and some where so obvious especially in the counting of the days that the appeal was fastly allowed

One that I read the Vo totally ignored that the Pr had travelled with Canadian citizen abroad and in the appeal still insisted that no it should not count

 

[zardoz]

Visa Offices have no part to play in PR card renewal. All a VO is used for is issuing or refusing to issue a PR Travel Document.

All PR card renewal is done in Canada.

If a Visa Office doesn't believe that the person applying for a Travel Document has met the residency obligation requirements, the PR Travel Document is refused and the process then goes to appeal, where all the circumstances are taken into account.

 

[kateg]

Do you think that a VO when making a decision on pr renewal and is looking to not approve the request is also thinking that if this goes to appeal the pr may win.

Officers are people, and generally don't want to waste their time. If they know someone will win on appeal, there is little point in going through the hassle and paperwork, unless they want to cause discomfort. This might because you are a jerk they want to punish, or because they are having a bad day.

In other words do they not use their discretion to approve an application with some minor discrepancy and not tie up the courts for something minor.

Absolutely. They are required to consider (for example) procedural fairness, and if they don't do so, the courts can overturn decisions. It is easier and faster to not take action than to take action, so they often let minor things slide, unless you annoy them.

Do VO's get reprimanded for refusing PR on such cases or are there no repercussions

As a general matter in enforcement positions, there is a wide degree of freedom, and there is much deference to their judgement. Many things are set by law, and they get in trouble for violating those. For example, someone who meets the RO by law is entitled to a status document (PR card). Denying that without a lawful reason can get them in trouble. On the other hand, someone in breach may or may not get a break. You can (legally speaking) have your PR status stripped for being one day out of the PR obligation. There is a decent chance you would win that on appeal, but they would not get in trouble for denying you.