My sister landed Toronto airport, CBSA officer says u must stay 2ys in SK

[simoncanada]

My sisters got PR via SINP international skill category with job offer SK

She landed Toronto airport last week and CBSA officer says you must live 2ys in SK

And the officer repeated three times same word : you must live 2ys in SK before you move to other province.

It makes me little bit wonder bcz so far I know after landing she can moves any province


Any explanation you guys have ( Leon and Scylla, Bs65 and others ) please

 

[Tri-Cities]

Hello

I am not an expert but as usual I would like to point out again that there is a difference between becoming a PR or PNP PR.

PNP's are special programs! Each Province got a certain contingent and need for immigrants. Everyone who takes part in these programs should know what this is about!

These programs are not for people who just want immigrant and go whereever they want. BC might be in need of IT' while Manitoba might need nurses. Thats when the PNP comes into play!

And think about it, why would a Province nominate a nurse knowing she leaves right after landing? Doesn't make any sense! Those programs cost moeny and time and way too many people use the PNP the wrong way.

Yes I do get that the PNP is a simpler way to immigrate but I honestly feel like it's not okay what's going on.

Again, I am not an expert and I don't know what the law says but I hope that every Province is protected against immigrants who use a program the wrong way.
Don't apply for the PNP if you don't want to live in that Province!

What's bad about living in Sask? Why did she apply if she doesn't wanna live there?

Cheers, TC

 

[simoncanada]

Hello

I am not an expert but as usual I would like to point out again that there is a difference between becoming a PR or PNP PR.

PNP's are special programs! Each Province got a certain contingent and need for immigrants. Everyone who takes part in these programs should know what this is about!

These programs are not for people who just want immigrant and go whereever they want. BC might be in need of IT' while Manitoba might need nurses. Thats when the PNP comes into play!

And think about it, why would a Province nominate a nurse knowing she leaves right after landing? Doesn't make any sense! Those programs cost moeny and time and way too many people use the PNP the wrong way.

Yes I do get that the PNP is a simpler way to immigrate but I honestly feel like it's not okay what's going on.

Again, I am not an expert and I don't know what the law says but I hope that every Province is protected against immigrants who use a program the wrong way.
Don't apply for the PNP if you don't want to live in that Province!

What's bad about living in Sask? Why did she apply if she doesn't wanna live there?

Cheers, TC

your answer is little bit deep: Don't apply for the PNP if you don't want to live in that Province!

All I wan to know the accurate RULE
What CIC tells about it

 

[mf4361]

CBSA doesn't know what they are talking about

see my signature below

 

[simoncanada]

CBSA doesn't know what they are talking about

see my signature below

thanks I agree
CIC and CBSA not same

 

[dpenabill]

I too do not know what specific rules govern the PNP PR after landing.

I also do not know what specific information and representations the PNP applicant makes during the process to become a PNP PR.

But of course PR status, even citizenship if acquired later, will always be at risk if there was any misrepresentation made during the process of becoming a PNP PR. That is, any material misrepresentation can result in loss of PR status, or citizenship, and this is forever. There is no statute of limitations. (In some particularly egregious cases, revocation of status proceedings were not started until forty, even fifty years after the individual came to live in Canada -- not at all a common phenomena, but it illustrates that misrepresentations made in the process of coming to Canada forever hang over the individual's head.)

To what extent the PNP PR applicant makes representations about his or her plans in the course of making the application, I do not know. And of course people can and do change their minds, so just doing something later does not, by itself, prove a contrary intent, let alone plan, to do that all along.

On the other hand, however, behavior is among key factors evidencing an individual's intent, and actual plans typically leave some trail of evidence.

Whatever the actual rules are, the PNP PR who makes a minimal effort, let alone no effort to actually settle down in the Province, is of course broadcasting at least the appearance of having scammed the system. Whether or not that invites an investigation, or merely risks an investigation, I cannot say. I can say, however, that it is something which can be readily recognized in the PR's immigration history and even if no immediate or direct consequences result, it could forever have an impact any time there is an assessment of the PR's credibility in the future . . . when sponsoring a family member, applying for a renewed PR card, applying for citizenship, facing a Residency Determination relative to compliance with the PR Residency Obligation . . .

At times my posts about protecting one's credibility have been criticized as if I was preaching morality. I am not saying morality is irrelevant, but that is not why I so often repeat the caution . . . I repeat the caution because it is has to do with one of the two biggest causes for problems legitimate PRs (PRs following the rules) get entangled with, and these are no mystery; they are:

(1) a failure to follow instructions, and

(2) damaged credibility


My cautions about compromising one's credibility are about what is practical, what-works-best, not moralizing. Over the years I have seen the steady flow of PRs coming into the forums and whining about Secondary Review and RQ . . . the main reason for SR is concern the PR has, at some point, engaged in fraud, and sometimes this is as much about how the PR became a PR as it is about so-called residency-fraud. This can be due to appearances. Yes, appearances matter.

How long should the PNP stay in the sponsoring Province? Again, I do not know the rules. I do know, however, that anyone approaching it from this angle is already tempting fate. Who we are and what drives our decisions is far more transparent than what many seem to be aware.

Even if there is no specific rule, I suspect the PNP PR who makes little or no attempt to actually settle in the sponsoring Province is, thereby, at the least inviting some degree of problems. Sooner or later.

 

[Buletruck]

Totally plagerized from another website......but it does add support to Dpenabill's comments


Paragraph 87(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) clarifies that a foreign national is a member of the PN class if they intend to reside in the province that has nominated them.

After receiving a permanent residence visa and appearing at a port of entry for admission to Canada, once admitted, there is nothing that can come in between an applicant’s Charter mobility rights to live and work anywhere in Canada. The provinces which seek to attract newcomers under their provincial immigration programs are left to create the right conditions to attract and more importantly, retain immigrants.

Applicants applying through a PN must be mindful of the requirement to maintain compliance with the program and truthfulness in the application process. The intention to settle in a province under an immigration program must be clearly present upon landing.

In the case of individuals where indications at the POE are that they no longer intend to reside in the nominating province/territory, they may be reported under section A44(1) for non-compliance with paragraph 87(2)(b) of the IRPR.

At worst, where it becomes evident that an individual never intended to reside in the nominating province or territory, this could give rise to an allegation of misrepresentation, pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA.

 

[mf4361]

First, any PNP program that limits internal movement AFTER one becoming PR is unconstitutional, as Section 6 noted.

The problem is not whether immigrant has intention to live in the province. It's on how CBSA and CIC to enforce the law. The rule of law is to assume the accused innocent until proven guilty. The responsibility of proving us guilty is on them.

At landing time, you do have to show intent to live (you are not yet a PR at the airport/border), like available fund, job interviews or contracts, rental/housing agreement: any effort to settle. But even without that, they can't just say refuse, they need hard evidence suggesting you are planning to live elsewhere in order to actually refuse entry.

Besides, there is no law against you from hating SK the moment you step out of the airport (heck, -30C in the winter and its dark out by 4:30pm) and want to live elsewhere.

---
PNP not staying long term had been a constant problem with PNP (and it got much worse and much heated topic recently because Quebec) but retaining PN in the province is not our problem. We do what is legal and not what is illegal. it's up to the governments (fed & prov) to fix their policies, without violating Charter of Human Right that is.

 

[Hamid khan]

First, any PNP program that limits internal movement AFTER one becoming PR is unconstitutional, as Section 6 noted.

The problem is not whether immigrant has intention to live in the province. It's on how CBSA and CIC to enforce the law. The rule of law is to assume the accused innocent until proven guilty. The responsibility of proving us guilty is on them.

At landing time, you do have to show intent to live (you are not yet a PR at the airport/border), like available fund, job interviews or contracts, rental/housing agreement: any effort to settle. But even without that, they can't just say refuse, they need hard evidence suggesting you are planning to live elsewhere in order to actually refuse entry.

Besides, there is no law against you from hating SK the moment you step out of the airport (heck, -30C in the winter and its dark out by 4:30pm) and want to live elsewhere.

---
PNP not staying long term had been a constant problem with PNP (and it got much worse and much heated topic recently because Quebec) but retaining PN in the province is not our problem. We do what is legal and not what is illegal. it's up to the governments (fed & prov) to fix their policies, without violating Charter of Human Right that is.

I agree with your statement

 

[dpenabill]

First, any PNP program that limits internal movement AFTER one becoming PR is unconstitutional, as Section 6 noted.

That is not entirely accurate. Charter of Rights Section 6 does not absolutely guarantee mobility rights (scores and scores of Canadians have their mobility heavily restricted, outright restrained even, if and when and to the extent the government has a sufficient reason to do so).

Reasonable conditions can be made a part of any immigration program and are likely to withstand Constitutional or Charter scrutiny. Sponsored spouses, for example, must cohabit with their sponsor for two years, and if they fail to do so (such as by moving to another apartment let alone another city let alone another province) they will lose PR status.

I do not know what conditions attach to the PNP programs, but I am quite sure that the Charter does not prohibit a reasonably constructed condition for a fair duration in time.

Besides, there is no law against you from hating SK the moment you step out of the airport (heck, -30C in the winter and its dark out by 4:30pm) and want to live elsewhere.

But if your smart phone has text messages confirming you will be staying with your relatives in Toronto or Vancouver, or your computer has emails showing a search for employment or for an apartment in Ottawa or Montreal, you have probably left a more obvious trail of evidence, and then there is that pesky, how-it-looks, the appearance-of-scamming, element. As I said, who we are and what we are up to is often a lot more transparent than many of us are aware.

The forums are not busy with immigrants bogged down in one problematic process or another because IRCC and CBSA are a Gestapo-like agency dragging entirely innocent victims into the mire. More than a few of those entangled in a problem are not particularly guilty of anything, other than perhaps failing to be aware enough of that pesky how-it-looks element, but there is almost always a factual reason for the elevated scrutiny and difficult processing.

And IRCC, much like CIC before, seems to be content to wait until the burden of proof is on the immigrant to do much about it . . . like when a PR applies for a new PR card or a PR Travel Document or for citizenship . . . when indeed, IRCC does not have to prove anything, but rather the burden of proof is entirely on the PR.

Peruse the topics about Secondary Review. Almost none admit to there being any reason for their travails. But for the vast majority, there is some reason. They are not just being picked on. But what they have to say about the process is the part which is worth considering: the hassle they are suffering. It is clear, for example, more than a few of them apprehend their PR status is not secure enough to risk applying for a PR Travel Document from abroad.

By the way, the climate in Saskatchewan is no mystery. No one can convincingly feign surprise about what the weather will be like in mid-January or on a hot and dry day in mid-August. Most excuses tend to be as transparent as those many of us tried to use in high school, without much success.

Just saying that the PNP PR who does not make a reasonable effort to settle in province is painting herself or himself into a bit of a corner, even if there is no directly enforceable rule after the fact of landing.

 

[Need Canadian Pr]

That is not entirely accurate. Charter of Rights Section 6 does not absolutely guarantee mobility rights (scores and scores of Canadians have their mobility heavily restricted, outright restrained even, if and when and to the extent the government has a sufficient reason to do so).

Reasonable conditions can be made a part of any immigration program and are likely to withstand Constitutional or Charter scrutiny. Sponsored spouses, for example, must cohabit with their sponsor for two years, and if they fail to do so (such as by moving to another apartment let alone another city let alone another province) they will lose PR status.

I do not know what conditions attach to the PNP programs, but I am quite sure that the Charter does not prohibit a reasonably constructed condition for a fair duration in time.

But if your smart phone has text messages confirming you will be staying with your relatives in Toronto or Vancouver, or your computer has emails showing a search for employment or for an apartment in Ottawa or Montreal, you have probably left a more obvious trail of evidence, and then there is that pesky, how-it-looks, the appearance-of-scamming, element. As I said, who we are and what we are up to is often a lot more transparent than many of us are aware.

The forums are not busy with immigrants bogged down in one problematic process or another because IRCC and CBSA are a Gestapo-like agency dragging entirely innocent victims into the mire. More than a few of those entangled in a problem are not particularly guilty of anything, other than perhaps failing to be aware enough of that pesky how-it-looks element, but there is almost always a factual reason for the elevated scrutiny and difficult processing.

And IRCC, much like CIC before, seems to be content to wait until the burden of proof is on the immigrant to do much about it . . . like when a PR applies for a new PR card or a PR Travel Document or for citizenship . . . when indeed, IRCC does not have to prove anything, but rather the burden of proof is entirely on the PR.

Peruse the topics about Secondary Review. Almost none admit to there being any reason for their travails. But for the vast majority, there is some reason. They are not just being picked on. But what they have to say about the process is the part which is worth considering: the hassle they are suffering. It is clear, for example, more than a few of them apprehend their PR status is not secure enough to risk applying for a PR Travel Document from abroad.

By the way, the climate in Saskatchewan is no mystery. No one can convincingly feign surprise about what the weather will be like in mid-January or on a hot and dry day in mid-August. Most excuses tend to be as transparent as those many of us tried to use in high school, without much success.

Just saying that the PNP PR who does not make a reasonable effort to settle in province is painting herself or himself into a bit of a corner, even if there is no directly enforceable rule after the fact of landing.

there is lots of law and dissucusation can add about this topic but the closing line is YOU can MOVE province after LANDED.


90-4E



MOBILITY RIGHTS AND THE
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS



Prepared by:
Mollie Dunsmuir, Kristen Douglas
Law and Government Division
Reviewed 19 August 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS



ISSUE DEFINITION

BACKGROUND

A. Limitations on Mobility Rights
B. Extradition
C. Restrictions on Professional Activity
1. Right to Work
2. Self regulated Professions

D. Marketing and Trade

E. Miscellaneous

SELECTED REFERENCES

CASES

MOBILITY RIGHTS AND THE CHARTER
OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS*



ISSUE DEFINITION

Because Canada is a vast country with various economic opportunities distributed throughout its length and breadth, it is important that the right to move, both inside and outside Canada, be reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 6, giving every citizen the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada, recognizes this. It also gives both citizens and permanent residents the right to move into any province and pursue an economic livelihood. However, these latter rights can be reduced by certain types of provincial laws and programs

BACKGROUND

Section 1 of the Charter allows legislatures to impose reasonable limits upon rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, including mobility rights. However, the legislative override, provided in section 33 of the Charter, which allows Parliament or a provincial legislative to expressly declare that legislation shall operate "notwithstanding" much of the Charter, does not apply to section 6.

6(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

6(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

A variety of Canadian laws which would tend to limit mobility rights have been examined, including laws regarding extradition, quarantine, bail, probation, parole, imprisonment, and custody of children. For the most part, such limits have been upheld as being reasonably justified under section 1 of the Charter. Although unreasonable limits to interprovincial mobility are unlikely to survive Charter scrutiny, the courts have held that section 6 mobility rights do not include the right to establish oneself professionally anywhere in Canada regardless of qualifications. Specifically, it is clear that the right to interprovincial mobility does not create a right to work.

 

[dpenabill]

MOBILITY RIGHTS AND THE
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Prepared by:
Mollie Dunsmuir, Kristen Douglas
Law and Government Division

. . . the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 6, giving every citizen the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada, recognizes this. It also gives both citizens and permanent residents the right to move into any province and pursue an economic livelihood. However, these latter rights can be reduced by certain types of provincial laws and programs

A variety of Canadian laws which would tend to limit mobility rights have been examined, including laws regarding extradition, quarantine, bail, probation, parole, imprisonment, and custody of children. For the most part, such limits have been upheld as being reasonably justified under section 1 of the Charter. Although unreasonable limits to interprovincial mobility are unlikely to survive Charter scrutiny, the courts have held that section 6 mobility rights do not include the right to establish oneself professionally anywhere in Canada regardless of qualifications. Specifically, it is clear that the right to interprovincial mobility does not create a right to work.

The take-away, very much as I previously posted:

" However . . .the right to move . . . can be reduced by certain types of provincial laws and programs . . .

A variety of Canadian laws which would tend to limit mobility rights have been examined . . . For the most part, such limits have been upheld as being reasonably justified . . . ".

I am no expert. I am not a Canadian lawyer. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. But this issue is an easy call: the government can apply reasonable conditions for new immigrants.

Again, I do not know what conditions there are for PNP PRs, but I do know that the Charter does not prevent the government from imposing conditions on PRs for a reasonable duration.

As I noted: the mobility rights of spousal sponsored PRs is in fact restricted for two years. (Liberals have indicated they will remove this condition sometime during this term of government.)



But apart from that, make no mistake: the PNP PR who makes no more than a minimal effort to follow through is, at the least, compromising her or his credibility with IRCC. At their peril.

 

[mf4361]

The take-away, very much as I previously posted:

" However . . .the right to move . . . can be reduced by certain types of provincial laws and programs . . .

A variety of Canadian laws which would tend to limit mobility rights have been examined . . . For the most part, such limits have been upheld as being reasonably justified . . . ".

I am no expert. I am not a Canadian lawyer. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. But this issue is an easy call: the government can apply reasonable conditions for new immigrants.

Again, I do not know what conditions there are for PNP PRs, but I do know that the Charter does not prevent the government from imposing conditions on PRs for a reasonable duration.

As I noted: the mobility rights of spousal sponsored PRs is in fact restricted for two years. (Liberals have indicated they will remove this condition sometime during this term of government.)



But apart from that, make no mistake: the PNP PR who makes no more than a minimal effort to follow through is, at the least, compromising her or his credibility with IRCC. At their peril.

This is the source of the above publication
[1] http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/904-e.htm

Saying "I know" doesn't automatically means "It is". You can't make up your own restriction just because it says "There are certain types...." because it's stated in 6(3) and (4). And you are picking sentences from publication to make your own point. Its like David Letterman poking jokes at Sarah Palin https://youtu.be/wpUNx-LlhCQ?t=49s

Charter Rights applies when CBSA signs off your landing paper and clears you thru border. Regarding your situation where one had paper trail, that would actually violates IRPA Sec. 87 (2) b for "intention to reside in the province" [2] and could cause refusal at the border. Mobility Right does't apply yet at that point.

As SINP applicants, you can land in SK and have relatives or even investments in other provinces. The point is to show intention of your physical residence in SK.

And SK frigid climate is not news, but how it actually feels is foreign to many (even many Canadians). I've made it through 3 winters in SK, many couldn't stand the lifestyle.

[2] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-19.html?txthl=87#s-87

 

[ttrajan]

Better to stay with the nominated province. If you are unable to find jobs then you can move out. Every year I am getting online form from AINP to fill up.

 

[Rob_TO]

Would be interesting to see if there is even 1 case in Canadian PNP immigration history, where someone's PR was revoked due to not staying in the province they got PNP PR from.