Now you must land/live in the province you chose, else you will be deported...

[mkshah]

Important Operational Bulletin posted for PNP on cic.gc.ca website on November 24, 2010
See the following link:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2010/ob251.asp

______________________________________________________________

Operational Bulletin 251 -
November 24, 2010
Examination of Members of the Provincial Nominee Class at Ports of Entry and CIC Inland Offices
Issue
This operational bulletin (OB) provides instructions regarding the examination of individuals in the Provincial Nominee (PN) class seeking permanent resident status who indicate that they never intended or no longer intend to reside in the nominating province or territory.This OB is being published in conjunction with a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) memorandum to Border Services Officers (BSOs).

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

A permanent resident visa holder in the PN class seeking permanent resident status at a Port of Entry (POE) must therefore establish that they still intend to reside in the province/territory that has nominated them.
Overview of instructions to BSOs
Individuals who indicate that they intend to proceed to and reside in the province/territory of nomination, and who meet the other requirements of the legislation, should be processed for permanent resident status.

Individuals who indicate that they never intended, or no longer intend, to reside in the nominating province/territory may be denied permanent resident status at the POE and may have an A44(1) report written against them./

In the case of individuals who indicate at the POE that they no longer intend to reside in the nominating province/territory, the A44(1) report may be written for non-compliance with paragraph 87(2)(b) of the IRPR pursuant to section 41 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

An additional allegation of misrepresentation, pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA for R87(2)(b), may be included in the A44(1) report for those individuals who indicate that they never intended to reside in the nominating province/territory, if supported by the information obtained through examination at the POE.

BSOs may also choose to exercise the following options if they are not satisfied with respect to an individual's intention to reside in the nominating province/territory:

•Offer the individual the option of voluntarily withdrawing their application for permanent residence. If this option is accepted by the applicant, the BSO should seize the Confirmation of Permanent Residence (CPR) document and inform the issuing visa office and the appropriate CIC inland office in the province/territory of nomination.
•If the applicant does not exercise the option to voluntarily withdraw their application for permanent residence, the BSO may adjourn the examination and, pursuant to section 23 of the IRPA, authorize the person to enter Canada for the purpose of further examination. As authorized under Item 102 of the CBSA Delegations and Designations [PDF format], the examination should be referred for finalization to the appropriate CIC inland office in the nominating province/territory. The BSO should seize the applicant's CPR document and forward it to the appropriate CIC inland office along with relevant case information (e.g., Statutory Declaration from the individual stating that they do not intend to reside in the province/territory of nomination, officer's interview notes). The CPR documents of accompanying family members should also be seized and forwarded to the appropriate CIC inland office.
Note: If the applicant states that a representative advised them that residence in the province/territory of nomination is not a requirement of the PN class, the BSO should inform the appropriate CIC inland office in the province/territory of nomination and record a non-computer based entry in FOSS with information concerning the representative.

Overview of instructions to CIC inland offices
In cases where a BSO adjourns the examination of individuals in the PN class to a CIC inland office for finalization, the CIC inland office should contact the responsible provincial/territorial authorities and provide relevant case information, including the name, date of birth and nomination certificate number of the principal applicant and their accompanying family members, if available. Timely notificiation of provincial/territorial authorities will afford them the opportunity to make contact with the applicant between the time of the POE referral and the CIC inland office examination, should they wish to do so.

Should the nominating province/territory elect to withdraw their nomination certificate before the CIC examination, the CIC inland office should inform the applicant that their application for permanent residence is refused, and an A44(1) report should be prepared alleging non-compliance pursuant to section 41 of the IRPA in that the applicant is not named in a nomination certificate issued by the government of a province/territory as required by paragraph 87(2)(a) of the IRPR.

If the nominating province/territory has maintained their nomination certificate and, upon examination, the CIC officer is satisfied with respect to the applicant's intent to reside in the nominating province/territory as required by paragraph 87(2)(b) of the IRPR, the applicant should be processed for permanent resident status.

Should the nominating province/territory maintain their nomination certificate and, upon examination, the CIC officer is not satisfied with respect to the applicant's intent to reside in the nominating province/territory as required by paragraph 87(2)(b) of the IRPR, the officer may choose to write an A44(1) report.

In the case of individuals who indicate upon examination at the CIC inland office that they no longer intend to reside in the nominating province/territory, the A44(1) report may be written for non-compliance with paragraph 87(2)(b) of the IRPR pursuant to section 41 of the IRPA.

An additional allegation of misrepresentation, pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA for R87(2)(b), may be included in the A44(1) report for those individuals who indicate that they never intended to reside in the nominating province/territory, if supported by the information obtained through examination at the CIC inland office.

Officers should communicate CIC's final decision in accordance with the terms of the applicable Federal-Provincial/Territorial Agreement with respect to Provincial Nominees.

For further information or questions regarding the guidance outlined in this OB, please contact your supervisor or your Regional Program Advisor (RPA). RPAs may in turn contact Operational Management and Coordination Branch.

 

[TRUONGAN]

What if you tell POE officer you will settle in nominating province, granted PR then change your mind few days after legally becoming PR.

Under this regulation, they can only stop you at POE when you are in process of getting PR status and if they doubt doubt about your intent to settle in nominating province.

After you get the PR, you can still legally practice your freedom of mobility.

The new rule therefore is not very powerful!

 

[vbomb]

Well, obviously they can't follow you around and make sure that you stay in the province that nominated you but what it means is that you might run into troubles later on. Maybe citizenship and such or if I start going in and out of a province that I don't "reside" in, the border agency people might question me and my intent

It's all about intent, if you can show that you have a place in that province, a job in the nominated province, your kids go to school there etc. it doesn't matter where you enter...

More concern matter to me is where is my ppr!? ;D ;D

 

[caribgrl55]

That seems to be wasting human resources when they could be putting those resources into processing applications faster! Like Vbomb said, they can't follow you around to see if you are still in the province.

If you are in the province that nominated you and you get a job offer elsewhere, they can't very well expect you to turn this offer down in order to stay in your nominated province and be a 'good provincial nominee'.....

 

[mkshah]

If you read this notice carefully, it is mentioned that

A permanent resident visa holder in the PN class seeking permanent resident status at a Port of Entry (POE) must therefore establish that they still intend to reside in the province/territory that has nominated them.

so, this intentions of the pr visa holder will not be recored orally, they may take it on the official records such as Schedule 5 and pr visa holder should reside in the selected province for a minimum stipulated time.
At any time if you move out of that selected province before this stipulated time, your pr status may come into question.

I am sure they must have designed some system for this, since it is now published on official website.

This is what I understood after reading it. It may be something else too.

 

[uniwander]

Do you know what's the minimum period of time?

To me, the province is my first priority where I am going to land and try to find a job...

However, what if I get a job somewhere else?

If you read this notice carefully, it is mentioned that

A permanent resident visa holder in the PN class seeking permanent resident status at a Port of Entry (POE) must therefore establish that they still intend to reside in the province/territory that has nominated them.

so, this intentions of the pr visa holder will not be recored orally, they may take it on the official records such as Schedule 5 and pr visa holder should reside in the selected province for a minimum stipulated time.
At any time if you move out of that selected province before this stipulated time, your pr status may come into question.

I am sure they must have designed some system for this, since it is now published on official website.

This is what I understood after reading it. It may be something else too.

 

[mkshah]

Well, As far as my application is concerned, I am applying under quebec immigration process and as per the quebec immigration process, applicant has to submit "schedule 5" along with the initial application. This schedule 5 is a declaration cum undertaking by applicant that establishes the intention of applicant to reside and settle himself in the same province (here quebec) upon granting the permanent residence status.

As per my knowledge, I read somewhere that after POE, the pr holder should reside for atleast 180 days in the same province he intend to settle as per his application.

This may be some old info. Requesting other members to comment on this.

 

[shahzadchowdhry]

Hi,
Do I need to land in Quebec if I am applying under quebec skilled worker? Can I land in Toronto and then move to Quebec after one week.

 

[mkshah]

Hi,
Do I need to land in Quebec if I am applying under quebec skilled worker? Can I land in Toronto and then move to Quebec after one week.

refer to this link, too much of info related to your query and much more:
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/what-are-the-restrictions-and-conditions-after-getting-provincial-nomination-t20370.0.html;msg100815#msg100815
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/-t20370.0.html

 

[Ell.Bee]

Hi,

I read this on another forum. Google for "Mobility Rights of Canadian Permanent Residents under Provincial Immigration Programs".

A starting point for discussion is section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Commonly known as the Canadian Charter or the Constitution Act, 1982, it is a series of legislative enactments dating back to the birth of Canada in 1867 that provides Canadians with basic rights in relations with government at all levels and binds all provincial legislative assemblies in Canada including the federal legislature, the Parliament of Canada. Section 6 provides permanent residents and Canadian citizens with the right to live and work in any province in Canada.

Section 6 reads:


Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
to move to and take up residence in any province; and
to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
In immigration matters, the implications of section 6 and mobility rights under the Charter is so significant that when a province selects an individual, the relationship becomes one that can be compared at best, to a “contract” with very limited scope and with ample legal rights in favour of the applicant.

Once the province in question selects the applicant, the federal department of Citizenship and Immigration will oversee admissibility issues, including health, security and (the truthfulness of an applicant's statements).

But 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 mobility rights to live and work anywhere in Canada. The provinces who seek to attract newcomers under their provincial immigration programs are left to create their own enhancements that will attract and more importantly, retain immigrants.

This has been an ongoing challenge for the provinces as they are often used by prospective applicants as back door entry options to Canada, when they do not otherwise qualify for admission under the Federal Skilled Worker program.

Indeed, this has been a serious challenge facing Quebec since 1981, when it created its own comprehensive immigration programs highlighted by a skilled worker program, where employer sponsorship is not required. This year, Quebec will select 55,000 newcomers under all categories representing approximately 22% of the total admissions to Canada. This is by far the most of any province. Historically, the province of Quebec only retains a fraction of the applicants it actually approves. Applicants often decide to forego their contractual relationship to settle in Quebec and elect to settle elsewhere. This is especially the case under Quebec's immigrant investor program which dominates the Canadian market of intending immigrants. Other provinces like Manitoba that promote its own skilled worker programs where employer sponsorship is not required, retention of immigrants is an ongoing challenge for policy makers.

And under the latest modifications to the Federal Skilled Worker program (November 2008) where an offer of employment by a sponsorship employer is a prerequisite for all except 38 primary occupations even before an applicant is assessed under the federal selection grid, the Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba are receiving increasing interest from prospective applicants who do not meet the strict federal selection rules.

Applicants must be mindful of the requirement to be truthful in their applications. The intention to settle in a province under a provincial immigration program must not be perceived to be untruthful as giving false statements is an offence under the Immigration Act.

But given that Canada's residence rules are among the world's most flexible, (applicant's can theoretically leave Canada soon after becoming permanent residents for a period of up to 3 years while retaining their permanent residence status during this period of long absence), applicants who are afforded the protection of section 6 under the Canadian Charter, have large latitude to change their minds about where they want to live and work in Canada. There are no obstacles for Canadians to change their province of residence once permanent residence has been firmly established. Government officials in the federal and provincial immigration departments are well aware of this dilemma.

Given the current restrictive application of the federal skilled worker program, the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba will increasingly become attractive entry points to Canada. These provinces will face increasing challenges to retain their immigrants.

Applicants who are contemplating an immigration project to Canada and who cannot qualify under the federal skilled worker program are therefore encouraged to explore their options under provincial nomination programs within the context of the legal rights afforded by section 6 of the Canadian Charter.

 

[mkshah]

I read this somewhere in this forum:

if you moved outside quebec immediately after landing then this means you only used quebec system to immigrate to Canada not to immigrate to Quebec.

There have been some cases taken to court and unless you can prove you have made efforts to settle in Canada they will consider you lied in your application.

 

[mkshah]

some more info on mobility rights...

Mobility Rights under Canadian Constitution
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.

Section 6(2) seems to create prima facie rights to receive social services in different provinces, as well as a prima facie prohibition against employment restrictions based on province of previous or present residence. These rights are limited both by the provisions of section 6(3) and (4), and section 1 of the Charter.

A. Limitations on Mobility Rights

6(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and

b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

These paragraphs create several limits to mobility rights. Laws requiring reasonable residence periods in order to qualify for social service programs, laws that do not discriminate on the basis of province of previous or present residence, and laws designed to improve conditions in areas of Canada with lower than average employment rates, are all exempted from the mobility rights guarantee in section 6. In other words, these types of provisions can infringe mobility rights, without being unconstitutional. Additionally, a law that is not saved by section 6(3) or (4) may be saved by analysis under section 1 of the Charter as being demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Under section 6(4) the courts will be required to look at the object of the law, program or activity, as well as at how the law is specifically tailored to benefit those individuals in the province who are socially or economically disadvantaged. Interestingly, to date no province has used section 6(4) in a legal action to justify programs that discriminate in favour of disadvantaged residents.