This is mostly about procedural matters in making H&C decisions for PRs in breach of the RO (with some further clarifications to follow):
If a PR is determined to be in breach of the Residency Obligation by a CBSA immigration officer at the PoE, the H&C case ordinarily will be determined then and there as part of the usual procedure, which is how it works in nearly all cases where a 44(1) Report is issued by border officials.
The important thing is that PRs abroad who understand they are in breach of the RO can prepare their H&C case before making the trip to Canada, and thus be prepared to present that case upon arrival if subject to a RO compliance examination at the PoE. Best to keep it as simple as possible, but to also have some documentation, if relevant, to support certain kinds of reasons for the delay in coming to Canada; for example, a letter from a doctor if a medical condition prohibited returning to Canada sooner. Be sure to have any supporting documents in hand (not in baggage).
This is especially important because, as best we can discern, the border officials are typically more lenient, more flexible, than the IAD, and there is no counsel or lawyer there to argue against the PR. It is difficult to know for sure, but it is very likely the PR's best chance of H&C relief and keeping PR status is at the border, not in an appeal later before the IAD.
It is also worth noting that there are anecdotal reports suggesting that even the first officer asking RO compliance questions typically asks the PR H&C related questions, such as asking "why" the PR remained abroad or otherwise had not come to Canada to settle sooner, AND that this apparently sometimes results in that officer waiving the PR through without conducting a more formal RO compliance examination, and importantly without issuing a 44(1) Report. This is not a formal H&C determination, it typically results in an admonition, and even if there is no admonition, no warning, it typically results in a note to the PR's file, a "flag" or "alert." But the key thing is the PR is waived into Canada.
Further explanation re 44(1) Report procedure at PoE and in IAD appeal --
In particular, actually there is no need to appeal unless the PR is issued BOTH a 44(1) Report and a Removal Order. Border officials MUST consider H&C factors BEFORE issuing a Removal Order based on a failure to comply with the PR RO.
This usually happens while the PR is still at the border. There are exceptions, such as where a second officer is not available to conduct a review of the 44(1) Report and determine whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C reasons . . . but those are cases in which the 44(1) Report remains pending, subject to a later interview with the second officer.
If the outcome of a border issued 44(1) Report is the issuance of a Removal Order, the PR has a right of appeal for 30 days. If the PR appeals, the IAD will conduct a hearing and determine, for itself (anew or "de novo"):
That is basically the same determination made by a second officer at the PoE. Or, in a few cases, following an interview days or weeks later.
That is, the substantive decision-making is the same, first by border officials deciding whether the Report is valid and whether to issue a Removal Order, or in an appeal where the IAD is deciding whether to uphold or set aside the Report and Removal Order.
There are some significant procedural differences however. PRs are not entitled to have a lawyer participate in the PoE examination but they are allowed to have a lawyer submit evidence and present the case in the process before the IAD. There are more formalities in the IAD hearing. The PR, either pro se or by an attorney, can make written submissions, and of course be more fully prepped for the IAD hearing. However, one other big difference is that counsel or a representative for the Minister can participate in the IAD hearing and present a case supporting the issuance and enforcement of the Removal Order.
It may appear, to some, that the better opportunity to make the H&C case comes in the appeal before the IAD. This most likely has to do with the extent to which PRs are unprepared to make their H&C case themselves during the course of questioning at a PoE, while in contrast when going before the IAD in the appeal they can be both better prepared, and with the assistance of a lawyer more focused on what matters. But in terms of decision-making based on roughly equivalent cases, it is likely that the odds of a favourable decision are generally better at the PoE than before the IAD, so being prepared to make the H&C case upon arrival can make a real difference in how things go.
Of course there are variables, contingencies, and nuances. While many H&C cases are relatively simple, they can get complicated, and it is very, very difficult to forecast outcomes (except in the more obvious situations, at both ends of things). Even though days in Canada pending the appeal do not count toward being in compliance with the RO, for purposes of calculating RO compliance at the IAD appeal hearing, they can count some as factors supporting H&C reasons.
Other Clarifications:
I do not mean to put too much emphasis on particular words, but there is a difference which really does makes a huge difference: "TRAVELING" to Canada is one thing, and being allowed to "ENTER" Canada is a different thing.
You refer to stopping someone from "coming" to Canada. A border official has no control over who comes to Canada. A border official determines who is allowed to actually, physically ENTER Canada, once the person has arrived here, once the person is in a Canadian PoE.
A traveler needs to present very specific documents to board commercial transportation coming to Canada. For example, PRs (with exceptions) need to present either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document in order to board an airline flying to Canada.
What is required to be allowed entry into Canada is not so strict. Thus, for example, for those PRs who can travel via the U.S., and who can thus travel to and arrive at a land border crossing PoE despite not having a valid PR card or a PR TD, they will still be allowed (must be allowed) to ENTER Canada. This is subject to proving their identity and showing they are the individual who has PR status. Typically this is easily done by presenting a passport and some documentation of status, like an expired PR card or copy of the PR's CoPR, or even just some other form of government identification since establishing identity will facilitate border officials verifying PR status in the individual's GCMS.
@IndianBos gave a good answer for this, except for one error: "H&C cases are determined during the appeal process, not at the border." This is NOT how it usually works. A good H&C case can make a big difference in the outcome at the Port-of-Entry.
If a PR is determined to be in breach of the Residency Obligation by a CBSA immigration officer at the PoE, the H&C case ordinarily will be determined then and there as part of the usual procedure, which is how it works in nearly all cases where a 44(1) Report is issued by border officials.
The important thing is that PRs abroad who understand they are in breach of the RO can prepare their H&C case before making the trip to Canada, and thus be prepared to present that case upon arrival if subject to a RO compliance examination at the PoE. Best to keep it as simple as possible, but to also have some documentation, if relevant, to support certain kinds of reasons for the delay in coming to Canada; for example, a letter from a doctor if a medical condition prohibited returning to Canada sooner. Be sure to have any supporting documents in hand (not in baggage).
This is especially important because, as best we can discern, the border officials are typically more lenient, more flexible, than the IAD, and there is no counsel or lawyer there to argue against the PR. It is difficult to know for sure, but it is very likely the PR's best chance of H&C relief and keeping PR status is at the border, not in an appeal later before the IAD.
It is also worth noting that there are anecdotal reports suggesting that even the first officer asking RO compliance questions typically asks the PR H&C related questions, such as asking "why" the PR remained abroad or otherwise had not come to Canada to settle sooner, AND that this apparently sometimes results in that officer waiving the PR through without conducting a more formal RO compliance examination, and importantly without issuing a 44(1) Report. This is not a formal H&C determination, it typically results in an admonition, and even if there is no admonition, no warning, it typically results in a note to the PR's file, a "flag" or "alert." But the key thing is the PR is waived into Canada.
Further explanation re 44(1) Report procedure at PoE and in IAD appeal --
In particular, actually there is no need to appeal unless the PR is issued BOTH a 44(1) Report and a Removal Order. Border officials MUST consider H&C factors BEFORE issuing a Removal Order based on a failure to comply with the PR RO.
This usually happens while the PR is still at the border. There are exceptions, such as where a second officer is not available to conduct a review of the 44(1) Report and determine whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C reasons . . . but those are cases in which the 44(1) Report remains pending, subject to a later interview with the second officer.
If the outcome of a border issued 44(1) Report is the issuance of a Removal Order, the PR has a right of appeal for 30 days. If the PR appeals, the IAD will conduct a hearing and determine, for itself (anew or "de novo"):
(1) whether the 44(1) Report was valid in law, and if the Report is determined to be valid in law, then
(2) whether the PR should be allowed to keep PR status based on H&C reasons
That is basically the same determination made by a second officer at the PoE. Or, in a few cases, following an interview days or weeks later.
That is, the substantive decision-making is the same, first by border officials deciding whether the Report is valid and whether to issue a Removal Order, or in an appeal where the IAD is deciding whether to uphold or set aside the Report and Removal Order.
There are some significant procedural differences however. PRs are not entitled to have a lawyer participate in the PoE examination but they are allowed to have a lawyer submit evidence and present the case in the process before the IAD. There are more formalities in the IAD hearing. The PR, either pro se or by an attorney, can make written submissions, and of course be more fully prepped for the IAD hearing. However, one other big difference is that counsel or a representative for the Minister can participate in the IAD hearing and present a case supporting the issuance and enforcement of the Removal Order.
It may appear, to some, that the better opportunity to make the H&C case comes in the appeal before the IAD. This most likely has to do with the extent to which PRs are unprepared to make their H&C case themselves during the course of questioning at a PoE, while in contrast when going before the IAD in the appeal they can be both better prepared, and with the assistance of a lawyer more focused on what matters. But in terms of decision-making based on roughly equivalent cases, it is likely that the odds of a favourable decision are generally better at the PoE than before the IAD, so being prepared to make the H&C case upon arrival can make a real difference in how things go.
Of course there are variables, contingencies, and nuances. While many H&C cases are relatively simple, they can get complicated, and it is very, very difficult to forecast outcomes (except in the more obvious situations, at both ends of things). Even though days in Canada pending the appeal do not count toward being in compliance with the RO, for purposes of calculating RO compliance at the IAD appeal hearing, they can count some as factors supporting H&C reasons.
Other Clarifications:
I do not mean to put too much emphasis on particular words, but there is a difference which really does makes a huge difference: "TRAVELING" to Canada is one thing, and being allowed to "ENTER" Canada is a different thing.
You refer to stopping someone from "coming" to Canada. A border official has no control over who comes to Canada. A border official determines who is allowed to actually, physically ENTER Canada, once the person has arrived here, once the person is in a Canadian PoE.
A traveler needs to present very specific documents to board commercial transportation coming to Canada. For example, PRs (with exceptions) need to present either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document in order to board an airline flying to Canada.
What is required to be allowed entry into Canada is not so strict. Thus, for example, for those PRs who can travel via the U.S., and who can thus travel to and arrive at a land border crossing PoE despite not having a valid PR card or a PR TD, they will still be allowed (must be allowed) to ENTER Canada. This is subject to proving their identity and showing they are the individual who has PR status. Typically this is easily done by presenting a passport and some documentation of status, like an expired PR card or copy of the PR's CoPR, or even just some other form of government identification since establishing identity will facilitate border officials verifying PR status in the individual's GCMS.
