You are allowed to return through the US border without a valid PR card. Would really suggest you remain in Canada until your status has been sorted out if you don’t meet your RO. Everytime you reach a border you risk being reported,
PR card issued and then cancelled
- Thread starter spunj
- Start date
Could you please help me understand what does it mean - "risk being reported". what would the consequences of it?You are allowed to return through the US border without a valid PR card. Would really suggest you remain in Canada until your status has been sorted out if you don’t meet your RO. Everytime you reach a border you risk being reported,
If you have not met your RO the CBSA agent can report you to CIC for not meeting your RO and the process to cancel your PR begins. You do have the chance to appeal.Could you please help me understand what does it mean - "risk being reported". what would the consequences of it?
But I have already submitted my application with all the documents under H and C grounds as asked by CIC. The application is under review at the local CIC office.If you have not met your RO the CBSA agent can report you to CIC for not meeting your RO and the process to cancel your PR begins. You do have the chance to appeal.
Most, but NOT all references to the risk of "being reported," are about the risk of being Reported at the border if the PR has not complied with the PR Residency Obligation. This can happen when a PR who has been abroad arrives at a PoE applying for entry into Canada (even Canadian citizens must apply for entry into Canada when they are returning to Canada from abroad; the process is informal, the application deemed made just by showing up at the PoE) and a CBSA officer determines the PR has not complied with the RO. This is about a CBSA officer issuing the PR a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility (based on breach of RO), which is almost always followed immediately by an interview (while the PR is still at the PoE) with another officer (who is considered a "Minister's Delegate") who in turn decides whether to allow the PR to keep PR status for H&C reasons OR issues the PR a Departure Order. Even if a Departure Order is issued, the PR is allowed to enter Canada because the Departure Order is NOT enforceable for at least thirty days. If no appeal is made in thirty days, the Departure Order automatically becomes enforceable and the PR's status is terminated. If an appeal is made, the outcome of the appeal will determine whether the Departure Order takes effect, terminating the PR's status. NONE OF THIS INVOLVES IRCC (or the non-existent CIC). There is NO referral to IRCC in this procedure.Could you please help me understand what does it mean - "risk being reported". what would the consequences of it?
However, being "Reported" can also be about the procedure in which CPC-Sydney refers a PR card application to a local office to determine RO compliance. The local office can send the PR a questionnaire (comparable to what is called "RQ" for citizenship applicants) and schedule an interview. If at the interview, and in conjunction with the information provided by the PR, IRCC determines that the PR is NOT in compliance with the RO, and there are not sufficient H&C reasons for allowing the PR to keep status, IRCC can also issue a 44(1) Report and then a Removal Order. If this happens, that ends the involvement of IRCC. Like such a Report and Order issued by CBSA at a PoE, this is a FINAL decision terminating the PR's status, which likewise does not become enforceable for thirty days, thirty days in which the PR has a right to appeal.
IF YOU ARE IN CANADA . . . no need to worry about the RISK of being reported at the border UNLESS you leave Canada. Which would NOT be a good idea. (Why take the risk of being reported at a PoE if you can avoid it?)
If you are already outside Canada, or must leave Canada, and you are not in compliance with the RO, then obviously you will RISK being Reported when you next come to Canada and arrive at a PoE.
If you apply for a PR Travel Document from abroad, so that you can fly to Canada directly, there is a very similar RISK that the visa office will deny the PR TD application. This too can be appealed (PR has sixty days to make this appeal.) Obviously, the decision in a Visa Office is a decision by IRCC. Once a PR TD application is denied, IRCC will NO longer be involved.
EFFECT OF PR CARD APPLICATION IN PROCESS:
The fact you have a PR card application in process will NOT preclude being Reported at a PoE and it will NOT preclude being denied a PR TD. Thus, the fact you have a PR card application in process does NOT change the RISK of being Reported.
Leading to . . .
Once your PR card application was "in process," IRCC has the discretion to proceed with it even if, for example, you wanted to withdraw it.What do you mean by "the process that has been started continues"?
In particular, if now IRCC has identified reason to believe you are not in compliance with the RO, one of the procedures it can follow I described above: make a referral to the local office to investigate and determine RO compliance. If you are IN Canada, as I previously described this could involve sending you a questionnaire, with questions related to residency, and then schedule you for an interview. At the conclusion of the interview, the officer or agent can conclude you have sufficient H&C grounds to allow you to keep your PR status. OR issue you the 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, soon followed by a Removal Order. As I described above.
In the meantime, it is quite likely your GCMS record is flagged. This is to alert PoE officers, in the event you are abroad or you go abroad, and then are returning to Canada, as well as Visa Office personnel if you were to apply for a PR TD, that there is some concern about RO compliance. So that they will be sure to more closely examine you regarding this.
I do not make an effort to evaluate the strength of a PR's H&C case, other than to identify and recognize some of the more influential factors. With just a few exceptions (such as a PR removed-as-a-minor with other positive factors, yes a strong case; very lengthy absence and largely personal reasons for not coming to Canada sooner, without more likely a rather poor, weak case). BUT other than the most obvious cases, even the stronger H&C cases tend to be TRICKY, and most, almost all, tend to be DIFFICULT to successfully make.I have very strong reasons for not been able to meet RO. I have letters from the doctors explaining the situation.
Medical reasons for not returning to Canada sooner probably tend to face the more difficult to succeed side of things, but this DEPENDS on other factors, the most important of which is HOW LONG did it take to return to Canada. Short a few weeks or perhaps even some months, and still during your first five years after landing, has considerably better odds than an outright absence for more than four or five years.
In any event, it is very, very difficult to forecast the outcome when a PR is relying on H&C reasons to save PR. It warrants remembering that a breach of the RO is a breach, a failure to comply, regardless the reason. To save PR status, the H&C reasons must be compelling AND, in effect, the PR must DESERVE to keep PR status, understanding that the RO itself is so lenient it is specifically intended to be flexible enough to accommodate almost any reason why someone PERMANENTLY SETTLING in Canada might need to be abroad for an extended period (up to three years).
A clarification: There is NO CIC. Has NOT been any CIC for very near FOUR years.
I realize that many of the references in posts above to "CIC" are (at least probably) intended to be references to IRCC (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada), the primary agency/Ministry responsible for administering and enforcing Canadian immigration law, which does so along with CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency; or in French: ASFC, the Agence des Services Frontaliers du Canada) and with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as well. Additionally there is Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal which is responsible "for making well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee matters," the IRB, that is the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (which the IAD, or Immigration Appeal Division, is part of).
BUT since there has NOT been any CIC for very near FOUR years, and some of the references to CIC do NOT make sense even if one substitutes "IRCC," and some of the observations appear to confuse the roles of different agencies, which can make a difference, it is important to be clear about which government agency is being referenced.
The most salient example in the discussion above is the misleading statement that being reported at the border is about a "CBSA agent" making a "report" to "CIC" for a PR who is not meeting the RO and thereby the process to cancel PR "begins." Yes, this is possible, BUT this is NOT what most forum participants are referring to when they talk about being "Reported" at the border.
Actually, as I discuss above, in this forum most references to "being Reported at the border," are not about reports to IRCC at all, but rather about a CBSA officer at the PoE issuing, to the PR, a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility. No referral to IRCC involved.
This report is issued to the PR. It is the PR's notice that a CBSA officer has determined the PR is in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. Standing alone, however, the only direct effect of this report is that it fixes the date for determining RO compliance, since days IN Canada after that date will NOT count toward meeting the RO.
It may be somewhat correct to say this begins the process to terminate a PR's status, BUT that process is USUALLY completed then and there, almost immediately, while the PR is still at the PoE. The 44(1) Report is referred to another CBSA officer, one who has the authority of a "Minister's Delegate" (typically either a supervisor or just another CBSA officer). The Minister's Delegate decides whether to issue a Departure Order or, if H&C considerations justify it, to set aside the 44(1) Report on H&C grounds. This is a FINAL decision. It may be appealed. BUT IT DOES NOT THEN GO TO EITHER IRCC OR the non-existent CIC. If there is NO appeal within 30 days, the Departure Order automatically becomes enforceable and PR status is terminated as of then. If there is an appeal, that goes to the IAD in the IRB. NOT to IRCC.
There are occasional reports from PRs who were issued the 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility at the PoE, but not immediately interviewed by a Minister's Delegate. This is NOT at all often seen in the ACTUAL cases reported in OFFICIAL IAD decisions. This is more often seen in anecdotal reports about this, but those are often sketchy, particularly as to the process. There has been NO reliable information these go to IRCC or CIC either.