PR Card Renewal application referred to Program Support

[MaHab]

Yes, you can contact ircc to remove it (or try your mp). Are you really not aware what the issue was in 2015?

Thanks for your reply @armoured

I genuinely had no idea a 44(1) inadmissibility report was filed against me back in 2015. During my CBSA interview at the land border that year, the officer asked me to sign a form, but when I pointed out an error in my address, he just took the document back. He never asked me to sign anything else or told me there was a report—or anything else, really. I didn’t receive a copy of any report and only discovered its existence much later, in November 2024, through my GCMS notes. It seems that the report was sent to the Minister’s Delegate but ultimately cancelled when I left Canada. I wasn’t informed about it at any point during my re-entries in 2022 or 2024, even after a CBSA officer specifically asked in 2022 if I knew about any reports. I answered “no,” and she didn’t bring it up again. So, no—I truly didn’t know there was an issue in 2015 until I saw it in my notes recently.

Given that I didn’t mention the old 44(1) inadmissibility report in my recent PR card renewal and PRTD applications (in good faith), might contacting IRCC now draw unnecessary attention to my history? Would it be better to wait until after I become a citizen before trying to have the report removed, or is a request like this only possible while I’m still a PR?

Given your failure to meet RO in the past you could have also been flagged for additional monitoring which seems reasonable given the information you provided in your previous posts.

Thanks @canuck78

That’s definitely possible, but because I think I overheard the officers referring to “2015,” I’m more inclined to think it’s related to the inadmissibility report.

If it’s just a flag for additional monitoring, IRCC might be hesitant to remove it until after I become a citizen, right?

 

[armoured]

If it’s just a flag for additional monitoring, IRCC might be hesitant to remove it until after I become a citizen, right?

My previous was posted without going back and reading the entire thread.

My thoughts (these are not hard answers):
-Overall I think the question is whether and how much extra time these secondary examinations are going to take you, i.e. how much you will travel. If it's not a serious inconvenience (more below), it may be worth just leaving it for now - until such time as you have established a more serious track record of residing in Canada. (Whether this coincides with your citizenship or not - up to you. I definitely would feel it normal to get it removed after citizenship).
-I think the old 44(1) report is a red herring here, even if the 'flag' refers to that.
-The underlying issue - that may come up - is that you were seriously out of compliance and only got a PR card renewal after effectively just remaining under the radar for two years straight.

I don't think asking to deal with the flag is going to put you at greater risk - they've just evaluated your file, it seems. But they might decide to just leave it or put a different flag - you were a person who was seriously out of compliance for a long time.

Serious inconvenience: I got one removed for a family member who'd been a PR more than a decade ago and renounced PR status to visit. The flag about non-compliance was not relevant to new PR status. And this person travels a LOT for work, so secondary on every entry was more than a minor inconvenience, and a waste of time and resources for CBSA too - and very obviously so.

It's your call what to do. The flag itself won't cause any harm or issues (I think) other than inconvenience - and that, basically only when you travel. The flag (your record of non-compliance) is arguably still relevant, or at least not so obviously irrelevant as in our case.

 

[canuck78]

Thanks for your reply @armoured

I genuinely had no idea a 44(1) inadmissibility report was filed against me back in 2015. During my CBSA interview at the land border that year, the officer asked me to sign a form, but when I pointed out an error in my address, he just took the document back. He never asked me to sign anything else or told me there was a report—or anything else, really. I didn’t receive a copy of any report and only discovered its existence much later, in November 2024, through my GCMS notes. It seems that the report was sent to the Minister’s Delegate but ultimately cancelled when I left Canada. I wasn’t informed about it at any point during my re-entries in 2022 or 2024, even after a CBSA officer specifically asked in 2022 if I knew about any reports. I answered “no,” and she didn’t bring it up again. So, no—I truly didn’t know there was an issue in 2015 until I saw it in my notes recently.

Given that I didn’t mention the old 44(1) inadmissibility report in my recent PR card renewal and PRTD applications (in good faith), might contacting IRCC now draw unnecessary attention to my history? Would it be better to wait until after I become a citizen before trying to have the report removed, or is a request like this only possible while I’m still a PR?



Thanks @canuck78

That’s definitely possible, but because I think I overheard the officers referring to “2015,” I’m more inclined to think it’s related to the inadmissibility report.

If it’s just a flag for additional monitoring, IRCC might be hesitant to remove it until after I become a citizen, right?

Did you meet RO at that point? It appears that there have been multiple times where you interacted with IRCC or CBSA when you were not compliant with your RO. Also a long absence from Canada. Your whole immigration history may justify more careful monitoring of whether you are in compliance with your RO. Was suggesting that unlike many who entered Canada through a land border not meeting RO one time there may be more justification to flag your file to make sure you continue meeting your RO. If there was a flag purely due to 2015 just another reason you got very lucky at the land border.

 

[armoured]

If it’s just a flag for additional monitoring, IRCC might be hesitant to remove it until after I become a citizen, right?

Just to close the loop on this: yes, that's what the flag is used for (or at least it is one use of the flag, there are probably other uses too). Increasingly due to automation at airports - i.e. 'primary' inspection is just someone checking to see if person selected for secondary inspection, everyone else waved through - it basically means secondary.

Given your history, it is plausible they'll decide it makes sense to retain it, even if you ask. As far as I can tell, there is NO automatic program to remove or review old flags at all (except possibly at points where change in status). Some have them remaining after citizenship (although being a citizen obviously would be a good reason to remove).

In other words: all removals of flags require manual intervention, and the front-line CBSA officers (at airport) can't just do it easily.

 

[MaHab]

Thank you very much @armoured and @canuck78 for your insightful inputs.

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to share some positive and quite useful updates and information.

First of all, I unexpectedly received the following email from CBSA today even though I didn’t communicate with them further after their reply to my ‘complaint’:


“Good day,

Our unit has conducted a review of your inquiry from March 8, 2025, regarding secondary referrals you have been experiencing upon entry to Canada.

Upon further verification, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has identified the cause of these referrals. We are pleased to confirm that through consultation and collaboration with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the information that caused the referrals has been removed. There are no current flags associated to your name.

Thank you for contacting the Canada Border Services Agency.

Regards,

FIRE Team
Flag Indicators Removal and Evaluation Team | Équipe de Retrait et d’Évaluation d’Indicateurs de Référence
Operational Service Centres | Centres de Services Opérationnels
Canada Border Services Agency | Agence des Services Frontaliers du Canada
Verification_Request-Demande_de_Verification@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca”

Also, out of curiosity, I did an ATIP request for officer’s notes on my approved PR card renewal application and found the following note that I thought may be useful for someone in a similar situation (to get an idea of what they look for in an application where additional documents are requested):

“reviewed entire client history, ICES, copy of Revenue Canada submissions, telephone bills, credit card statements, copies of Provincial ID, lease agreements, health insurance records, passports and stamps, satisfied client meets residency and is eligible for a PR card”

I’m outside Canada currently for vacation and will update you all here on how smooth my entry will be upon return to Canada now that the flags have been removed. I hope this information will be useful for anyone in similar situations.

Thank you

 

[armoured]

First of all, I unexpectedly received the following email from CBSA today even though I didn’t communicate with them further after their reply to my ‘complaint’:

Interesting. I'll have to check this thread to see about when you did this complaint.

FIRE Team
Flag Indicators Removal and Evaluation Team | Équipe de Retrait et d’Évaluation d’Indicateurs de Référence
Operational Service Centres | Centres de Services Opérationnels
Canada Border Services Agency | Agence des Services Frontaliers du Canada
Verification_Request-Demande_de_Verification@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca”

But there are two things in your story that are serious surprises to me: first, that they actually HAVE this 'flag removal team'. (It implies to me they've noticed the drag on resources checking old flags and the like - a good sign. Maybe they'll someday come up with a way of having them automatically removed if old or some other way of reviewing)

And I'm even more surprised that they admitted they have this flag removal team, gave it a name, and even an email that might be linked to this. AND they wrote to tell you this - not a common CBSA type action.