+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

PR renewal application on H&C grounds, didn’t meet RO please help

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
44,658
10,562
If you are a U.S. green card holder have you been spending 6 months in the US since you were 18? The fact that you haven’t continuously been living in Canada makes your H&C case weaker.
 
 

avocado67890

Newbie
May 13, 2022
7
1
What matters is whether or not a 44(1) Report was previously prepared, either resulting in a Removal Order or the Report not yet resolved.

That is the key because as long as you have not been issued a Removal Order, you still have PR status.

And unless a Report was prepared and is still active, not yet resolved, days in Canada continue to count toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation. There is no retroactive RO breach enforcement. So IRCC cannot (and would not) proceed to make a decision today (or tomorrow or next week or month) that terminates your PR status because back when you made the PR card application, at that time, you were not in RO compliance.

To be clear, however, this depends on NO outstanding 44(1) Report. If in contrast there is an outstanding 44(1) Report, your days in Canada after that was prepared would NOT COUNT toward RO compliance.

So, as long as NO 44(1) Report has been prepared, correct, in terms of keeping PR status it does not matter the PR card application was made at a time when you were not in RO compliance.

No Report, No Removal Order, your PR status is good. When you can actually have a PR card in your hand, that is not so easy to predict, and in fact is basically not predictable . . . soon or not soon or not for quite a while. Note, having a PR card will NOT affect your PR status, so that should not be a primary let alone your only concern . . . unless you are totally confident there has been no 44(1) Report so far. I'll get to this.

I could explain why it does not matter, now (it could have before), that you made the PR card application at a time when you were not in RO compliance. And I have generally explained the relevant procedures elsewhere in the forum, but it is more important to verify there has been no 44(1) Report so far. Nothing you have said here indicates one has been prepared. However, there are some incongruities and gaps in your information, and some things which do not make sense.

Example: "I didn’t call IRCC because I spoke to some lawyers who told me to not call them without meeting my RO." Better to not go chasing after what lawyers might and might not say, but to be frank this does not make much if any sense, at least if you were talking to immigration lawyers. Especially since you already have a PR card application pending.

Then there was this: The border official "also said the PR card has been issued and they want to meet me to see if they want to give it to me because they didn’t find strong enough H&C reasons on my application." It is possible, assuming you are paraphrasing what the officer said changing the meaning a little, that this statement indicates that a positive decision was made and the PR card issued, but reserved for in-person pick-up to verify some of the information and that you are in Canada. But if IRCC "didn’t find strong enough H&C reasons on [your] application," and wants to meet you, that is NOT consistent with a new PR card being issued.

Add to that what I glossed over some: the extent to which you were short of complying with the Residency Obligation during that border crossing, subsequently clarifying that even after returning to Canada in 2018 you have continued to spend a considerable amount of time abroad . . . close to if not more than half the time abroad?

The latter brings up a question about whether you could have missed some IRCC communications while abroad? Does not appear you have, but again this is not entirely clear. In situations similar to yours it is always very important to make sure IRCC's contact information for you will actually get communications delivered to you.

So, in the meantime, there are some what-if-this? what-if-that? what-about-this? or that? . . . but the big one, the overriding question, is whether or not your status is OK . . . No outstanding 44(1) Report or Removal Order, your status is OK. So best to get to nailing this down and know for sure.

Contact IRCC to verify your status or the status of the PR card application. Still pending? That would be OK. Pending in-person pick-up? Definitely OK.

I cannot explain why a lawyer would say not to contact IRCC to make an inquiry as to your status or PR card application status. The purported reason for that is now moot. So cross that bridge, make the call or webform query, and go from there.
Hello @dpenabill and @armoured I wanted to thank you guys for sending such helpful and detailed responses, it really helps when there are no answers available online. I wanted to let you guys know that I have an update on my pr card renewal application, which was silent for the past 3 years. IRCC scheduled an interview with me and said I need to bring proof of residency 5 years prior to when I applied (I did not meet the residence requirement during this time, and I have already self declared to them as not having met it). The letter said:

“In order for IRCC to determine if the PR card that was created for you has the appropriate period of validity and can be distributed to you, or if a PR card of a different validity period should be prepared and issued to you, your attendance is required, as per subsection 58(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations”

believe they want me to tell them about my case and see if it is strong enough. My H&C factors were that I was taken out of Canada at 14 and returned at first opportunity at 18, have been studying here in university and have proof of enrollment. Last month I got married in Canada, my spouse is Canadian and we intend to live here (he has to start mortgage payments here for a house he bought that just got finished being built, where we will live). I have to notify them about my change in marital status, but I wanted to ask if being married here is an additional H&C ground because if I were to be revoked of pr status, we would have to be separated as he as a stable job in Canada which he can’t leave.


Worst case scenario they are not convinced and I have to go to a hearing, or am issued a removal order and my status revoked, will he be able to sponsor me? If during this interview the officer initiated a report 44(1) report, will my days in Canada stop counting starting from the day he initiates a report or will they stop counting from when I applied for the renewal of my card?
Another thing is, will me having met my RO now, help my case? The letter states that if I don’t come to this appointment in 180 days, the pr card will be destroyed and I will have to file a new application and pay the application fee. Honestly, this seems like a better scenario to me than possibly losing my status entirely. If I applied for pr card renewal again, they would consider these last 5 years and I would be in compliance of RO. I’m considering if I should revoke my application, or if that’s too late?

I want to reapply with a clean application. This is because I thought that meeting my RO now would help, but they have asked only for my days in Canada for 5 years prior to my application, when I wasn’t meeting RO. they asked for these including basic documents:


Proof of residence in Canada for the 5 years prior to the date you applied
- Total of all absences from Canada (for the 5 years prior to the date you applied)
- Any documentary proof of your establishment and ties in Canada, which may include:
o Employment records (for example T-4’s, employment letters and other work records).
o Schooling/training (for example reports cards, diplomas, awards).
o Social and community involvement (for example proof of any community involvement, volunteer
duties).
o Medical records (for example proof of hospitalization, medical appointments).
o Home/family ties (for example rental and mortgage documents, whereabouts of family
members).
- Any other information and evidence you have which demonstrates that you meet the residency
requirements as prescribed in 28(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including information about any humanitarian and compassionate factors you would like considered. Detailed supporting evidence is required.
- Minors under age 14 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian with a birth certificate and/or legal guardianship papers;
-Spouses of Canadian Citizens should bring marriage certificate (with translation) and copy of spouse’s Canadian passport.


I have tried looking online if anyone Else has been issued a similar letter, and what these letters mean and what the outcome usually Is, if it is bad news. Any insight would be super helpful, thank you
 
Last edited:

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
10,989
5,573
I do not have sufficient knowledge to give a detailed answer but expect others will. My thoughts in brief:

-Yes, being married to a Canadian may get some additional 'credit' for H&C.
-More importantly, it does largely mean that even if all else goes badly in your case and somehow you lose or renounce PR status, you can be sponsored again (assuming otherwise eligible). It won't count 'against' you except to extent that it may get extra scrutiny to confirm the relatonship is genuine.

And broadly speaking, I'd suggest that because of that, you can probably go to your interview with confidence, tell the truth, document your case, and hope it goes well. See what happens, you may just walk out with your PR card. Go prepared, however, with docs etc to show as above.

Here's what I think may be going on (but really more of a guess):
1) -They believe/feel they must first evaluate whether you met RO when you applied. (You didn't, no need to sugar coat, tell the truth).
2) -That your application at the time must/should be evaluated on H&C basis (your story is simple, you were underage). The implication here is likely that 'H&C basis at time you applied', whether formally or not.
3) [I am getting less certain here] -That they will then evaluate your RO on date of 'examination' (which may or may not be the date of the interview, which for you will make the difference between compliant/non compliant).
4) -That if that isn't met, then another H&C evaluation as of present day - where you include your previous reason why you weren't compliant PLUS you are settled in Canada, done school here, married to Canadan, it would be highly disruptive for you to leave, etc.

And again - a bit of a guess - if any of these four (three if we leave out RO when you first applied) is 'approved', possibly you walk out with your PR card.

If not approved, I guess that would be the start of the process to revoke your PR, subject to appeal.

Again, this is NOT a guide, just my intuition about what may be going on.

That said: it probably would be prudent to speak to or see a lawyer beforehand, because, well, I'm just a person on the internet. I'll be interested to see what others who follow such matters more closely say.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
5,511
2,478
. . . believe they want me to tell them about my case and see if it is strong enough . . .
Worst case scenario they are not convinced and I have to go to a hearing, or am issued a removal order and my status revoked, will he be able to sponsor me? If during this interview the officer initiated a report 44(1) report, will my days in Canada stop counting starting from the day he initiates a report or will they stop counting from when I applied for the renewal of my card?
In many respects I agree with the observations made by @armoured . . . BUT . . . contrary to previous assessments, yet consistent with previous concerns, it increasingly appears there may have been a 44(1) Report previously prepared . . .

See my posts on May 14, including:
. . . but it is more important to verify there has been no 44(1) Report so far.
Nothing to suggest that a 44(1) Report has been prepared or a Removal Order issued.

But otherwise the incongruities and gaps in the OP's accounts do not foreclose the possibility that there was, just as an example, some missed communications. Whether or not a Report has been prepared (just prepared, even without further action on it) is the most critical element in this scenario:
-- If NO Report has been prepared, all days in Canada during the last five years count toward RO compliance. So, currently in compliance, no significant risk to PR.​
-- In contrast, just as a possible example (nothing to indicate this has happened, but again what's recounted does not clearly indicate it has not happened), if the OP missed a request for information or documentation while outside Canada, it's possible or even feasible a Report has been prepared, and if that has happened days in Canada after that do not count, not unless the Report is set aside, and PR status is at risk​
. . . and if so, if there has already been a 44(1) Report (which may be further indicated by the length of time that has passed in the meantime, since the application was made) . . . . then this "interview" is likely to review the validity of that report and if valid in law (which, it appears obvious, it would be unless there is a procedural flaw), whether there are H&C reasons sufficient for allowing you to retain PR status despite the breach of the Residency Obligation.

That is, this may be, in effect, the review by a Minister's Delegate, to determine whether to issue a Removal Order or to allow you to retain PR status based on H&C reasons.

My sense is you have a good H&C case, and good odds. But H&C cases are tricky. Forecasting outcomes is very tricky. It appears you have been outside Canada for significantly more than a year since you returned in 2018 (since you just accumulated 730 days in Canada in May or June this year), which may complicate things a little.

I have been wrestling with how to respond to this beyond that for longer than I can afford to spend the time. I get bogged down in tangents. One is explaining why it appears, now, this is about an interview to review a 44(1) Report, and that alone is complicated. And far from certain. And why does not matter so much now.

Other tangents involve other possibilities, and addressing what to expect and how to deal with those. This includes those outlined by @armoured.

Overall, however, the likely key to how this goes is the strength of your H&C case, but even addressing that is complicated because we have so little background in any similar scenario (reports of this process for a PR card application are rare, here in this forum, and likewise uncommon if not rare in the published decisions by the IAD and Federal Court), and even assuming there is a 44(1) Report (which again is far from certain, despite that being my current best guess), we do not know its date or what date of examination it is based on.

All that said, the strength of your H&C case NOW is probably the key deciding element in this . . . recognizing that the worst case scenario is having to appeal a Removal Order, or pursuing a spousal sponsored PR application, or appealing and only if the appeal fails, then pursuing a spousal sponsored PR application.

Re Waiting and Re-applying:

That is NOT a promising approach. While it is more complicated than a simple this-or-that situation, in most respects how this goes probably depends on whether there has been a previously prepared 44(1) Report. If yes (my take is yes), waiting and re-applying will NOT help. Days in Canada since the date of the 44(1) Report do NOT count, so you gain nothing on that side of the equation by waiting.

In contrast, if there has not been a 44(1) Report already prepared, odds are very good this will be OK and it would be better to go to the interview and get past this.

That is, if there has not been a 44(1) Report previously prepared, no need to wait, OK to go to interview and get this resolved. If a 44(1) has been previously prepared, not going to the interview and waiting will not help.

DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?

That's a good question. I am not sure, even, whether a lawyer can represent you in an interview like this. A lawyer could surely help you prepare.

I will save some of my other draft notes and perhaps offer further observations later . . . or to refer to if there are more questions.

It warrants noting with some emphasis, how few similar scenarios we see in either forum discussions or even in the published decisions. The years your application was pending, it appears, alone distinguishes your situation from others we have seen. And I am afraid I did not previously adequately apprehend the import of the border official's comments to you. So, in any event, it is difficult to know what is going on, one might say, under the hood.

By the way . . .
. . . it really helps that you shared so much of the communication you received from IRCC. This helps put key aspects into focus. A big clue so far as I can see is in the reference to determining the "validity period" of the PR card to be issued to you.

IRCC scheduled an interview with me and said I need to bring proof of residency 5 years prior to when I applied (I did not meet the residence requirement during this time, and I have already self declared to them as not having met it). The letter said:

“In order for IRCC to determine if the PR card that was created for you has the appropriate period of validity and can be distributed to you, or if a PR card of a different validity period should be prepared and issued to you, your attendance is required, as per subsection 58(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations”
That may be standard in communications sent regarding interviews for PR card applicants. I do not know. We do not see many reports from PRs having to attend PR-card-application interviews other than counter-interviews connected with in-person card pick up, and rarely get details of the communications even in those cases.

In particular, I do not recall any reports of similar communications including a reference to determining whether a five year or one year PR card should be issued. But one of the situations in which the one-year validity period is applicable, rather than the standard five, is for PRs subject to "a report prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act" (Regulation 54(2)(b) in IRPRs).

So, if that reference in the communication to you is not general boilerplate, it is quite likely in reference to an already prepared 44(1) Report. A clue? Watson asks Sherlock. Yeah, a clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armoured

avocado67890

Newbie
May 13, 2022
7
1
In many respects I agree with the observations made by @armoured . . . BUT . . . contrary to previous assessments, yet consistent with previous concerns, it increasingly appears there may have been a 44(1) Report previously prepared . . .

See my posts on May 14, including:




. . . and if so, if there has already been a 44(1) Report (which may be further indicated by the length of time that has passed in the meantime, since the application was made) . . . . then this "interview" is likely to review the validity of that report and if valid in law (which, it appears obvious, it would be unless there is a procedural flaw), whether there are H&C reasons sufficient for allowing you to retain PR status despite the breach of the Residency Obligation.

That is, this may be, in effect, the review by a Minister's Delegate, to determine whether to issue a Removal Order or to allow you to retain PR status based on H&C reasons.

My sense is you have a good H&C case, and good odds. But H&C cases are tricky. Forecasting outcomes is very tricky. It appears you have been outside Canada for significantly more than a year since you returned in 2018 (since you just accumulated 730 days in Canada in May or June this year), which may complicate things a little.

I have been wrestling with how to respond to this beyond that for longer than I can afford to spend the time. I get bogged down in tangents. One is explaining why it appears, now, this is about an interview to review a 44(1) Report, and that alone is complicated. And far from certain. And why does not matter so much now.

Other tangents involve other possibilities, and addressing what to expect and how to deal with those. This includes those outlined by @armoured.

Overall, however, the likely key to how this goes is the strength of your H&C case, but even addressing that is complicated because we have so little background in any similar scenario (reports of this process for a PR card application are rare, here in this forum, and likewise uncommon if not rare in the published decisions by the IAD and Federal Court), and even assuming there is a 44(1) Report (which again is far from certain, despite that being my current best guess), we do not know its date or what date of examination it is based on.

All that said, the strength of your H&C case NOW is probably the key deciding element in this . . . recognizing that the worst case scenario is having to appeal a Removal Order, or pursuing a spousal sponsored PR application, or appealing and only if the appeal fails, then pursuing a spousal sponsored PR application.

Re Waiting and Re-applying:

That is NOT a promising approach. While it is more complicated than a simple this-or-that situation, in most respects how this goes probably depends on whether there has been a previously prepared 44(1) Report. If yes (my take is yes), waiting and re-applying will NOT help. Days in Canada since the date of the 44(1) Report do NOT count, so you gain nothing on that side of the equation by waiting.

In contrast, if there has not been a 44(1) Report already prepared, odds are very good this will be OK and it would be better to go to the interview and get past this.

That is, if there has not been a 44(1) Report previously prepared, no need to wait, OK to go to interview and get this resolved. If a 44(1) has been previously prepared, not going to the interview and waiting will not help.

DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?

That's a good question. I am not sure, even, whether a lawyer can represent you in an interview like this. A lawyer could surely help you prepare.

I will save some of my other draft notes and perhaps offer further observations later . . . or to refer to if there are more questions.

It warrants noting with some emphasis, how few similar scenarios we see in either forum discussions or even in the published decisions. The years your application was pending, it appears, alone distinguishes your situation from others we have seen. And I am afraid I did not previously adequately apprehend the import of the border official's comments to you. So, in any event, it is difficult to know what is going on, one might say, under the hood.

By the way . . .
. . . it really helps that you shared so much of the communication you received from IRCC. This helps put key aspects into focus. A big clue so far as I can see is in the reference to determining the "validity period" of the PR card to be issued to you.



That may be standard in communications sent regarding interviews for PR card applicants. I do not know. We do not see many reports from PRs having to attend PR-card-application interviews other than counter-interviews connected with in-person card pick up, and rarely get details of the communications even in those cases.

In particular, I do not recall any reports of similar communications including a reference to determining whether a five year or one year PR card should be issued. But one of the situations in which the one-year validity period is applicable, rather than the standard five, is for PRs subject to "a report prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act" (Regulation 54(2)(b) in IRPRs).

So, if that reference in the communication to you is not general boilerplate, it is quite likely in reference to an already prepared 44(1) Report. A clue? Watson asks Sherlock. Yeah, a clue.
hello, thank you again for the detailed responses, I’m assuming a report has already been issued then. Since the letter also says this:

“You may be asked questions in relation to your residency so the officer may determine whether to issue you a PR card valid for 5 years or a PR card valid for one year, per section 54 of IRPR. A PR is required to comply with the residency obligation with respect to every five-year period, per the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), section 28, and as a result of your application for a PR card, an IRCC officer is authorized to proceed with an examination, per IRPA, subsections 15(1) and 16(1.1). For that reason, we recommend that you bring supporting documents“

The only thing is, wouldn’t they have notified me of a report being prepared? I got this correspondence sent directly to my email but nothing about a report

I’m also very worried now that they will punish me for using my greencard to enter Canada a couple times. Worst case scenario is removal order or deportation?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: asaeed100
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
5,511
2,478
The only thing is, wouldn’t they have notified me of a report being prepared? I got this correspondence sent directly to my email but nothing about a report

I’m also very worried now that they will punish me for using my greencard to enter Canada a couple times. Worst case scenario is removal order or deportation?
There are a lot of angles in your situation. I am no expert. I could be well off the mark. It is not even certain, for example, that there has indeed been a 44(1) Report prepared. I will nonetheless offer further observations hoping I am helping more than hurting.

It looks like your situation is hauling a whole freight train of shoulda-woulda-coulda baggage overflowing with questions and tangents and what-if-this, what-if-that, maybe-this, maybe-that contingencies tangled in a whole lot of uncertainties and unknowns, all while your status (and this is the big thing) is likely subject to what appears to be a valid-in-law 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility. Some of this can probably be sorted out, some explained, some at least put into context.

But all that is complicated. Diving into much if not most of that would lead to unproductive tangents more likely to distract, and confuse, rather than help.

The main issues and questions are probably not so complicated. And your first post in this thread basically identified them, as in whether you should:
-- update and proceed with H&C case, or​
-- renounce PR status and pursue a spousal sponsored family class PR application​

Of course things were muddy enough to not see that clearly at the time (and there were other questions posed), although it looks like your general grasp of things and your instincts appear to be quite good. Among the complicated and unproductive tangents we could wrestle with is how and why the discussion went in the directions it did. Another of the complicated and unproductive tangents we could wrestle with is how and why there has been a Report prepared, including, as you now ask, "wouldn’t they have notified me of a report being prepared?"

But, for example, addressing the shouldn't-there-have-been-notice aspect of this will not help you figure out what to do next or how to do it.

Assuming a 44(1) Report was prepared, for example, it is possible, emphasis on just possible, there were procedural mistakes made and perhaps the Report could be challenged based on technicalities; it is possible, that is, even though you were in breach of the RO at the time the Report was prepared, the Report should be (applying the rules) found to NOT be valid-in-law on procedural grounds. That's possible. But that's way too complicated to pursue without a lawyer's assistance. And it's not promising enough to warrant getting distracted going down that path, especially since you probably have a good H&C case, and otherwise you have (it appears) insurance: a spousal sponsorship back-up plan.

Bringing this back to the main options, the main questions, the main issues; should you:
-- proceed relying on making a strong H&C case, or
-- pursue a spousal sponsored family class PR application

These are not mutually exclusive. You can proceed to make the H&C case, relying on a back-up plan to pursue the spousal sponsored PR application if H&C relief is denied. There are nuances. If a Removal Order is issued, for example, the question then is whether to appeal, to stay with the H&C case and pursue that before the IAD, or whether to not appeal and proceed with making the sponsored application sooner than waiting for the outcome of an appeal.

Meanwhile . . . If you can afford a lawyer, it would probably be a good idea to lawyer-up. At minimum a paid-for consultation, paying for the lawyer's time to actually go over the details of your situation.

Otherwise . . . Back in May, for example, I noted there were incongruities and gaps in your account of things, and it is now readily apparent that in addition to that, I (and probably others) did not adequately grasp the nature and import of some border officials' comments during a border crossing examination earlier this year. Your recent posts have clarified a good deal. But they also raise additional questions.

Which leads back to the freight train of shoulda-woulda-coulda baggage. And some of the still outstanding incongruities and gaps. Again, my sense is that trying to sort all that out is likely to be an unproductive distraction, when you should probably be focusing on preparing to make your H&C case, or deciding to set all that aside, renounce status, and go with a spousal sponsored PR application.

But some of that background baggage is relevant to making the H&C case, if that is how you decide to proceed.

And I hesitate to introduce another can of worms, and ordinarily I'd brush off your concerns about being "punished" for using your green card "to enter Canada," but as I noted, it seems you have some good instincts.

First; Background relevant to H&C case:

Just scratching the surface, looking at the tip of an iceberg our friends in Newfoundland might say, part of the shoulda-woulda-coulda background, PRs in breach of the RO relying on H&C relief are wise to STAY once they are in Canada, and even if they get a new PR card, they should still be cautious about how much they are abroad, UNTIL they meet the 2/5 RO. You didn't stay. Indeed, you were outside Canada for fairly extensive periods of time. That complicates things.

Probably better to not get tangled in the complicated aspects of this. As @armoured basically suggested, you can go to the interview prepared to tell your story, and tell the truth. I'd add: keep it simple, stick mostly to facts more than explanations. A lawyer's help in preparing would be good, but the crux of it will be whether the person making the decision concludes you deserve to keep PR status, or not, given who you are and your story, including especially current ties to a life in Canada.

That Can-of-Worms Shadow of Complication Regarding Border Crossing Screening:

It is NOT likely that IRCC has identified any issues or concerns related to your presenting a green card on some occasions when returning to Canada. And there is nothing wrong about just presenting a Green Card to the border officials, in itself. So again, I am very reluctant to open any border-examination-misrepresentations can of worms.

And the communications you have reported getting do not suggest any lurking misrepresentation concerns.

This could be, however, a little like back in May when I and others were saying it did not look like there was a 44(1) Report pending in your case.

The main question is whether you made any overtly false statements to border officials during border crossings, especially in any Secondary screening. If so, that tips the scales on whether or not to lawyer-up. If so, lawyer-up, and be prepared to tell the lawyer details.

Short of having made overt misrepresentations, if you otherwise were evasive or at all misleading in border crossing examinations, again especially Secondary examinations, such as steering officials away from recognizing you are a Canadian PR, that too could influence how IRCC perceives you and what you "deserve," relative to keeping PR status. Here too, there are some complicated angles (like whether your entries into Canada were recorded in your PR client CBSA travel history), but probably better to focus on keeping things simple, and specifically focused on being honest, truthful. And that includes honestly answering questions which might be difficult to answer, including owning up to any discrepancies (if there are any) in what you have said to officials before.

Again, as noted: There are a lot of angles in your situation. I am no expert. I could be well off the mark. It is not even certain, for example, that there has indeed been a 44(1) Report prepared.


hello, thank you again for the detailed responses, I’m assuming a report has already been issued then. Since the letter also says this:

“You may be asked questions in relation to your residency so the officer may determine whether to issue you a PR card valid for 5 years or a PR card valid for one year, per section 54 of IRPR. A PR is required to comply with the residency obligation with respect to every five-year period, per the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), section 28, and as a result of your application for a PR card, an IRCC officer is authorized to proceed with an examination, per IRPA, subsections 15(1) and 16(1.1). For that reason, we recommend that you bring supporting documents“

The only thing is, wouldn’t they have notified me of a report being prepared? I got this correspondence sent directly to my email but nothing about a report

I’m also very worried now that they will punish me for using my greencard to enter Canada a couple times. Worst case scenario is removal order or deportation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: armoured

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
10,989
5,573
A small additional note: one aspect of this that is going to come up is that your family members (parents at least) seem to reside in the USA, where you also have status and can reside legally, and where you have spent (seemingly) a fair amount of time.
Basically it will be a bit harder to make the case that you will suffer severe hardship if denied status in Canada, because you have alternatives nearby with relatives. (And if it comes to it presumably could sponsor your spouse to live there)
You should of course just tell the truth about this also; just be aware that's one angle through which IRCC may see it.
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
44,658
10,562
How much time did you spend in the US after you returned to the US and when did your family receive their green cards? Assume one of the issues could be whether you’re family ever intended/made an effort to settle in Canada permanently. Unfortunately there are families who only secure PR so their children can attend Canadian post-secondary institutions at domestic rates. Are you compliant with the residency requirements of your green card?