Re-Entering Canada with breach of RO and previous warning

[ShSa]

Dear Experts,

Myself and wife got PR, landed in Sept. 2012, and left Canada in few days. Reentered in June 2015 through Toronto airport. At that time the officer asked several questions. I had a return air ticket, which she saw. I was to exit Canada in few days. She typed on her computer for long time, finally told us that she had written the history (I do not know what ?) and that I should surrender PR OR come back to Canada by Oct 2015 for good, otherwise they will file a case on us.

Now we are planning to go back to Canada in end Oct or early Nov 2015 for few days and return. Not intending to get citizenship at present but do not want to loose PR in case the situation changes. My question is

1. Will there be any problem in getting through CBSA at the airport?
2. Is it better to cross through land border in rented car?
3. They may allow us to enter Canada but is there a possibility that they will report me and it will be then impossible to get visit visa or super visa?
3. is it worth renouncing PR and get visit visa before travelling?

Appreciate reply

 

[scylla]

1. I wouldn't be surprised if you are sent to secondary inspection based on the previous warning you received.
2. Doesn't matter - they use the same computer system.
3. Yes - there's always a possibility you may be reported. If you are reported and end up losing your PR status and leaving Canada, you can certainly apply for a visitor visa or super visa (if you have adult children in Canada).
4. It's really up to you. If you plan to live in Canada for two years straight once you return, then don't renounce your PR status and travel as planned. If you're only coming for a short visit, it may be easier to renounce your PR status now and apply for a visitor visa.

 

[ShSa]

That is very prompt, Thanks.

A clarification..... Not planning to stay during Oct/Nov visit but I want to retain PR for future, if the circumstances change.

 

[kateg]

That is very prompt, Thanks.

A clarification..... Not planning to stay during Oct/Nov visit but I want to retain PR for future, if the circumstances change.

That's not particularly likely.

They have the ability to flag people for automatic secondary, which it sounds like happened to you. When you come back, you get sent to immigration, where they will read the notes.

If you fly back after being warned and notated, you are very likely to not get warned again, particularly if you have a return ticket. At that point, they would let you in, but would initiate deportation proceedings against you. You would have time to settle your affairs, but would be losing Permanent Residency.

If you want to maintain permanent residency, you need to come and stay. They are a bit more forgiving of people who are trying to meet the obligations - if (for example) you came to stay permanently in November, they might forgive that you were going to be one month out of your obligations. If you have no intent to stay (as shown by things like a return ticket), then they will be much less inclined to be forgiving.

 

[david1697]

Your chances of loosing your PR once you are in breach of RO are high if you go to Canada. If you just want to keep your PR status then don't return to Canada.

Despite what others say, I don't believe airport checkpoints are putting anyone at higher risk of being selected for secondary.

I was sent to secondary on land crossing (and they had zero reasons to do this, I was freshly landed PR who could not possibly be in breach of RO), and I was grilled like a fugitive on my initial landing. I did not have PR Card then.

I flew to Canada (with a PR Card) and was screened like a normal person, without any hassles.

I would even think that they treat airline passengers better, though I can not be sure of it (and reason for that could be that anyone can drive to Canadian border, even a hard core criminal who just escaped from prison, while you must pass ton of security to board a plane and your name is being checked against no-flight list etc).

In general, my own personal impression is that having COPR and crossing by land increases the chances of secondary inspection , even if you are totally legitimate permanent resident with absolutely no reason to send you there.
Having a PR Card (which has more than 3 years of validity) probably decreases the chances of being referred to secondary, no matter you go by air or land. With air (again, purely subjective speculation on my part) making you less of a target for extra scrutiny, because it's obvious that you had to be scrutinized before you were allowed to board the plane.

I don't know how all these people who tell anecdotal stories of meeting lenient officers are so lucky that they are allowed to enter Canada even after being found in breach of RO in secondary, but the feeling I had after two land crossings (with ZERO reasons to be referred after I already was landed PR) is that if I ever go to Canada with breach of RO, they WILL report me and WILL make sure my PR is taken away from me.

 

[ShSa]

Thanks kateg and david1697 for the reply. Things are much clear now. Considering all scenaiors, I have three options.

1. Enter Canada on return ticket, at the POE renounce PR and request for Super visa (my son is in Canada on PR) or TRV.
2. Enter Canada by air (as it does not do any good driving long distance), on one way ticket and explain to CBSA that I am here to stay for RO. Later leave Canada if we decide not to pursue citizenship and renounce PR in my counry of residence as I will not be able to go to Canada on PR.
3. Renounce PR and apply for supre vis/TRV in our country of residence before travelling, but I am afraid, the time is short.

Your views please.

 

[kateg]

Your chances of loosing your PR once you are in breach of RO are high if you go to Canada. If you just want to keep your PR status then don't return to Canada.

I would second this. Once you've been flagged, if you cross the border they will talk to you.

Despite what others say, I don't believe airport checkpoints are putting anyone at higher risk of being selected for secondary.

When they are busy, they are less likely to spend time on sending people to secondary. I cross the border all the time - when it's late at night or a remote PoE, they have all the time in the world. When they are busy, it's much less likely. Airports are going to be like other major ports.

I was sent to secondary on land crossing (and they had zero reasons to do this, I was freshly landed PR who could not possibly be in breach of RO), and I was grilled like a fugitive on my initial landing. I did not have PR Card then.

They don't like PRs without a Permanent Resident Card. Some officers will send you to secondary whenever they see it, and not bother running the numbers. If you're from a visa waiver country, and not presenting yourself as a permanent resident, this can be a bit less likely, particularly if you have replaced your passport and the new one has a different number from the one Canada knows about. The computer won't automatically kick it out, as they don't have easy access to the unique IDs other countries use for their citizens. With criminals, they match on name and birthdate - flag anyone that matches, let you prove you aren't that person. With Permanent Residents, they don't. It's up to you to inform them and prove you are a permanent resident.

I flew to Canada (with a PR Card) and was screened like a normal person, without any hassles.

Yep. The card is a travel document (unlike the CoPR), and having it means that you are likely not in breach of R/O. If you are in breach, they can revoke when you renew; at that point it would be best to enter, hope the officer doesn't notice, and stay there until you meet the R/O.

I would even think that they treat airline passengers better, though I can not be sure of it (and reason for that could be that anyone can drive to Canadian border, even a hard core criminal who just escaped from prison, while you must pass ton of security to board a plane and your name is being checked against no-flight list etc).

It's not a huge deal on the criminal side, as the percentage of no-fly passengers is relatively small. You can have a very significant criminal record and fly without any issue at all. It means you likely don't have weapons, but that's less of a deal for immigration. On the other hand, Nexus is extremely good at getting them to leave you alone. You have to prove you have no criminal background, and it's checked daily automatically. Downside to NEXUS is that if you aren't a US citizen, you have to prove you are a P/R. They link your P/R card to do this, and if your card expires, you have to tell them.

In general, my own personal impression is that having COPR and crossing by land increases the chances of secondary inspection , even if you are totally legitimate permanent resident with absolutely no reason to send you there.

CoPR is not a travel document. If you read ENF-04 on the CIC site:

The permanent resident (PR) card, is the status document referred to in A31(1) that indicates that the holder is a permanent resident of Canada. A person who holds a PR card is presumed to have PR status unless a BSO at Immigration Secondary determines otherwise. As of December 31, 2003, the PR card, or alternatively, the A31(3) travel document issued by one of Canada’s visa offices abroad, is the new prescribed document for permanent residents when boarding a commercial transporter bound for Canada.

Canadian permanent residents need to show their permanent resident card when travelling to Canada in order to prove their permanent resident status. Permanent residents who do not have a PR card, or who are not carrying their PR card when travelling outside the country, will need to obtain a permanent resident travel document before returning to Canada by air mode in order to comply with eTA requirements.

Having a PR Card (which has more than 3 years of validity) probably decreases the chances of being referred to secondary, no matter you go by air or land. With air (again, purely subjective speculation on my part) making you less of a target for extra scrutiny, because it's obvious that you had to be scrutinized before you were allowed to board the plane.

It will decrease the chances of scrutiny, as you are not supposed to be able to enter without it or a travel document.

Again, from the enforcement manual:

The permanent resident card is the only valid proof of permanent resident status in
Canada.
The following documents are satisfactory indicators of permanent residence:

• the original Record of Landing:
• a certified true copy of a Record of Landing document issued by CIC National Headquarters;
• a letter issued by CIC National Headquarters verifying permanent residence;
• a passport duly stamped showing the date on which permanent residence was granted, if the person was granted permanent resident status before 1973;
• a Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5292B];
• a permanent resident card;
• a permanent resident travel document

If documentary evidence is not available, the BSO at Immigration Secondary must establish the person’s permanent resident status through questioning and checking the person’s status in FOSS.

In other words, while the CoPR is evidence that you may be a P/R, only the card is proof. Without proof, you are supposed to be sent to secondary.

I don't know how all these people who tell anecdotal stories of meeting lenient officers are so lucky that they are allowed to enter Canada even after being found in breach of RO in secondary, but the feeling I had after two land crossings (with ZERO reasons to be referred after I already was landed PR) is that if I ever go to Canada with breach of RO, they WILL report me and WILL make sure my PR is taken away from me.

It may have something to do with your appearance or country of origin (depending on which it is). CBSA and CIC have patterns they look for, and the country does play a part. For example, certain countries are considered "drug source countries", and will get higher level of scrutiny for shipments, particularly ones containing items frequently used for smuggling. Other countries are flagged based on immigration issues. US citizens (for example) get extra scrutiny when they go to whistler, as there are many incidences of illegal Americans working at Whistler. If a US citizen takes an RV to Alaska, they will almost certainly get flagged for secondary and a weapons search. Mexico is being watched for people overstaying their visas.

 

[ShSa]

Dear Kateg,

Your answer is for a different post. i think you have wrongly posted here.

 

[scylla]

Thanks kateg and david1697 for the reply. Things are much clear now. Considering all scenaiors, I have three options.

1. Enter Canada on return ticket, at the POE renounce PR and request for Super visa (my son is in Canada on PR) or TRV.
2. Enter Canada by air (as it does not do any good driving long distance), on one way ticket and explain to CBSA that I am here to stay for RO. Later leave Canada if we decide not to pursue citizenship and renounce PR in my counry of residence as I will not be able to go to Canada on PR.
3. Renounce PR and apply for supre vis/TRV in our country of residence before travelling, but I am afraid, the time is short.

Your views please.

1. Won't work. You can't apply for a TRV or Super Visa at the border.
2. This is probably your best option.
3. Agreed that you don't have sufficient time to renounce your PR and also obtain a TRV if you plan to travel in October.

 

[dpenabill]

I am no expert. The nature and scope of enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation is in flux (more regarding this below) and thus extremely difficult to forecast relative to any particular individual.

Nonetheless, my view about your situation differs significantly from what is discussed above.

This is not to say I disagree with much of what has been offered so far. Indeed, most of the observations I agree with (with some quibbling as to this or that detail, not worth going into). But in how those observations apply to your situation, I see things differently.

Main thing is it seems to me that much of what you are considering as options is premature, and moreover that what your options are is in large part dependent on what your priorities and practical plans actually are. It appears to me that you need to identify your objectives, that is your realistic and practical objectives, and based on what those are, then identify your options and formulate a strategy or plan.

For example, to be clear, it is time to decide, and act accordingly, whether it is your present intent to settle in Canada or not. This decision will largely dictate the course you navigate from here.

The concept of holding PR status in a sort of abeyance, trying to retain PR status without actually settling in Canada, is not a practical option. In the past, sure, scores of PRs managed a dance in which they were able to hold on to PR status for much longer, keeping their options open so to say. That avenue is in effect closed except for those who successfully engage in what amounts to fraud. That path is not a good way to go.

For example, the idea of coming to Canada and in effect lying to POE officers about your intentions, saying for example you intend to settle and stay in Canada this time, if your actual intentions are otherwise (that is, planning not to settle but to return to your home country in the relatively near future), might work . . . might not work . . . probably worked for many in the past . . . but now, as a practical matter, this is not the way to go about things. If CBSA or CIC perceive deception, the options dramatically shrink rapidly. Even if it works, the odds are high a subsequent departure from Canada to the contrary (that is without really settling and staying) will establish a history all too transparent which could negatively affect any subsequent dealing with CIC or CBSA, including any later application for so much as a visitor's visa.

To be clear: forget about what's the best thing to say upon arrival at a POE. Answer questions truthfully, even regarding your intentions. (No need to elaborate or explain, except as specifically asked. Definite need to be straight.)

Sure, many will continue to get away with gaming the system. But that's not what is going to really work for the majority going forward. The gaming-the-system net is closing. Best to know the rules, where you stand, what the consequences are, and play it straight.


If your main objective is to visit Canada, not settle:

If you have no present intention to settle in Canada, there is no rush to surrender status. Given that in October you will still have a valid PR card, good until sometime in the calendar year after next, and that you have recently been in Canada, it is a roll of the dice whether you will face elevated scrutiny at the POE.

As others have noted, based on the last entry experience it is quite likely there is a flag in your FOSS record. But if and when that will trigger a more extensive residency examination is nonetheless still a guess. Other PR's anecdotal POE experiences only reflect what is possible, very little about what is likely. Actually being in breach of the PR RO is a big factor, as should be expected, but being still well within the first five years and having been recently in Canada may very well garner a shrug and a waive-through at the POE entry in October.

Obviously, since you will have been outside Canada more than 1095 days since landing, which is the tipping point for when a PR RO breach occurs for a PR still within the first five years of landing, you will be in breach and at risk of being reported, which means being issued a 44(1) Report to be followed, usually, immediately by a Removal Order. That Removal Order, however, is NOT enforceable, and it only becomes enforceable if you do not make a timely appeal, or if you appeal it becomes enforceable when you lose the appeal. In the meantime you get to hang on to your PR card. While the appeal is pending you can come and go as you like. The appeal process ordinarily takes around a year (rough guess), a matter of many months in any event.

Alternative is to surrender PR status IF the POE officer suggests this in the alternative. If you surrender PR status at the POE, my understanding is that so long as there are no other admissibility issues, the typical procedure would be to allow you to enter Canada for up to six months as a visitor. Whether this allows you to return to Canada after leaving I do not know. But, if you do leave timely, your history is likely to support the issuance of future visitor's visas, no need for a super visa. (But if at any point you do something which makes CIC or CBSA perceive an attempt to game the system, the open door tends to slide shut.)

But in any event there is a fair to good chance that if you return in October, that will not be the occasion that the POE examiner gets tough about the PR RO. That would leave the surrendering of PR status, or go through the process of receiving a Removal Order, open until the next trip.

Too difficult to guess which way things will go at the POE. Better to be prepared for either.



If your main objective is to preserve PR status:

No point doing this unless your objective is to actually settle in Canada. If that's the case, the sooner you arrive the better. Which is to say the fewer days over 1095 days absent the better. Be prepared to discuss time in Canada and reason for delays in coming to settle in Canada (needed to continue working at existing job is typical . . . but again, stick to your real story, the truth), and the extent to which you have current ties in Canada (children living in Canada should be a big factor).

Since you would be in breach of the PR RO, there are NO guarantees. But you might be waived into Canada (the more recent the last entry in conjunction with a PR card valid well into 2017 makes this feasible), or you might be examined about compliance with the PR RO, in which event you would make your best case about having to settle affairs (or whatever it is that has been keeping you away from Canada) and trying to get to Canada to live as soon as possible.

None of us can really so much as guess what the odds are . . . could go either way . . . but I would guess the odds are at least fair this will get you a pass, no 44(1) Report, good to go so long as you then do settle and remain in Canada for a good while . . . the closer to two years the safer. The other obvious possibility, though, is that indeed you are issued the 44(1) Report and a Removal Order . . . you appeal. Odds on appeal are not good (it appears that POE officers are typically the most lenient link in the enforcement chain), so if you get to this stage you may want to re-assess what your goals are, and revise your plans accordingly.





Additional Observation/Caution: The nature and scope of POE screening is constantly changing, the trend consistently in the direction of both more thorough checks and elevated enforcement. Forum reports have been increasingly out-of-date for a long while now due to the rate of change compared to the very limited number and range of sources, along with the tendency to extrapolate invalid generalizations from particular experiences. The technology which in large part determines the scope and thoroughness of the checks is, of course, continuously being upgraded, enhanced, and recent changes in laws and regulations have expanded inter-agency information sharing, in addition to expanded information sharing with the U.S.

There are some key take-aways from this:

-- You cannot rely much on how the border crossing experience has gone for others in the past. For example, some of this is clearly acknowledged by others and reflected in their observations about arriving in Canada via a private vehicle at a land crossing with the U.S. versus arrival by air from abroad, compared to what was the conventional wisdom in the not-so-distant past. Not like the old days one might say.

-- In general, screening and enforcement are up. What this really means is that PRs (and others) are more subject to the rules and regulations than in the past. This trend is likely to continue (and this is regardless of who forms the government after the coming election). In particular, it is obvious that both CBSA and CIC have elevated enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation.


There are some key aspects however regarding which it is difficult if not impossible to draw conclusions:

-- We do not know the extent to which CBSA and CIC continue to approach new immigrants (those who landed within the previous five years) with flexibility or even leniency; elevated enforcement suggests less flexibility let alone leniency, but there is no where near enough reliable information to draw conclusions about this. My guess (emphasizing it really is just a guess) is that indeed, the extent of flexibility or leniency is down, but that there is still a significant amount of flexibility even leniency. That said, how it will go for any given individual still in possession of a valid PR card, still within the first five years since landing, but who has passed the threshold for being in breach of the PR RO (outside Canada for 1095 days or more since landing) is impossible to guess.

 

[ShSa]

Thanks dpenbill,

That is a very good insight. Since we do not know or there are no rules how a particular POE officer will consider, we have to go by experiance of others and hope for the best.

One of my friends arrived at Toronto airport in June 2015 with a valid PR card but just few months left from expiry. He never visited Canada after landing. He made it clear that he has no intention of staying in Canada for long. The officer, suggested him to surrender PR and was ready to issue super visa immediately. But he was getting late hence did not opt for it. The officer let me pass through !! So one thing is clear that visit visa and super visa can be given at POE.

Is it difficult/impossible to get visitor/super visa in future, if 44(1) report is issued?

 

[Leon]

Thanks dpenbill,

That is a very good insight. Since we do not know or there are no rules how a particular POE officer will consider, we have to go by experiance of others and hope for the best.

One of my friends arrived at Toronto airport in June 2015 with a valid PR card but just few months left from expiry. He never visited Canada after landing. He made it clear that he has no intention of staying in Canada for long. The officer, suggested him to surrender PR and was ready to issue super visa immediately. But he was getting late hence did not opt for it. The officer let me pass through !! So one thing is clear that visit visa and super visa can be given at POE.

Is it difficult/impossible to get visitor/super visa in future, if 44(1) report is issued?

I do not think that your friend was offered a super visa because a super visa is only for people who have adult children or grandchildren in Canada who are willing and able to sponsor them to get the visa. If your child is not willing to sponsor you or is not making enough money to sponsor you, you can not get that visa. He may have been offered a TRV, that I don't know.

Having lost your PR for not staying in Canada should actually mean that you are not likely to overstay and hence you should not have problems getting a multiple entry TRV. Many others have done it.

The only advantage of a super visa over a regular TRV is that a super visa would allow you to stay up to 2 years at a time while a regular TRV only allows you to stay for up to 6 months. However, you seem to be mostly going for short visits so do you actually want to stay for 2 years at a time? You can also apply to extend a regular TRV if you are in Canada and want to stay longer than 6 months.

 

[dpenabill]

That is a very good insight. Since we do not know or there are no rules how a particular POE officer will consider, we have to go by experiance of others and hope for the best.

One of my friends arrived at Toronto airport in June 2015 with a valid PR card but just few months left from expiry. He never visited Canada after landing. He made it clear that he has no intention of staying in Canada for long. The officer, suggested him to surrender PR and was ready to issue super visa immediately. But he was getting late hence did not opt for it. The officer let me pass through !! So one thing is clear that visit visa and super visa can be given at POE.

Is it difficult/impossible to get visitor/super visa in future, if 44(1) report is issued?

I concur in the response by Leon.


Impact of 44(1) Report:

As best I have discerned, the process of losing PR status due to non-compliance with the PR Residency Obligation has NO negative impact otherwise. Thus, no, being issued a 44(1) Report should not compromise eligibility for a visitor visa or super visa in the future. Practically or technically.

Indeed, my sense is quite the opposite, that so long as the former-PR (after loss of PR status) did nothing to lead CIC to perceive a lack of credibility or otherwise indicate an effort to abuse the system, the former-PR's history is probably a positive factor. (This is one of the reasons why, in my previous post, I emphasize answering questions truthfully and to otherwise not attempt to game-the-system.)

After all, the key factors underlying the issuance of visitor status are:
-- no criminal or security related inadmissibility issues
-- individual is likely to comply with immigration law, as in will not work in Canada and will timely leave Canada
-- individual has support or funds sufficient to not become a financial burden to Canadians

Breaching the PR Residency Obligation is not a violation of immigration law. It is a failure to meet the conditions required to maintain PR status. Many, many do this, as actually immigrating to Canada does not work out for a significant percentage of FNs (Foreign Nationals) who are given PR status. There is no negative impact other than, of course, the loss of PR status itself.

As Leon and I have suggested, the history itself tends to indicate you will not overstay a visit to Canada. So, for purposes of obtaining visitor status in the future, it is actually a positive factor.



Super-visa:

I also agree with both Leon and scylla regarding this, that the Super-Visa is not available at the POE.

In particular, either we are not talking about the same thing in references to a "super-visa" or I am skeptical abut your friend's report that he could have obtained a super-visa at the POE upon surrender of PR status.

My guess is that what was available at the POE was a six-month visitor visa or perhaps a multi-entry visa good for . . . I do not know.

The "super-visa" is a very specific type of visa; it is a multi-entry visa good for ten years and which allows for entry to stay in Canada for up to two years at a time. Among other things, it requires a medical examination and proof of medical insurance.

It also requires documentation from the PR child or grandchild in Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

Regarding being waived-into Canada despite obvious breach of PR RO:

One of my friends arrived at Toronto airport in June 2015 with a valid PR card but just few months left from expiry. He never visited Canada after landing. He made it clear that he has no intention of staying in Canada for long. . . . The officer let me pass through !!

This part warrants separate attention.

I assume the reference to letting "me pass through" was intended to say "let him pass through . . . "


First, assuming it is an accurate report:

This is no surprise. This is why I suggested in my previous (first post in this topic) that you should have fair odds of being waived through when you come in October. There are still plenty of reports and indications that CBSA is exercising a significant degree of flexibility and even leniency for returning PRs in possession of a valid PR card.

There is no guarantee. The extent to which the POE officers are flexible or even lenient is clearly less than it has been in the past (the examination you experienced in June is an example). But PRs still in possession of a valid PR card are also entitled to a presumption their status is valid.

And they pose little or no risk to the integrity of the immigration system.

After all, your friend was either going to soon leave Canada pursuant to plans for a short visit, or he would stay and live and work and so on . . . which CIC has approved by the grant of PR status in the first place. In the meantime, just as is likely in your case, your friend almost certainly now has a flag in his FOSS, which is also a flag in his GCMS . . . so if he does attempt to game-the-system, such as by applying to renew the PR card before he is actually in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, or he later (after the current card is expired and he is abroad again) attempts to apply for a PR Travel Document, the system will alert the officer processing such application.

The more obvious the breach, the greater the risk the POE officer will issues a 44(1) Report, but again, particularly for PRs still within the first five years, the POE screening still appears to lean toward flexibility if not outright leniency. This is NOT, however, an open invitation to those who play the system and come to Canada just long enough to apply for and obtain a new PR card (albeit this appears to have been a very common practice in the past).


Acknowledging possibility it is NOT an accurate report:

Any anecdotal report in a forum like this should not be relied upon as certain. Second-hand reports are particularly not reliable. The lack of reliability is not necessarily about the honesty of the reporter or the reporter's source, but is also due to the potential for inadvertent errors or mistakes, including misperceptions and miscommunications.

For example, reports about what a POE officer said was available are notoriously prone to misunderstanding . . . it is common for a POE officer to suggest someone apply for a certain type of visa even though the individual may not be eligible for such a visa, in which event many will interpret (and report) the exchange as if to affirm the individual could obtain such a visa . . . and perhaps maybe even that he or she could have obtained that visa at the time there at the POE.

A specific example of this is the typical exchange when CBSA identifies a FN traveler as someone who is spending a lot of time in Canada, to the extent it appears they might be living in Canada. The POE officer is likely to warn the individual about how much time is being spent in Canada and to suggest the individual apply for residency, even Permanent Residency. This does not mean the individual is actually eligible for such status. This does not mean that even if the individual is eligible, that such status could be obtained there at the POE (and it is not at all likely it could be). What it means is that IF the intent is to live in Canada, THEN the individual needs to apply for the proper status to do so, with no insinuation as to whether the individual can actually obtain such status.

In any event, I have no reason to doubt the report that your friend was allowed to enter Canada without being reported, despite being in obvious breach of the PR Residency Obligation. Indeed, as noted, this is consistent with ongoing reports from others. That said, this is not a report which should be relied upon as certain. Moreover, again, even if this is what happened to him, that is NO guarantee another PR in breach will have the same experience.

In contrast, again, it is not at all likely he could have obtained a super-visa while at the POE.

 

[ShSa]

This is now getting interesting....

Perhaps, I did not give full details.... My friend's son got citizenship recently and he was flying in with them. So, he was available there to confirm sponsorship. One thing, I do not doubt that my friend was indeed offered super visa at POE. He arrived at Toronto few days after my arrival and based on my experience at POE, I had warned him of secondary inspection. He had no intention of staying back in Canada and he had returned tickets. We did not hide or tried to misled the officer. By the way, after coming back from the trip, he renounced his PR and got a TRV (he applied for TRV and not super visa). I was also surprised, he could have got super visa at the airport without going through hassle of applying and waiting. Surprised more that he did not opt for it !

The observation and the example given by dpenabill is little different then this case. i.e. The POE officer did not merely suggest to apply for super visa, he actual offered to give.

As for me, I earlier considered going with PR, with return ticket and if asked tell the truth that I am not going to stay in Canada for long. But then decided against it and now applied for renouncing PR and obtaining TRV. Also, put on hold intended visit to Canada till I get TRV.