RO compliance - CBSA's 'right' or 'obligation'?

[rollercoaster]

Hello, I have two questions -

Q1 - Which of the following protocol is true? I am super confused:

Protocol 1:

- CBSA Officers are presented the RO information by-default by the electronic system, every time a PR enters Canada.
- They cannot let a PR enter without first determining if they are in violation of RO.
- Of course, it is then up to them to decide whether to report the violation or not.

OR

Protocol 2:

- CBSA Officers are NOT presented the RO information by default, every time a PR enters Canada.
- They can let a PR enter without determining if they are in violation of RO.
- IF and ONLY IF, they feel the need to verify the RO, do they check the electronic system and determine whether to report the RO violation (if any).


Q2 - Do land border and airport, both follow the same Protocol?

Thank you!

PS: Tagging @scylla for their guidance. Appreciate your help as always!

 

[k.h.p.]

It's called GCMS - Global Case Management System. It's a massive computer database maintained by IRCC that CBSA has access to. Additionally, CBSA has entry/exit records in their own Traveller Information System that allows them to quickly compare against what IRCC has.

Your two protocols don't honestly matter. When you enter Canada, either by land or by air, by talking to a border officer or interacting with an Automated Kiosk, your file could be flagged for review automatically or manually.

At all times, the border officer has discretion whether or not to inquire as to the residency obligation.

If you are outside your RO and are panicking over details like whether or not the border officer must inquire into the RO, you need to focus on other things. Like why you're outside the RO, what you will say if you get asked and how you will return to Canada.

 

[scylla]

Hello, I have two questions -

Q1 - Which of the following protocol is true? I am super confused:

Protocol 1:

- CBSA Officers are presented the RO information by-default by the electronic system, every time a PR enters Canada.
- They cannot let a PR enter without first determining if they are in violation of RO.
- Of course, it is then up to them to decide whether to report the violation or not.

OR

Protocol 2:

- CBSA Officers are NOT presented the RO information by default, every time a PR enters Canada.
- They can let a PR enter without determining if they are in violation of RO.
- IF and ONLY IF, they feel the need to verify the RO, do they check the electronic system and determine whether to report the RO violation (if any).


Q2 - Do land border and airport, both follow the same Protocol?

Thank you!

PS: Tagging @scylla for their guidance. Appreciate your help as always!

I don't know their internal processes.

 

[rollercoaster]

I don't know their internal processes.

Thanks @scylla , @k.h.p. although to put it another way, what I want to know is -

do the immigration officers only have the right to check RO compliance

OR

do they have the obligation to do so as well, every time a PR enters Canada?

 

[k.h.p.]

Thanks @scylla , @k.h.p. although to put it another way, what I want to know is -

do the immigration officers only have the right to check RO compliance OR

do they have the obligation to do so as well, every time a PR enters Canada?

They have the obligation to ensure that an applicant for entry to Canada is eligible and able to enter. They have discretion on how to do that.

 

[scylla]

Thanks @scylla , @k.h.p. although to put it another way, what I want to know is -

do the immigration officers only have the right to check RO compliance

OR

do they have the obligation to do so as well, every time a PR enters Canada?

Again, not familiar with their internal processes, so can't comment.

 

[k.h.p.]

One of the first questions anyone gets asked - including citizens - is "how long have you been away?"

This is done to establish how much duty/tax exemption an entrant to Canada is eligible for. If you're a PR, and you answer with a big number, the officer will have more questions.

 

[rollercoaster]

One of the first questions anyone gets asked - including citizens - is "how long have you been away?"

This is done to establish how much duty/tax exemption an entrant to Canada is eligible for. If you're a PR, and you answer with a big number, the officer will have more questions.

Ohh ok. By "how long have you been away?" do they usually mean "since last visit"?

When I entered Canada in March of this year via land border, I told the officer I am moving there permanently.

Unfortunately, I had to travel back to India after about 35 days due to host of reasons including Covid scare in my family.

So if they ask me that question, can I say "since April" ?

 

[k.h.p.]

Answer the questions that you're asked.

 

[dpenabill]

When I entered Canada in March of this year via land border, I told the officer I am moving there permanently.

Unfortunately, I had to travel back to India after about 35 days due to host of reasons including Covid scare in my family.

Yes, I am legally in the US working for US employer.

Not sure what you are fishing for.

As @scylla's responses allude to, method, manner, and means of investigating PRs for inadmissibility is confidential, NOT public information. So no one here can definitively state what particular policies or practices are specified for screening PRs for inadmissibility during PoE examinations.

It warrants emphasizing what @k.h.p. said about simply answering the questions asked, to which I would add "TRUTHFULLY, HONESTLY" answer the questions.

Saying "truthfully" and "honestly" may seem redundant, but actually they are not precisely the same and being BOTH is important . . .

. . . remember, misrepresentation by omission is equal to overt misrepresentation . . .​

. . . remember there is no it's-equivocation-not-prevarication loophole . . .​

. . . remember that while a statement of what is technically true but substantively misleading (thus dishonest) may keep a person out of jail, it can and often will be what knocks the transaction off the rails into the realm of unfriendly, more strict enforcement . . .​

. . . and finally, overall, remember that an individual's credibility is hugely important, and for a PR failing to comply with the Residency Obligation, a PR who may need a friendly H&C decision allowing the PR to keep status, credibility is probably the biggest factor apart from the essential facts themselves​

Notwithstanding the confidentiality of the method, manner, and means of investigating RO compliance, we actually know quite a lot about the Port-of-Entry examination. We have at least three rather extensive sources, including the extent of anecdotal reporting in forums like this, even if this is the less reliable source.

IAD decisions in appeals from 44(1) Reports and Removal Orders issued by CBSA reveal a wealth of information about actual cases in which PRs have been examined and reported; these can be easily researched here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/

And there are the Enforcement Operational Manuals, for which pdf versions are easily accessed from here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...ns-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html These manuals include ENF 4 Port of Entry Examinations, which includes Section 11, beginning on page 47, where it outlines "Examining permanent residents at ports of entry"

BUT the SIMPLE DECLARATIVE RESPONSES here by @k.h.p. cover what a PR really needs to know, which comes down to this:

-- spend enough time in Canada to comply with the RO​

-- if in breach or approaching being in breach, return to Canada sooner rather than later​

-- during PoE examination answer the questions asked, and as I have added, do so truthfully AND honestly​

Any other approach is driving into an elevated risk of losing PR territory. That includes looking for ways to, one might say, massage the messaging. Sure, some manage to make manipulation work for them. For most the outcome goes the other way. One of the fastest ways to make things go south (as in not good) is to be perceived to be playing games. One of the fastest ways to throw away the leniency advantage the system inherently embraces is to be perceived as a PR who is exploiting how liberal the RO is to keep status without actually settling and living PERMANENTLY in Canada.

By the way, in trying to understand how the system works and how to best navigate it, binary analysis tends to be badly off the mark. Investigatory "protocols" are rarely, if ever, all one thing or the other. Not how such things work. Note, yes, absolutely, CBSA border officers have an OBLIGATION to enforce IRPA, including provisions governing the admissibility of PRs. But that does not offer much insight into how they approach doing their job, meeting this mandate.