Travel document circumstances for person left as child

[dpenabill]

We have seen numerous examples on this forum, including people inquiring about future plans, that people have discovered that getting PR while a child is young and landing in Canada while having no plans for the family to move to Canada is a way to allow children to return around 18 often to study. This tactic is clearly being discussed in some communities or being suggested by some consultants. Being able to secure a PRTD if removed as a minor is not widespread knowledge but seems to have certainly become more well known. I assume that is why it is no longer easy for children under 25 to secure a PRTD. Just to be clear we are talking about families who never tried to permanently relocate to Canada.

Nonetheless, as much as one might speculate this could be the reason, I have seen ZERO indication in any authoritative source that so much as even HINTS that the statement "Canada has become tougher when it comes to PRTDs when removed as a minor because many were using it as a way to secure domestic tuition without the family having ever spent much time in Canada and often never paying Income taxes." is true. NONE.

The key is the last sentence in your more recent post: "Just to be clear we are talking about families who never tried to permanently relocate to Canada." Which makes perfect sense because degree of ties and establishment in Canada are explicitly discussed as substantial factors in these cases. That is what matters. And as I noted, much of the analysis leading to the negative decisions appears to derive from a decision by Justice Barnes from more than a decade ago.

The ATI process could be used to discover internal memorandums, within the administration of IRCC, which could answer whether the reason you cite has been so much as discussed, BUT given the total lack of evidence there is even so much as a hint of it, I personally am not going to chase ghosts down that rabbit hole.

Bottom-line, while there are more negative decisions being reported, which may indeed be related to more of these cases occurring, which in turn may be in significant part due to advice from "consultants," the reasoning for the denials is consistent with well established criteria for evaluating PR RO breach H&C cases. NOT with any change in policy or practice based on the difference between domestic and non-domestic school tuition.

 

[dpenabill]

@manpreet4875 . . . the initial response by @scylla actually covers things. Not complicated. For the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor, as @scylla stated, the PR should apply for the PRTD under H&C as soon as turning 18.

But, as @scylla further noted:

"You never established yourselves in Canada after getting PR and left Canada soon afterwards. So very difficult to say how IRCC will look at her case.​

All she can do is apply and hope for the best."​

That really is the sum and substance of it. Works for some. Not for all. Best shot is to take the shot.

What might be called a "Practice Tip:" If the PR can travel via the U.S., and thus travel by land to the Canadian border, that could significantly improve the young PR's chances of keeping PR status. Tough way to go for such a young person (when I was that age, I could not manage on my own going to university a hundred miles away from home). Not even possible for many PRs abroad, especially with Covid related restrictions still hampering travel. But if this is an option, upon showing up at the Port-of-Entry the young PR would be entitled to enter Canada as a PR, and even if Reported and issued a Removal Order at the PoE, if the young PR stays in Canada pending an appeal, the odds of succeeding in keeping PR status are much better than appealing a denied PR TD application. STILL NO GUARANTEE. (One of the cases I will cite and link below, going back to 2014, involves a brother and sister issued Departure Order at PoE and lost the appeal.)


Further Observations in Regards to PR-Removed-as-a-Minor H&C cases:

As otherwise noted, there have been some indications that IRCC is turning down more of these applications (for H&C relief allowing the young PR-Removed-as-a-Minor the opportunity to keep PR status), and that the Minister is arguing against relief when the case goes to the IAD. How much so is not at all clear. In particular, it still appears that even with minimal overall establishment in Canada, minimal if any ties in Canada, and no days in Canada within the previous five years, that the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor application for a PR TD based on H&C reasons has significantly BETTER odds than a long shot. Again, how much so we do not know.

You could research some of the formal, publicly published decisions in such cases to get a better sense of what goes on under-the-hood in IRCC decision-making, but the crux of the case is the PR was removed from Canada when the PR had no agency to choose to stay, and is making the effort to return to Canada at the first opportunity, with few if any other positive H&C factors (minimal or no establishment in Canada; minimal or no ties to Canada). And those cases will not reveal all that much about the current approach employed in Canada's visa offices abroad, recognizing that it is likely that outcomes probably vary, depending on personal factors of course, but also which visa office it is handling the PR TD application.

While the Federal Court case cited by @PMM offers a narrow glimpse into how such cases are being addressed more recently, that decision is largely governed by the typical FC standard of review, not what the underlying policies and practices are. Which is to say, if the result of the IAD decision for Latiesha Faisal went the other way (as it did for her sister, Natalia Faisal), in her favour, Justice Gleeson would likely have upheld that OPPOSITE result. While not on all fours, but a very recent example illustrating the FC deference to the IAD, both generally as well as in young PR H&C cases, see Canada v. Deng, 2021 FC 567 https://canlii.ca/t/jgbg3 . . . which is a case where it was the Minister appealing the IAD decision.

But the Latiesha Faisal case is very much informative if one looks at the IAD decision, rather than the FC decision. And especially if one compares that IAD decision with the IAD decision in regards to her sister, Natalia Faisal. For reference, this is in regards to the following:

IAD decision for Latiesha Faisal 2020 CanLII 103490 https://canlii.ca/t/jcbw9
-- reviewed and upheld Justice Gleeson FC decision: Faisal v. Canada 2021 FC 412 https://canlii.ca/t/jg6tj

IAD decision for Natalia Faisal 2019 CanLII 130873 https://canlii.ca/t/j5l5t

The contrast in outcomes for the sisters could not be more stark. The one who applied for a PR TD soon after turning 18 is the one who lost. Otherwise their respective situations could not be more alike. But one is now a PR. The other is not.

Is There Really a Recent Shift In How the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor Cases Are Decided?

That question is worth considering. To be continued.

In the meantime . . . NOT directly related, but worth mentioning, there is a very recent FC decision that goes into depth about the H&C analysis in regards to a PR issued a 44(1) Report after applying for a new PR card when short of complying with the RO . . . for those following these things, it is a decision worth perusing. See Metallo v. Canada 2021 FC 575 https://canlii.ca/t/jgdc5 . . . to be addressed later, probably in a different thread.

 

[dpenabill]

Following up previous post and further observations about the the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor situation:

Is There Really a Recent Shift In How the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor Cases Are Decided?

There appears to be an increase in the number of reported cases where a PR-Removed-as-a-Minor is denied H&C relief.

We do not know why. Not even all that sure the numbers are climbing.

But we know that when arrests for murder are up that is probably not about law enforcement getting more strict in enforcing homicide. It is more often about more murders happening. (Like currently in that just-about-a-failed-state on our southern border.)

Likewise in regards to this issue. More cases could be mostly about there being more applications by those Removed-as-a-Minor with minimal establishment in Canada, few or no ties in Canada, and an absolute breach of the RO (zero days in Canada within the relevant five years). Could be information provided by consultants and unauthorized consultants. Could be that access to information has been so improved that more people in the world are finding out about this. In the Natalia Faisal case, for example, she found out she might be able to come to Canada as a PR while doing some "research" while in the UK for school.

Other than the apparent increase in numbers (actual statistics about this are elusive at best), there really is little indication of a change in approach by IRCC.

Which leads back to a 2006 FC decision by Justice Barnes which has been very often cited for the proposition that notwithstanding that a young PR is largely dependent on parents, whose decisions can jeopardize the young person's status in Canada, a "claim to relief should not be enhanced by those parental decisions."

This proposition typically supports considering the young PR's reasons for being outside Canada as a NEUTRAL factor. Justice Barnes' decision in Lai (see 2006 FC 1359 https://canlii.ca/t/1pzzm ) has been cited well more than a HUNDRED times, many dozens of times with specific reference to this particular proposition. It is a key fulcrum, in many cases, in the reasoning for DENYING H&C relief to the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor. Again, this is going back to 2006. As in NOT NEW. NOT all that recent.

Note, the Barnes Lai decision itself was not a typical PR-Removed-as-a-Minor case. The PR in that case was still a minor when she applied for and was denied a PR TD. But another aspect of that case looms large: the PR had been IN Canada recently, and indeed was living and going to school in Canada, but was visiting family abroad at the time of applying for the PR TD. At the time of the PR TD application, Ms Lai had been present in Canada for 443 days during the relevant five year time period. Justice Barnes refers to this as "for only 443 days."

Compare that to the cases where we have been seeing H&C relief denied for a PR-Removed-as-a-Minor . . . for many if not most, the number of days in Canada within the relevant five years is ZERO. For many the last time they were in Canada was nearly if not more than a DECADE before the PR TD application is made.

For example, both Natalia and Latiesha Faisal had ZERO days in Canada during the relevant five years.

As @canuck78 said "Just to be clear we are talking about families who never tried to permanently relocate to Canada." And this warrants much emphasis. Frankly, it is remarkable that PRs in situations like Natalia Faisal have been able to keep their PR status, having had so little establishment in Canada.

But that leads to another part of what @canuck78 said that does not add up:

"Being able to secure a PRTD if removed as a minor is not widespread knowledge but seems to have certainly become more well known. I assume that is why it is no longer easy for children under 25 to secure a PRTD."​

As I have noted, I can buy that an increased number of applications by individuals in these situations might explain why there may be more reported cases denying such individuals H&C relief.

But there is no logic suggesting that would be a reason why it is not easy for children under 25 to secure a PR TD. Actually the opposite. The fact that it is not easy for children under 25 to get a PR TD based on H&C reasons, when talking about those never established in Canada, with minimal days and minimal ties in Canada, could explain why an increased number of such applications is resulting in seeing more applications denied.

This in turn leads back to the crux of the H&C case for a PR in breach of the RO. Days in Canada. Establishment in Canada. Ties in Canada. Reason for being outside Canada. Timeliness of making the effort to come back to Canada. (Other H&C factors, like hardship, can have a role but those are more about other immigration H&C calculations, which are not often involved in these Removed-as-a-Minor cases).

I am not certain, no where near it, that it ever was "easy for children under 25 to secure a PRTD" (when, again, they have virtually no establishment, days, or ties in Canada). Again, the Barnes' Lai decision at the least suggests otherwise.

But to reinforce that . . . some additional actual cases, ranging over the time period of 2006 to 2016. NOT that recent.

Katsiaryna Barysevich https://canlii.ca/t/grz9g just 11 or 12 when the PR TD application was made, IAD denied appeal January 2016​

Navneet Khokhar https://canlii.ca/t/gnz9r 18 when denied PR TD (2014), IAD denied appeal July 2015​

brother and sister Karim and Sima Abdul-Jawad https://canlii.ca/t/gfmf2 teens, issued Departure Orders, IAD denied appeal October 2014​

Snehalkumar Ratilal Patel https://canlii.ca/t/gj8zc a teenager when denied a PR TD, and IAD denied appeal in summer 2013​

Murad Cyrus Driver https://canlii.ca/t/1x6p1 a teenager when denied PR TD, and IAD denied appeal summer 2006​

I cite and link these cases to illustrate that minimal establishment, minimal days, and minimal ties in Canada has long posed a high hurdle for young PRs taken outside Canada by their parents. It is no mere coincidence that all these cases (and there are dozens more) cite Justice Barnes in the FC Lai decision. Again, dating back to 2006.

In this forum we have often discussed the Removed-as-a-Minor case as among those with the best chance of success for H&C relief. There really has not been much happening in the last few years to say this has changed much, other than to acknowledge the anecdotal reporting suggesting more in total numbers (not necessarily more percentage wise), and to also acknowledge the arguments made by the Minister's representatives before the IAD and the Federal Court . . . noting, though, the latter are consistent with what was argued in the older cases as well.

And so it seems quite likely that the Removed-as-a-Minor H&C case is still among those with the better odds of relief and keeping status . . . SUBJECT to the omnipresent caveat that there are NO guarantees, and that any breach of the RO puts the PR at risk of losing status. And that the more days in Canada, the more established in Canada, the more ties in Canada, loom very large as major factors influencing how it goes, and this includes how it goes for the PR who was Removed-as-a-Minor.

 

[canuck78]

Following up previous post and further observations about the the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor situation:

Is There Really a Recent Shift In How the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor Cases Are Decided?

There appears to be an increase in the number of reported cases where a PR-Removed-as-a-Minor is denied H&C relief.

We do not know why. Not even all that sure the numbers are climbing.

But we know that when arrests for murder are up that is probably not about law enforcement getting more strict in enforcing homicide. It is more often about more murders happening. (Like currently in that just-about-a-failed-state on our southern border.)

Likewise in regards to this issue. More cases could be mostly about there being more applications by those Removed-as-a-Minor with minimal establishment in Canada, few or no ties in Canada, and an absolute breach of the RO (zero days in Canada within the relevant five years). Could be information provided by consultants and unauthorized consultants. Could be that access to information has been so improved that more people in the world are finding out about this. In the Natalia Faisal case, for example, she found out she might be able to come to Canada as a PR while doing some "research" while in the UK for school.

Other than the apparent increase in numbers (actual statistics about this are elusive at best), there really is little indication of a change in approach by IRCC.

Which leads back to a 2006 FC decision by Justice Barnes which has been very often cited for the proposition that notwithstanding that a young PR is largely dependent on parents, whose decisions can jeopardize the young person's status in Canada, a "claim to relief should not be enhanced by those parental decisions."

This proposition typically supports considering the young PR's reasons for being outside Canada as a NEUTRAL factor. Justice Barnes' decision in Lai (see 2006 FC 1359 https://canlii.ca/t/1pzzm ) has been cited well more than a HUNDRED times, many dozens of times with specific reference to this particular proposition. It is a key fulcrum, in many cases, in the reasoning for DENYING H&C relief to the PR-Removed-as-a-Minor. Again, this is going back to 2006. As in NOT NEW. NOT all that recent.

Note, the Barnes Lai decision itself was not a typical PR-Removed-as-a-Minor case. The PR in that case was still a minor when she applied for and was denied a PR TD. But another aspect of that case looms large: the PR had been IN Canada recently, and indeed was living and going to school in Canada, but was visiting family abroad at the time of applying for the PR TD. At the time of the PR TD application, Ms Lai had been present in Canada for 443 days during the relevant five year time period. Justice Barnes refers to this as "for only 443 days."

Compare that to the cases where we have been seeing H&C relief denied for a PR-Removed-as-a-Minor . . . for many if not most, the number of days in Canada within the relevant five years is ZERO. For many the last time they were in Canada was nearly if not more than a DECADE before the PR TD application is made.

For example, both Natalia and Latiesha Faisal had ZERO days in Canada during the relevant five years.

As @canuck78 said "Just to be clear we are talking about families who never tried to permanently relocate to Canada." And this warrants much emphasis. Frankly, it is remarkable that PRs in situations like Natalia Faisal have been able to keep their PR status, having had so little establishment in Canada.

But that leads to another part of what @canuck78 said that does not add up:

"Being able to secure a PRTD if removed as a minor is not widespread knowledge but seems to have certainly become more well known. I assume that is why it is no longer easy for children under 25 to secure a PRTD."​

As I have noted, I can buy that an increased number of applications by individuals in these situations might explain why there may be more reported cases denying such individuals H&C relief.

But there is no logic suggesting that would be a reason why it is not easy for children under 25 to secure a PR TD. Actually the opposite. The fact that it is not easy for children under 25 to get a PR TD based on H&C reasons, when talking about those never established in Canada, with minimal days and minimal ties in Canada, could explain why an increased number of such applications is resulting in seeing more applications denied.

This in turn leads back to the crux of the H&C case for a PR in breach of the RO. Days in Canada. Establishment in Canada. Ties in Canada. Reason for being outside Canada. Timeliness of making the effort to come back to Canada. (Other H&C factors, like hardship, can have a role but those are more about other immigration H&C calculations, which are not often involved in these Removed-as-a-Minor cases).

I am not certain, no where near it, that it ever was "easy for children under 25 to secure a PRTD" (when, again, they have virtually no establishment, days, or ties in Canada). Again, the Barnes' Lai decision at the least suggests otherwise.

But to reinforce that . . . some additional actual cases, ranging over the time period of 2006 to 2016. NOT that recent.

Katsiaryna Barysevich https://canlii.ca/t/grz9g just 11 or 12 when the PR TD application was made, IAD denied appeal January 2016​

Navneet Khokhar https://canlii.ca/t/gnz9r 18 when denied PR TD (2014), IAD denied appeal July 2015​

brother and sister Karim and Sima Abdul-Jawad https://canlii.ca/t/gfmf2 teens, issued Departure Orders, IAD denied appeal October 2014​

Snehalkumar Ratilal Patel https://canlii.ca/t/gj8zc a teenager when denied a PR TD, and IAD denied appeal in summer 2013​

Murad Cyrus Driver https://canlii.ca/t/1x6p1 a teenager when denied PR TD, and IAD denied appeal summer 2006​

I cite and link these cases to illustrate that minimal establishment, minimal days, and minimal ties in Canada has long posed a high hurdle for young PRs taken outside Canada by their parents. It is no mere coincidence that all these cases (and there are dozens more) cite Justice Barnes in the FC Lai decision. Again, dating back to 2006.

In this forum we have often discussed the Removed-as-a-Minor case as among those with the best chance of success for H&C relief. There really has not been much happening in the last few years to say this has changed much, other than to acknowledge the anecdotal reporting suggesting more in total numbers (not necessarily more percentage wise), and to also acknowledge the arguments made by the Minister's representatives before the IAD and the Federal Court . . . noting, though, the latter are consistent with what was argued in the older cases as well.

And so it seems quite likely that the Removed-as-a-Minor H&C case is still among those with the better odds of relief and keeping status . . . SUBJECT to the omnipresent caveat that there are NO guarantees, and that any breach of the RO puts the PR at risk of losing status. And that the more days in Canada, the more established in Canada, the more ties in Canada, loom very large as major factors influencing how it goes, and this includes how it goes for the PR who was Removed-as-a-Minor.

For those who have been on the forum for at least 3-5 years there does seem to have been a shift in application approvals and refusals. There is no actual data but by cases discussed on this forum even a few years ago it was pretty common for young adults under 25 to get approved using the reasoning of being removed as a minor against their will. Many had minimal stays in Canada and most had not visited in the past 5 years. Many had not realized that they had retained their PR status. There was a shift to a better chance of approval at 18/19 for your best chance of approval and we were seeing those who had completed their studies or who were coming to do their masters degree in Canada. Based on the comments on this forum the fact that people retain their PR status even while not meeting their RO and that children could use the removed as a minor reason to make an H&C claim seem to have spread to the various immigration forums and become much more well known. The searched cases won’t include the cases that were easily granted PRTDs so it is very hard to determine that not having significant time in Canada factored into the approval of most cases. Many of the cases posted on this forum had very little time in Canada yet received PRTD easily. Time spent in Canada and age when one applied for the PRTD based on H&C seems to have become more of a consideration. There is also inconsistencies depending on who is hearing the case.

 

[manpreet4875]

First of all I am thankful to resected members of this forum who have not only responded but given their views based on facts and critical analysis of the situations/circumstances. Very in-depth reply with great intellect.
Respected members have shared data & decisions of federal court as well.
I just want to know, is there any data available for the first attempt PRTD approval from Canadian embassy outside Canada for people "Removed as Children". Because mostly people go for IAD & Federal court when embassy deny the PRTD. Definitely there will be people who dont go to IAD even after denial of PRTD, because appeal/going to court, is a long process which not only takes much time but also involve good amount of money (paying to immigration lawyers).

 

[armoured]

First of all I am thankful to resected members of this forum who have not only responded but given their views based on facts and critical analysis of the situations/circumstances. Very in-depth reply with great intellect.
Respected members have shared data & decisions of federal court as well.
I just want to know, is there any data available for the first attempt PRTD approval from Canadian embassy outside Canada for people "Removed as Children". Because mostly people go for IAD & Federal court when embassy deny the PRTD. Definitely there will be people who dont go to IAD even after denial of PRTD, because appeal/going to court, is a long process which not only takes much time but also involve good amount of money (paying to immigration lawyers).

If your question is just "is there publicly available information on how many such applications and approval / refusal rates" for such cases, not that I am aware of.

You're right that IAD and federal court cases will only be a fraction of total cases - first and foremost because approvals don't get appealed, and then not all refusals will be appealed.

 

[dpenabill]

just want to know, is there any data available for the first attempt PRTD approval from Canadian embassy outside Canada for people "Removed as Children". Because mostly people go for IAD & Federal court when embassy deny the PRTD. Definitely there will be people who dont go to IAD even after denial of PRTD, because appeal/going to court, is a long process which not only takes much time but also involve good amount of money (paying to immigration lawyers).

In addition to what @armoured commented . . .

The cost for making a PR TD application is quite small compared to the cost of actually making the move to Canada. It is a small gamble for someone who is actually prepared to take advantage of the opportunity if the application is successful. But for a 18 or 19 year old to make the move to Canada alone, that is a big step, no easy feat in itself.

Beyond that, if the PR TD application is denied, yes the process of pursuing an appeal tends to be more involved and unless the PR incurs the expense of good representation, the odds of success are not good. Even with an expensive lawyer, the odds of succeeding in the appeal are not all that great.

So for many in this situation, the PR TD application is likely the shot they take. If it succeeds, and if the young PR is able to follow through, that's their opportunity to retain status in Canada, study or work here. If it fails, trying to keep PR status is no longer an option they pursue. Some appeal, like the Faisal sisters. But the odds of the appeal succeeding tend to go down, not up. So, again, for many the PR TD application is the one shot they take, and then go with however that turns out.

Of course we do not know actual numbers. Echoing what @armoured noted. Somewhat contrary to inferences @canuck78 appears to make . . . for all we know, the increased number of reported PR TD denials could be more than offset by an increasing number of applications with favourable outcomes we simply do not see, no appeal necessary; not that I am suggesting this is the case, not at all, and my sense is that IF there is a trend, a significant "IF," if there is a trend it probably is in the direction of more applications denied, both in number and percentage-wise. BUT it demands emphasizing that we do not really know the numbers . . . and that we also do not know that in the past it was all that "easy" for the no-establishment Removed-as-a-Minor PR either, as I cited and linked just a few of the cases illustrating instances in which it was not.

Which overall points back to the short answer by @scylla. That really did cover it. Take the shot soon after reaching the age of 18. Since it is a no-establishment-in-Canada case, near impossible to forecast what the visa office will decide.