OVERALL: I cannot be certain, of course, but it appears likely you were waived through and are good to go, meaning good to stay. Much as it seems
your lawyer forecast. And similar to many other anecdotal reports the last couple years suggesting that border officials are commonly exercising a good deal of leeway and leniency toward returning PRs in breach of the RO.
If the officer asked to verify your contact information in Canada, that could mean there will be a follow-up, which I will address more below. If so, the main thing to be sure about is that the contact information you verified will in fact facilitate your receipt of communications from either CBSA or IRCC. If the border officer did not verify your contact information in Canada that is a strong indication there will be no follow-up, which again most likely means you are good to go, as in good to stay.
You do not need to make a PR card application within 30 days. You have previously suggested
you have a very strong H&C case, but even the best H&C case is risky, and there is a tendency among many PRs to overestimate the strength of the H&C case. At least wait awhile and think through things more before proceeding with a PR card application. Safest approach is to not make the PR card application until you have stayed in Canada long enough to get into RO compliance.
However, the reference to "
30 days" demands some attention, since that is the period of time within which an appeal of a Removal Order must be made. If you are certain the officer said to make a PR card application within 30 days, that's good, as that would signal what happens next is your move.
You would only need to appeal if you have been issued a Departure Order or a Removal Order (different names for essentially the same thing), which is paperwork that would have been physically delivered into your hands.
Beyond that, there are lowercase "reports" and the "Report," typically capitalized in this forum and referencing the formal 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, leading to a more lengthy explanation . . .
Port-of-Entry Examination Resulting in a "report" or a "Report" and Related Matters:
The basic procedures in regards to screening PRs for RO compliance at a PoE have not changed much over the years. What I posted here
back in 2014, for example, still fairly describes the procedure and many of the citations with links are still valid; see
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/an-important-question-please.249800/#post-3802572
There have been some minor changes since then, and over the years I have refined my understanding some, but perhaps ironically in that post I referenced the migration away from Operational Manuals to Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs), and here we are more than seven years later and for PoE examinations, writing 44(1) Reports, and operational guidelines for procedures related to the loss of PR status, the Enforcement Manuals cited back then are still in use. That said, the migration to PDIs is still ongoing, and there is currently quite a lot of overlap, and where there is overlap the PDIs are generally current. Note, NEITHER are official, NOR binding, but are guidelines. In any event, in that post I link five of the most relevant Enforcement Manuals which cover these and related procedures. Link to portal for links to PDIs and Operational Manuals is here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html
So . . . some more in-depth explanation with observations:
Border officials can make a referral, or a "
report," to IRCC, which can lead to an inquiry or investigation into a PR's admissibility, including Residency Obligation compliance, which in turn can result in a formal RO compliance examination. If that happens, that in turn can result in the preparation of a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility, which will be reviewed by a second officer (technically designated the "Minister's Delegate") who will decide whether to issue a Removal Order, or set the the "Report" aside allowing the PR to retain PR status based on H&C considerations. You would be contacted if this procedure was implemented.
That is NOT the usual procedure, however, at least not at most major Port-of-Entry stations. And we do not see many anecdotal reports of this. And I have not noticed these kinds of cases in the IAD decisions (PoE cases are easy to distinguish in the officially published decisions because the Minister for Public Safety is a party rather than the Minister of IRCC).
The usual procedure at most major PoE stations, for a PR determined to be in breach of the RO, is to prepare the 44(1) Report and refer that to a second officer for review while the PR is still there in the PoE. Same procedure follows as referenced above, as conducted by a local IRCC office, except this is before CBSA immigration officers and, again, is usually done while the PR is still in the PoE. Second, reviewing officer, cannot issue a Removal Order without considering any and all H&C factors the PR presents.
This is subject to exceptions, including deferring the review of the prepared 44(1) Report for later, allowing the PR to proceed into Canada to be contacted later for an interview or hearing by, again, a second officer who technically is designated the Minister's Delegate. (Common situations resulting in such a deferral include a PoE with no second CBSA immigration officer available who can act as the Minister's Delegate and one is not immediately accessible by telephone.)
Note the distinction between the lowercase "report," for which "referral" is probably a more apt term, in contrast to the 44(1) Report for inadmissibility, which many in this forum simply refer to as being "Reported."
For your recent PoE experience, the absence of more in-depth questioning, and if in particular there was no discussion about your reasons for not returning to Canada sooner, or otherwise an opportunity to offer H&C factors, is a big signal there was no capitalized "Report" (the formal 44(1) Report) prepared. But no one here was present, while you were, so you are in the better position to know the details about what happened.
Frankly, it sounds like a fairly common PoE experience in posted anecdotal accounts here, and one that seems was forecast by your lawyer:
Note: Generally I would defer to "your lawyer," but in that post your queries about the procedure at the PoE suggested your lawyer had not explained things well enough to answer your questions.
So, as I noted, we have been seeing a lot of leeway and leniency exercised by PoE officers more or less recognizing that a returning PR is in breach of the RO, but not proceeding to make a formal determination the PR is in breach. The PR is waived through, no 44(1) Report prepared, no Removal Order issued. Sometimes the PR is cautioned or admonished in regards to the RO, but basically the PR is given the opportunity to establish a life in Canada. It appears this is sometimes happening at the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) but also happening in Secondary.
If the CBSA immigration officer in Secondary determines the PR is in breach (a more definite, affirmatively overt conclusion than merely recognizing or identifying the PR is likely in breach), that will result in the preparation of the 44(1) Report, which again is promptly referred to a second officer to review.
SUMMARY: it appears you were waived through and all is well. If they checked your contact information, in Canada, it is important that is indeed that contact information is correct.
