. . . convinced that the problem would be with the officer at Primary, since I can't use my U.S. Passport to re-enter Canada as a `visitor', if I'm a PR of Canada. It would depend on what the officer wanted to do, which would not be fair to my spouse...wondering if only one of us would be `going home' after a very long flight.
Overall I concur in remarks made by
@armoured above. . . . well, I'll reserve judgment as to the referenced agent's state of knowledge.
Otherwise, frankly, it seems much ado about nothing here.
Stuff happens, so we see an occasional incident reported like that reported by
@scylla in regards to trouble boarding a flight from Korea to the U.S. But generally, per the regulations, the rules, the policies and practices, a Canadian PR should and almost always will be allowed to board a flight to Canada from abroad if they present a U.S. passport. No PR card necessary. Not complicated . . . unless there are other matters in play, ranging from pandemic response measures to individual security issues, with all sorts of potential mistakes possible (I was once denied boarding a domestic flight erroneously, and the only compensation was an apology and a better seat on a flight the next day).
Apart from the
stuff happens stuff . . . for a PR living in Canada for well over two years, and in Canada a lot before that, as noted before "
there should be NO concern at all about relying on a U.S. passport when traveling and returning to Canada," AND similarly "
in regards to making the application for a new PR card."
Further, apart from the
stuff happens stuff . . .
To be clear, a Canadian Permanent Resident will NOT and cannot enter Canada as a "
visitor," regardless which passport the PR carries or presents to border officials. EVEN IF the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) officer waives a U.S. citizen and Canadian PR through more or less "
as a visitor," based on presentation of a U.S. passport, that is in error or at least not recognizing the American traveler is also a Canadian PR, and it does not have any effect on the status the PR has upon entering Canada. PRs are Canadians, not Foreign Nationals, and ONLY FNs can enter Canada as a visitor.
How or why such an error occurred can be a subject worth addressing. Or, more to the point, what the traveler says to the PIL officer can matter. It is one thing to present a U.S. passport as identification to a border official and another to make representations concealing the fact that one is a Canadian PR. Several years ago, during the Harper administration, some serious teeth were added to provisions governing making misrepresentations in the process of applying for entry into Canada. Misrepresentation by omission is a real thing. Misrepresentation attendant an application to enter Canada is grounds for finding a PR inadmissible (potentially leading to loss of PR status), despite the fact that as a PR the individual is statutorily entitled to enter Canada. That is, despite a right to enter Canada, a PR does not have a right to make misrepresentations in the course of being examined when entering Canada, and again, misrepresentation by omission is real.
A PR just presenting a U.S. passport without saying more is NOT at all, nowhere near at all likely to trigger insinuations let alone accusations of misrepresentation. It is unlikely, even, if the PR explicitly says he is a U.S. citizen in response to a question about nationality or where he is from, and presents the U.S. passport, with no mention he is actually also a Canadian.
And if waived through, no problem. As much as the officer may believe she waived a U.S. citizen into Canada as a "
visitor," that individual is a PR, a Canadian, not eligible to enter Canada as a visitor. And thus enters and is in Canada as a PR.
If there is a problem, it's more likely to arise when a PIL officer scans the passport and sees the traveler is a Canadian. Even then, odds are it is no big deal, none at all, and the PIL officer may even still just waive the traveler, the PR through (which again would not be as a "visitor," but as a PR). At worst, typically, there might be a question or two to clarify the traveler's status. The manner of border questioning varies widely, deliberately so (largely to avoid predictability and reduce the extent to which travelers can rely on prepared scripts), but the gist of such exchanges is readily apparent and not complicated. Which brings this to one of the last observations by
@armoured . . . regarding credibility . . . or more to the point, as
@armoured not so delicately framed things (albeit in reference to reporting travel history): "
it's worse if they think you're a liar." Yep. Even then, though, the worst from the PIL exchange is a referral to Secondary and plenty of opportunity in Secondary to be open and honest. For PRs it is not a
gotcha-game . . . the extent of leniency in the enforcement of the rules governing PRs might seem rather remarkable if one overlooks that Canadians generally trust Canadians, and border officials like IRCC officials recognize PRs to be Canadians.
But of course if and when a PR has clearly crossed the line, well, the rules govern. Of course. And again, as
@armoured not so delicately framed things: "
it's worse if they think you're a liar." Yep. Yep. Yep.
But credibility can be significantly compromised, and that can hurt, even if there is no suspicion of deliberate misrepresentation, overtly or by omission. Obviously, if officers perceive willful deception or even evasion, that not only invites more questions but escalates the degree if not the severity of scrutiny. However, credibility is not just about lying, but about the extent to which an individual is seen as an unreliable reporter of facts.
Bringing this to the citizenship application context versus PR card renewal. Everyone makes mistakes. IRCC and CBSA are well aware of and understand the dynamics at play. They adjust and adapt and accommodate. More so than many in a forum like this will allow them credit. Again, they are not about playing
gotcha-games. So if the PR makes a reasonable effort to be complete and accurate, and otherwise acknowledges what is estimated, within a reasonable range, even in the context of a citizenship application some discrepancies are not at all problematic. Context matters.
. . . . unlike applying for Canadian Citizenship where it DOES seem to be a requirement to have zero errors in travel dates . . .
Not really. It is more important in the context of a citizenship application, but that is in large part for two big reasons: that is about granting a very important thing, citizenship, and the physical present requirement is absolute.
But even in that context, if the applicant is credible, and if there is a sufficient margin of presence to override any mistakes, and there is no reason to apprehend the applicant cannot be relied upon to be a generally reliable reporter, some mistakes, some discrepancies, will not hurt . . . we have seen cases where applicants missed reporting trips of three weeks or so, but had a margin, and during their interview acknowledged the mistake, the omission, believably so, no problem.
. . . . I wonder how much credence a personal `Travel Journal' will lend for a U.S. Citizen/ Canadian PR, if exit data is sporadically available to IRCC when they need travel history evidence; especially if it differs from whatever CBSA is able to produce to them?
The point of keeping a travel journal is to accurately and completely report all trips, all exits, all entries. Obviously, if there is a discrepancy between the PR's travel journal and other reliable evidence, yeah, that's not good. Not only is the PR at the least not an entirely reliable reporter of facts, but the PR is not even a reliable record-keeper.
Again . . . some discrepancies are common and not at all problematic. But of course discrepancies are a prime indicator of an applicant's failure to be a reliable reporter . . . in which case "why" can lurch into play as much as how big the discrepancy is.
