Can we enter Canada in private car with COPR in absence of PR card
- Thread starter amitknai7
- Start date
Any idea what is the best way to enter Montreal via US border, flight from India to US
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/services/hwyb-autof-eng.html
Here’s a map
Pick the POE nearest to Montreal
Not exactly. As long as the PR has evidence that they are in fact a PR, they cannot be denied entry. A valid PR Card, while being the best proof, is not the only proof.
If you are a PR, you don't show your PR card to CBSA when you return to Canada at all?
Yes, but it is not mandatory to enter Canada. Further, when people see "You must have a valid PR Card to return to Canada", that is not applicable to all PRs; U.S. passport holders are exempt, because the requirement is not a CBSA requirement, rather a requirement of a commercial carrier (airline, bus, train, vessel, etc.). U.S. persons can travel (return) to Canada on the strength of their passport...unless the carrier determines that they are also a PR. But even then...because of the bilateral agreement with most airlines between U.S. and Canada, carriers don't seem to deny travel without the card. Not an absolute guarantee, of course.
CBSA officers have very broad discretion in deciding questions of fact and applying the law to what they determine the facts are.
They do not have discretion to deny entry to a traveler they identify or recognize is a Canadian, either a Canadian citizen or a Canadian Permanent Resident. My sense is this is what @Ponga was referring to when stating "Not exactly" in response to @steaky's affirmation that CBSA officers have discretion to allow or deny entry. That is, as I understand it, @Ponga was noting that CBSA does not exactly have discretion to deny a PR entry . . . nonetheless, the operative conditional, here, is that the traveler is in fact a Canadian PR. Which is a question of fact, and technically the burden of proving that fact is on the traveler.
"Discretion" is actually one of those powerful terms with profound implications, and its role in decision-making in Western rule-of-law countries, and the related jurisprudence, has been researched, digested, analyzed, catalogued, and wrestled with at great length. Reviewed by the courts at great length and in great depth. There are many entire books which are dominated by if not primarily about what discretion is, how it is exercised, how it structured and restrained and reviewed, and in all sorts of contexts, including law enforcement decision-making and administrative decision-making, as well as higher level decision-making in the judicial and quasi-judicial context, as well as decision-making tribunals reviewing the exercise of discretion by law enforcement, administrators, judges in administrative law and quasi-judicial contexts, as well as review of lower courts by courts with superior jurisdiction, both as to the exercise of discretion by lower courts and their review of exercises of discretion .
So, in most contexts involving applications of law to facts, discretion itself is "not exactly" a freedom to personally decide what will done, even if it is a personal judgment. The very broad discretion CBSA officers have does not give them the freedom to deny entry to Canadians.
But they do have broad discretion in deciding whether the information available to them is sufficient to positively identify a traveler and the traveler's status in Canada. Border officials can even doubt that a passport issued by the officials' own country sufficiently establishes the identity of a traveler who presents it.
In a way I have been there, done that, not Canadian officials . . . long story I've probably posted too many times.
In any event, the broad discretion of Canadian border officers is structured and governed by law, regulations, rules, reason, and principles of fair procedure, most of which is reflected in manuals and practice guides (in addition to the PDIs the ENF Operational Manuals still appear to be a primary guide, along with whatever internal but not public practice guides the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness employs). In my experience, and but for isolated cases otherwise, Canadian border officials generally seem to follow the law and regulations, practice guidelines (at least close though not precisely), and do so within a sensible range of reason and fairness, as much as border officials in most rule-of-law countries and better than many others -- especially those where demanding a "bite" is standard practice . . . something I was never any good navigating, since it was almost never something said out loud . . . thinking about the times I have waited and waited to be given my paperwork, not realizing I needed to discretely make a small donation, like giving a hotel attendant (formerly called bellboy) a tip.
Leading to . . .
Practice Versus Theory, Versus Probable, Versus the Range of What Is Practically Possible:
@Ponga references the big, big difference in documentation necessary to comply with regulations governing commercial transportation requiring travelers to present very specific documents showing authority to enter Canada, in order to board the means of transportation headed to Canada. Screening at a Canadian Port-of-Entry is an entirely different procedure (even though there is significant overlap, both concerned with establishing authority to enter Canada).
This discussion is about PoE procedure, not about what it takes to board transportation coming to Canada.
A valid passport will almost always (but NOT always) establish a traveler's identity and at a Canadian PoE be sufficient to establish a Canadian's status in Canada, be that citizen or PR. For PRs, some additional documentation showing PR status, or at least showing residency in Canada, makes it a lot easier for border officers to verify the PR/traveler's identity and status. A valid PR card or valid PR TD works best, since not only do these document the traveler's status (they are official status documents) as a PR, but ostensibly indicate there are no admissibility issues (which for example, however, does not preclude further examination as to Residency Obligation compliance in circumstances indicating potential RO compliance issues). An expired PR card is the next best document to show Canadian status, but may invite RO questions. A CoPR is the next best, as direct documentation of PR status. Drivers' licenses and provincial health cards and other government issued ID can help.
Once CBSA has established the traveler's identity and Canadian status, the law dictates the traveler is entitled to enter Canada.
So, in practice, it is unusual for a returning PR to encounter any problem. Even a PR who only has a home country passport.
In theory it is possible border officials conclude the traveler is not a PR and deny entry. Still, for those who actually are a PR, even if inadmissible, the probability of being allowed entry into Canada is very high so long as they can more or less positively establish their identity, since that will enable the border officials to verify status in their system. The range of what is practically possible depends on individual factors, like the extent to which the traveler looks like the person in the passport photo, and if there are questions, the quality of collateral identification (again, with preference for a PR card).
PoE No Place to Play Games:
I have been a citizen for a long while now (time flies), so I am not personally acquainted with current PoE practices in screening returning PRs. Generally, nonetheless, Canadian officials (like those in many if not most countries) prefer Canadian travelers present documentation showing their Canadian status. For PRs, I do not know the extent to which they currently want BOTH a PR card and passport. But ultimately presenting both is the most simple and easiest way to facilitate the application for permission to enter Canada at the PoE.
Obviously, and of course, the main thing is to present what border officers ask for.
PRs do not need to volunteer they are a PR UNLESS asked about their status in Canada, in which event they MUST be truthful (and a failure to be truthful can be grounds for inadmissibility and loss of PR status). But it's not a good idea to play that game. The PoE is no place to play games. Those who do, do so at their peril, at the least at risk of much inconvenience even if there is no substantive issue that could cause a problem. And if there is an issue (like being short of RO compliance), just the appearance of being evasive, let alone deceptive, can lead to rather predictable outcomes. Not a good approach.
Meanwhile . . . it is clear that PRs who do not have RO compliance issues need NOT worry, the border experience will generally be no problem, even if the PR does not have a currently valid PR card . . . and even those with RO compliance issues, entry will be allowed, even if that is subject to inadmissibility proceedings.
That said, for many the trick is getting to Canada. Again, that's another story.
Last edited: