Classic law school case, not classical....please HELP!

[cango2017]

The situation is complicated and precarious enough that, as others have suggested, obtaining the assistance of a qualified legal professional in Canada is a good idea.

And, the situation is complicated and precarious enough that it would be impossible to come anywhere near close to adequately addressing this in the context of a forum discussion . . . another reason that a lawyer is a good idea.

Nonetheless I will address just some aspects.

Generally there is nothing wrong, let alone illegal, about traveling to Canada via the U.S. And a person with PR status who does this will be allowed to enter Canada. If they are a PR but they are not in compliance with the Residency Obligation, they can be subject to an inadmissibility Report and issued a Removal Order, but they would still be allowed into Canada and can appeal that.

BUT it appears in the course of applying to make a sponsorship application, concerns about RO compliance may have triggered a similar inadmissibility Report and proceedings on that . . . and if so, the precise outcome of those proceedings is critical.

It is not clear but you seem to be saying this happened but there was a favourable outcome, no Removal Order, and in effect a decision she still has PR status.

Assuming she still has PR status, to save her PR status she probably needs to come to Canada, and come to stay (for a good long while anyway), as soon as she can.

If she can travel via the U.S., that is probably a better choice than applying for a PR TD. But she can apply for a PR TD and make the H&C case in that application, and if a PR TD is granted, then she can come to Canada and may be able to save her citizenship application (it is not clear if the citizenship application can be saved; if not, she would have to start that over).

So, if she still has PR status and she can travel via the U.S., there is nothing wrong or illegal about traveling to Canada that way. She cannot be and will not be refused entry into Canada. HOWEVER, it is indeed likely that there is an alert in her GCMS records which will trigger a referral to Secondary at the Port-of-Entry. Since she is short of compliance with the Residency Obligation and obviously so (as I understand the situation she has now been outside Canada since 2018), there is a risk that she will have an inadmissibility Report prepared against her. If so (and frankly that seems likely but I do not know how it will actually go), she will then have an opportunity to make the H&C case why she should be allowed to keep PR status.

If a Removal Order is issued, again she can enter Canada and then initiate an appeal, and go from there. Best to get a lawyer. If, at the PoE, she is waived through into Canada, or if need be she succeeds in persuading a reviewing officer to not issue a Removal Order for H&C reasons, her PR status is OK. She can enter Canada and notify IRCC she is in Canada and prepared to proceed with her citizenship application. Main difficulty is that will still involve staying and waiting.

Meanwhile there are other aspects of the situation which . . . well, again, it is complicated. Even assuming she is allowed to keep PR status and even if she then is able to follow through and complete the citizenship application process, and become a Canadian citizen, it is not clear what the status of sponsoring you will be. Another question for a lawyer if and when she gets that far.

Note: the IRCC official conducting the interview probably had lots of reasons, from the perspective of a total stranger bureaucrat evaluating the case, justifying concerns of various sorts. And even if a Citizenship Officer goes out of their way to find a reason to deny the application, what matters is whether they do find a legitimate reason to deny the application. For an applicant who has been outside Canada so long as to prima facie appear in breach of the Residency Obligation, and a PR who attempted to sponsor a spouse while ineligible to do so (being outside Canada -- it is not sufficient to be in Canada just at the time of making the application), let alone a PR who has been subject to a Residency Determination proceeding (which it appears has happened), there are almost certainly going to be concerns about whether the applicant STILL meets all the qualifying requirements for a grant of citizenship.

So, best to get a lawyer's help . . . and otherwise continue to be honest and open and cooperative, and if she wants to save her PR status, let alone the chance to become a citizen, to come to Canada as soon as possible, and come prepared to stay.

Thank you so much dpenabill for time and thought taking on our topics!

Generally there is nothing wrong, let alone illegal, about traveling to Canada via the U.S. And a person with PR status who does this will be allowed to enter Canada. If they are a PR but they are not in compliance with the Residency Obligation, they can be subject to an inadmissibility Report and issued a Removal Order, but they would still be allowed into Canada and can appeal that.

I do agree with it. This is what we understand as well. However, the officer did emphasize during interviews that my wife couldn't come back from US, as quoted her: "I don't like people sneaking in purposely. " Then she addressed that she would leave notes for the border. So according to what happened here, she was very obsessive that she made a decision instead of the border office. Then the PRTD is a must for wife's next citizenship process which is the oath. Honestly, I've never heard someone being treated like this in this stage. So the question is raised that as you addressed as well, that if she did come back via US, say she's lucky to be entered in with our two kids together. How about the additional documents that the officer asked in the letter? In this case the PRTD? I can imagine that if my wife could come back in Canada, this officer would be really pissed off. Can she deny the application though? Or would she still be required to have PRTD even she's within Canada?

If a Removal Order is issued, again she can enter Canada and then initiate an appeal, and go from there. Best to get a lawyer. If, at the PoE, she is waived through into Canada, or if need be she succeeds in persuading a reviewing officer to not issue a Removal Order for H&C reasons, her PR status is OK. She can enter Canada and notify IRCC she is in Canada and prepared to proceed with her citizenship application. Main difficulty is that will still involve staying and waiting.

Another way around, it would be that she got an inadmissibility Report at PoE.(I guess this would come with a great possibility due to interview officer's flagging) Say she's got that report and allowed to enter for appeal, is her PR status being revoked right away? Or not until the appeal went to negative? That will be effectively resulted in her citizenship application as I supposed that officer would refuse it as soon as the instance showing in IRCC system. To offset her anger and enforcement power.

Yes, we definitely will be looking for a lawyer, just would like to talk about the pros and cons in the meantime.

Thanks again!

 

[cango2017]

Thank you so much dpenabill for time and thought taking on our topics!



I do agree with it. This is what we understand as well. However, the officer did emphasize during interviews that my wife couldn't come back from US, as quoted her: "I don't like people sneaking in purposely. " Then she addressed that she would leave notes for the border. So according to what happened here, she was very obsessive that she made a decision instead of the border office. Then the PRTD is a must for wife's next citizenship process which is the oath. Honestly, I've never heard someone being treated like this in this stage. So the question is raised that as you addressed as well, that if she did come back via US, say she's lucky to be entered in with our two kids together. How about the additional documents that the officer asked in the letter? In this case the PRTD? I can imagine that if my wife could come back in Canada, this officer would be really pissed off. Can she deny the application though? Or would she still be required to have PRTD even she's within Candada?



Another way around, it would be that she got an inadmissibility Report at PoE.(I guess this would come with a great possibility due to interview officer's flagging) Say she's got that report and allowed to enter for appeal, is her PR status being revoked right away? Or not until the appeal went to negative? That will be effectively resulted in her citizenship application as I supposed that officer would refuse it as soon as the instance showing in IRCC system. To offset her anger and enforcement power.

Yes, we definitely will be looking for a lawyer, just would like to talk about the pros and cons in the meantime.

Thanks again!

I mean what the consequences are if we don't follow what the IRCC letter requested, in this case coming along back to Canada via US. Would it be denied for citizenship, wouldn't it?

Also our thought is to try best to go through the citizenship, and even if our sponsorship can't work out. We can still apply again later. However, at this circumstances, it seems my wife is about to lose her PR status only as one step ahead to be the citizen. Any ideas how can we possibly keep up this citizenship case?

 

[firstax]

I mean what the consequences are if we don't follow what the IRCC letter requested, in this case coming along back to Canada via US. Would it be denied for citizenship, wouldn't it?

Also our thought is to try best to go through the citizenship, and even if our sponsorship can't work out. We can still apply again later. However, at this circumstances, it seems my wife is about to lose her PR status only as one step ahead to be the citizen. Any ideas how can we possibly keep up this citizenship case?

In my opinion ( not legal advice disclaimer), it doesn't look like she can keep the citizenship application going because she doesn't meet the residency requirements which is living 3 out of 5 years in Canada.

She has to meet the residency requirements continuously until she receives the citizenship.

If by some means she is able to keep the permanent residence then she would have to stay long enough in Canada to qualify again for a citizenship application.

 

[cango2017]

In my opinion ( not legal advice disclaimer), it doesn't look like she can keep the citizenship application going because she doesn't meet the residency requirements which is living 3 out of 5 years in Canada.

She has to meet the residency requirements continuously until she receives the citizenship.

If by some means she is able to keep the permanent residence then she would have to stay long enough in Canada to qualify again for a citizenship application.

No. She has meet the eligiblity of residency requirements(1095 days).
Even if she didn't fulfil the RO afterwards, however, her PR status is still valid. There's nothing to do with the citizenship officer due to the valid status. Because she doesn't have a Removal order. I guess the application shouldn't be denied at this point. However, this point has to be supported within the Acts though. Any comments on that?

 

[dpenabill]

Also our thought is to try best to go through the citizenship, and even if our sponsorship can't work out. We can still apply again later. However, at this circumstances, it seems my wife is about to lose her PR status only as one step ahead to be the citizen. Any ideas how can we possibly keep up this citizenship case?

In my opinion ( not legal advice disclaimer), it doesn't look like she can keep the citizenship application going because she doesn't meet the residency requirements which is living 3 out of 5 years in Canada.

She has to meet the residency requirements continuously until she receives the citizenship.

I do not know the status of the citizenship application. There is quite a lot I do not know about the situation. Moreover, I am no expert; I am not a Canadian lawyer or an immigration professional.

To get a better understanding of the situation your wife really needs the assistance of an experienced professional who can go over the factual details in depth.

It is not entirely clear why @firstax says "it doesn't look like she can keep the citizenship application going" since the "because" part of that statement makes no sense. Meeting "the residency requirements which is living 3 out of 5 years in Canada" is based on the five year period preceding the date the application was made; whether that requirement is met is fixed as of the day the application is signed (nothing that happens after that will change whether that requirement was met or not). There is NO continuing need to spend three years in five while the application is pending. It is simply NOT true that an applicant for citizenship must "meet the residency requirements continuously until she receives the citizenship."

The applicant needs to keep valid PR status, and to do that the PR needs to continue spending at least two (NOT three) years in five in Canada to meet the PR Residency Obligation . . . UNLESS they are entitled to and given H&C relief.

This is NOT to say she can successfully continue with the current citizenship application. Maybe she can. Maybe she cannot. I do not know and as I initially noted, the situation is too complex and precarious to fully address in a forum setting like this.

@firstax is correct that if the current citizenship application is denied, but she saves her PR status, to become a Canadian citizen she would have to start over in terms of spending three years IN Canada in order to meet the presence requirement. But that is if the current citizenship application is denied. Again, I do not know if that will be the outcome.

For Now, What Really Matters Upfront Is Keeping PR Status:

The citizenship application will be denied if she loses PR status.

So, assuming the citizenship application is still in process (which it seems to be, although that is not entirely clear), and assuming that so far there are no grounds for denying the application (this part I do not know) so that it is still possible to follow-through with the citizenship application, the outcome of the citizenship application still depends on keeping valid PR status right up to the oath.

Just being in breach of the RO does not, itself, mean she is not eligible for citizenship. But being in breach of the RO puts her at risk of proceedings to enforce the RO, leading to a decision terminating her PR status.

Assuming she still has valid PR status (I remain unclear what happened in the proceedings apparently triggered by the sponsor application), my previous post mostly covered as much as can be addressed in this setting:

-- she can apply for a PR TD, making the H&C case for why she should be allowed to keep PR status;​

-- -- if granted, she saves PR status and if the citizenship application is still in process (not deemed abandoned for example) come to Canada, notify IRCC she is in Canada and that she will proceed with the citizenship application​

-- -- if denied, she can appeal, and pending the outcome of the appeal and assuming she can travel via the U.S., she can come to Canada via that way, and should do that if she has any hope of the appeal succeeding (it is likely the citizenship application will be suspended again, pending outcome of the appeal)​

-- she can travel to Canada via the U.S. (assuming she has status to travel to the U.S.), and she can do this despite what the IRCC official said (and it is not "sneaking" into Canada as long as she discloses her PR status to border officials at the PoE, which they will likely know anyway); odds are there is indeed a flag or "alert" in her GCMS, so the odds are she will be questioned about RO compliance and need to make a good H&C case for why she should be allowed to keep PR status​

-- -- if no Removal Order is issued at the PoE, she is good to stay, and notify IRCC she is IN Canada, and proceed with the citizenship application​

-- -- if a Removal Order is issued, she can enter Canada, appeal the Report and Removal Order; citizenship application would likely be suspended again pending the outcome, although it may be possible that IRCC could deny the application on the grounds she is subject to a Removal Order (I am not sure if pending the appeal the PR-citizenship-applicant is "subject to a Removal Order" or if being subject to a Removal Order means one that is enforceable -- Removal Order is not enforceable as long as the appeal is pending)​

Is It Worth Pursuing?

The path ahead does not look easy, even in the best case scenario. Totally a personal choice whether it is worth the effort and investment it will take just to keep PR status, noting there is no guarantee that will result in her keeping PR status let alone becoming a citizen.

 

[dpenabill]

Some Particulars:

Honestly, I've never heard someone being treated like this in this stage.

As I noted in previous post, there is no shortage of factors in your wife's case that could be expected to trigger elevated scrutiny, doubts, outright skepticism and suspicion, and some outright challenges. It may not seem like a big deal to you that she left Canada soon after making a sponsorship application, but that looks a lot like gaming the system, and it appears there are other factors triggering suspicion. Honestly, in the circumstances you describe, running into this sort of confrontational challenge should be no surprise.

That said, on the other hand, and despite the interviewing officer's attitude, the odds are very good that any decision made will be, as they say, "valid in law." There are exceptions, but generally the process itself is fair (relatively -- processing delays have resulted in unfair processing timelines for scores, something hardwired into the process for now).

Thus . . .

In this case the PRTD? I can imagine that if my wife could come back in Canada, this officer would be really pissed off. Can she deny the application though? Or would she still be required to have PRTD even she's within Canada?

No need to apply for a PR TD if she travels to Canada via the U.S.

Easy to guess why an officer might so vociferously oppose this route . . . a PR TD application would make decision-making easier for the official handling the citizenship application because the outcome of the PR TD application will include a formal "Residency Determination," meaning a formal and official decision as to whether your wife still has valid PR status.

However, the officer did emphasize during interviews that my wife couldn't come back from US, as quoted her: "I don't like people sneaking in purposely. " Then she addressed that she would leave notes for the border. So according to what happened here, she was very obsessive that she made a decision instead of the border office.

It appears the officer has strong suspicions. As I noted, there are factors which, frankly, invited this; again, leaving Canada with a sponsorship application pending is among factors which not only made her ineligible to sponsor but invited suspicion. So it is no surprise the officer has concerns your wife might indeed "sneak" back into Canada (enter Canada without the entry being recorded to her in particular), in some way. And there are indeed ways of doing that. NOT a good idea. NOT going to help things now. As already discussed, repeatedly, yes indeed it is very likely the citizenship official has put an "alert" on your wife's GCMS that border officials will see and likely refer your wife to Secondary for RO compliance screening.

While I cannot say, let alone guarantee, what individual officials can manage to do to an individual's file, the odds are very high the worst of this part is just that there is an "alert," and that will likely trigger the RO compliance screening at the PoE, the outcome of which, in turn, will mostly depend on how good your wife's H&C case is. And the latter, the H&C case, is a big and complicated subject in itself, so if it is possible to get a lawyer's help in figuring out how to best make that case, that would be a good idea . . . otherwise, she just honestly tells her story and let the chips fall where they will.

Another way around, it would be that she got an inadmissibility Report at PoE.(I guess this would come with a great possibility due to interview officer's flagging) Say she's got that report and allowed to enter for appeal, is her PR status being revoked right away? Or not until the appeal went to negative? That will be effectively resulted in her citizenship application as I supposed that officer would refuse it as soon as the instance showing in IRCC system.

I have already covered this . . . twice actually . . . but will approach it one more time:

If an inadmissibility Report is prepared at the PoE, it will most likely be reviewed by another officer then and there, while your wife is still in the PoE. (The second officer's review might be done by telephone a little later.) The second officer decides whether to issue a Removal Order or to set the inadmissibility Report aside (such as for H&C reasons). If the second officer sets the inadmissibility Report aside, that would be a decision allowing your wife to keep PR status . . . and assuming the citizenship application is still pending, that would allow her citizenship application to proceed.

If a Removal Order is issued, that is a decision terminating PR status BUT given the right of appeal it does not take effect immediately. If an appeal is timely filed, the Removal Order remains "unenforceable" pending the outcome of the appeal. So, if there is an appeal, the PR keeps PR status in the meantime. Again, assuming the citizenship application is still pending, this would likely result in suspending processing again, until the appeal is decided (BUT I am not at all sure whether IRCC could proceed to deny the application rather than suspend processing).

 

[cango2017]

Some Particulars:



As I noted in previous post, there is no shortage of factors in your wife's case that could be expected to trigger elevated scrutiny, doubts, outright skepticism and suspicion, and some outright challenges. It may not seem like a big deal to you that she left Canada soon after making a sponsorship application, but that looks a lot like gaming the system, and it appears there are other factors triggering suspicion. Honestly, in the circumstances you describe, running into this sort of confrontational challenge should be no surprise.

That said, on the other hand, and despite the interviewing officer's attitude, the odds are very good that any decision made will be, as they say, "valid in law." There are exceptions, but generally the process itself is fair (relatively -- processing delays have resulted in unfair processing timelines for scores, something hardwired into the process for now).

Thus . . .



No need to apply for a PR TD if she travels to Canada via the U.S.

Easy to guess why an officer might so vociferously oppose this route . . . a PR TD application would make decision-making easier for the official handling the citizenship application because the outcome of the PR TD application will include a formal "Residency Determination," meaning a formal and official decision as to whether your wife still has valid PR status.



It appears the officer has strong suspicions. As I noted, there are factors which, frankly, invited this; again, leaving Canada with a sponsorship application pending is among factors which not only made her ineligible to sponsor but invited suspicion. So it is no surprise the officer has concerns your wife might indeed "sneak" back into Canada (enter Canada without the entry being recorded to her in particular), in some way. And there are indeed ways of doing that. NOT a good idea. NOT going to help things now. As already discussed, repeatedly, yes indeed it is very likely the citizenship official has put an "alert" on your wife's GCMS that border officials will see and likely refer your wife to Secondary for RO compliance screening.

While I cannot say, let alone guarantee, what individual officials can manage to do to an individual's file, the odds are very high the worst of this part is just that there is an "alert," and that will likely trigger the RO compliance screening at the PoE, the outcome of which, in turn, will mostly depend on how good your wife's H&C case is. And the latter, the H&C case, is a big and complicated subject in itself, so if it is possible to get a lawyer's help in figuring out how to best make that case, that would be a good idea . . . otherwise, she just honestly tells her story and let the chips fall where they will.




I have already covered this . . . twice actually . . . but will approach it one more time:

If an inadmissibility Report is prepared at the PoE, it will most likely be reviewed by another officer then and there, while your wife is still in the PoE. (The second officer's review might be done by telephone a little later.) The second officer decides whether to issue a Removal Order or to set the inadmissibility Report aside (such as for H&C reasons). If the second officer sets the inadmissibility Report aside, that would be a decision allowing your wife to keep PR status . . . and assuming the citizenship application is still pending, that would allow her citizenship application to proceed.

If a Removal Order is issued, that is a decision terminating PR status BUT given the right of appeal it does not take effect immediately. If an appeal is timely filed, the Removal Order remains "unenforceable" pending the outcome of the appeal. So, if there is an appeal, the PR keeps PR status in the meantime. Again, assuming the citizenship application is still pending, this would likely result in suspending processing again, until the appeal is decided (BUT I am not at all sure whether IRCC could proceed to deny the application rather than suspend processing).

Very thoughtful and valuable inputs! Much appreciated!

Thank you!

 

[cango2017]

Assuming she still has valid PR status (I remain unclear what happened in the proceedings apparently triggered by the sponsor application), my previous post mostly covered as much as can be addressed in this setting:

-- she can apply for a PR TD, making the H&C case for why she should be allowed to keep PR status;​

-- -- if granted, she saves PR status and if the citizenship application is still in process (not deemed abandoned for example) come to Canada, notify IRCC she is in Canada and that she will proceed with the citizenship application​

-- -- if denied, she can appeal, and pending the outcome of the appeal and assuming she can travel via the U.S., she can come to Canada via that way, and should do that if she has any hope of the appeal succeeding (it is likely the citizenship application will be suspended again, pending outcome of the appeal)​

Got it. Thanks! But one more question here, if she applied PRTD outside, got denied and we then appealed. So while in the process of appealing, she came back Canada from US, would she possibly get the Inadmissiblity Report at PoE like to have a double crossed Removal Orders...? As they are two different departments that handle each of theirs administration(I mean IRCC and CBSA). I was wondering if this could be happened?

 

[dpenabill]

Got it. Thanks! But one more question here, if she applied PRTD outside, got denied and we then appealed. So while in the process of appealing, she came back Canada from US, would she possibly get the Inadmissiblity Report at PoE like to have a double crossed Removal Orders...? As they are two different departments that handle each of theirs administration(I mean IRCC and CBSA). I was wondering if this could be happened?

What actually happens in practice can vary.

Generally, yes, if she appeals the denial of an application for a PR TD, pending the appeal she can enter Canada as a PR, and do that traveling via the U.S. Both CBSA (border officials) and IRCC (including the visa office abroad) use GCMS (Global Case Management System), so they are on the same page (so to say) in regards to a PR's status. The more likely scenario at the border is a referral to Secondary, some questioning which may include some related to her history in and outside Canada, but if the appeal is already pending it is NOT likely there will be an additional inadmissibility Report proceeding initiated. However, what actually happens in practice can vary, so a Report and Removal Order might happen.

 

[cango2017]

What actually happens in practice can vary.

Generally, yes, if she appeals the denial of an application for a PR TD, pending the appeal she can enter Canada as a PR, and do that traveling via the U.S. Both CBSA (border officials) and IRCC (including the visa office abroad) use GCMS (Global Case Management System), so they are on the same page (so to say) in regards to a PR's status. The more likely scenario at the border is a referral to Secondary, some questioning which may include some related to her history in and outside Canada, but if the appeal is already pending it is NOT likely there will be an additional inadmissibility Report proceeding initiated. However, what actually happens in practice can vary, so a Report and Removal Order might happen.

Thank you! @dpenabill

After we've been talking with some legal reps, I'm still confused that the IRCC officer had sent an email to my wife, asked additional docs request, that particularly requested the PRTD visa in written. So although most people recon that my wife should bring kids back to Canada via US, I'm doubted her citizenship application would still go further process without required PRTD? Even if she could get avoid of Removal Order through CBSA. I don't think IRCC will accept the decision or the facts being made from CBSA for her citizenship application. What's your thoughts on this? Many thanks!

 

[dpenabill]

After we've been talking with some legal reps, I'm still confused that the IRCC officer had sent an email to my wife, asked additional docs request, that particularly requested the PRTD visa in written. So although most people recon that my wife should bring kids back to Canada via US, I'm doubted her citizenship application would still go further process without required PRTD? Even if she could get avoid of Removal Order through CBSA. I don't think IRCC will accept the decision or the facts being made from CBSA for her citizenship application. What's your thoughts on this?

Note: take a look at the experience reported (in multiple posts) by @gino007 here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/rq-versus-physical-presence-questionnaires-including-cit-0205.534082/page-30


This is someone who was outside Canada after applying and who was actually issued a Removal Order, who fought to keep PR status and also keep their citizenship application in a status that eventually allowed them, after a successful appeal of the Removal Order, to proceed to taking the oath and becoming a citizen. It is not exactly the same and the fight to save PR status was expensive . . . many thousands of dollars spent.

I'm doubted her citizenship application would still go further process without required PRTD? Even if she could get avoid of Removal Order through CBSA. I don't think IRCC will accept the decision or the facts being made from CBSA for her citizenship application. What's your thoughts on this?​

Remember, I am NO expert, and not qualified to offer personal advice. No one posting here should be considered to be an expert, and any and all "advice" should be considered suspect (with some exceptions, like basic advice which is clearly valid and which is general in nature, not personal; such as advice to not leave questions blank in application forms, or advice to be truthful and as accurate as possible).

And the particular details matter. Big time. In more detail, way more detail, than should be shared in a forum like this.

So I should not try to, and as a practical matter cannot unravel or fully explain what the IRCC officer is actually demanding in regards to the "required PRTD," or explain why.

I can offer this: If your spouse has not applied for a PR TD and has not represented to IRCC she has obtained a PR TD, stating this, that she has not applied for a PR TD, and has not been issued a PR TD, should be a sufficient response to the request for a copy. That would not be grounds for denying the citizenship application. That is, if this is the situation, then further processing of her citizenship application does NOT depend on applying for or presenting a PR TD.

It will, of course, depend on her continuing to have valid PR status.

Some additional observations which may or may not be helpful, including some repetition of previous posts:

(***Note: I am not sure the individual your spouse has been dealing with is a Citizenship Officer rather than a processing agent; so I will refer to this individual as the IRCC "official," simply as the "official," meaning the particular individual who has made the requests regarding your spouse's citizenship application, and a request for a PRTD in particular.)

In general . . . as already stated in this discussion, if your spouse still has PR status and she can travel via the U.S., there is nothing wrong or illegal about traveling to Canada that way. It is not clear that by doing this your spouse will be able to save her PR status, let alone the citizenship application, but it looks like doing this will give her the best chance to save PR and possibly even save the citizenship application. Which is NOT to suggest the odds are anywhere near favourable. I suspect NOT. I suspect the odds are NOT good, not at all good.

A lot can depend on how things go at the Port-of-Entry upon her arrival; but since it is almost certain her GCMS is flagged, and given the length of her absence from Canada, and given the extent to which her primary ties appear to be OUTSIDE Canada (including a spouse living abroad who is not Canadian, that is neither a Canadian PR nor Canadian citizen), best guess is that a Removal Order will be issued. Maybe not. Predicting how these things will go is guessing, just guessing. If a Removal Order is issued she can appeal. This has been discussed in some depth. Odds of success will not be good. To have a decent shot she would likely need to hire a good lawyer and that will be expensive, costing thousands of dollars. See referenced experience posted by @gino007

For purposes of the application for citizenship, it depends on your spouse continuing to have valid PR status (among other things, like not failing to show when scheduled for an in-person event). If her PR status is in question, how the validity of her status is determined is its own procedure, a process separate from the processing of the citizenship application. IRCC can suspend processing the citizenship application if there is a question about the validity of her PR status. But as long as she has valid PR status, the citizenship application cannot be denied on the grounds she does not have valid PR status.

So, for example, if she travels to Canada via the U.S. and CBSA officials at the PoE do NOT prepare a 44(1) Inadmissibility Report, or even if they do but then the reviewing officer declines to issue a Removal Order for H&C reasons, she will be in Canada with valid PR status. It warrants emphasizing this is not likely. But if this is how it goes, her status is valid and the officials processing the citizenship application cannot demand a PR TD. If they were to insist, she could submit a reply stating that there has been no PR TD application (assuming that is true) and there is no PR TD.

The officials handling the citizenship application probably can make a referral to the local IRCC office handling immigration generally, in effect requesting a Residency Determination. But that is not something we have seen. If she is in Canada with valid PR status and is not subject to a pending Inadmissibility Report or Removal Order, the odds are IRCC will proceed with the citizenship application. That can still involve additional non-routine processing, including further RQ-related non-routine processing. But as long as the facts show she met the eligibility requirements, eventually she should be granted citizenship . . . in months, a year, perhaps not for several years . . . depending, of course, on her continuing to be in compliance with the PR RO. ***NOTE: again, there is not much promise this is the way it will go; on the contrary, the odds probably lean heavily toward getting a Removal Order at the PoE.

If a Removal Order is issued, or if a PR TD application is made and denied, and there is an appeal, that can justify suspending the citizenship application. It is not entirely clear, but it is possible that this is also grounds for IRCC to deny the citizenship application. So far, we see more reports consistent with that I referenced and linked above, the experience reported in this forum by @gino007

 

[cango2017]

@dpenabill Thank you vey much for the long post timely spent. I got your sense here. But another voice according to the Removal Order and PRTD refusal is that IRCC may not suspend the citizenship application under a subject to removal order, no matter the Removal Order is unenforceable at the moment. Well, I think IRCC should, but in practice the decision can be varied. So we gonna apply PRTD, and refusal should be expected. Then make appealing and come back via US hopefully, staying in until the appeal finalised.

 

[gino007]

@dpenabill and other experienced members:
I have been asking myself about the experience of @cango2017 above about why an official may ask them to get a PRTD and insist on it on a citizenship application. For one thing, getting a PRTD would involve the embassy in their home country and verification of certain docs that can be obtained more easily while the applicant is abroad (like the verification of entry and exit stamps document from the home country). On the other hand, getting a removal order at POE would involve IAD and CBSA. I can not figure out why the official here has insisted on the PRTD...

 

[cango2017]

@dpenabill and other experienced members:
I have been asking myself about the experience of @cango2017 above about why an official may ask them to get a PRTD and insist on it on a citizenship application. For one thing, getting a PRTD would involve the embassy in their home country and verification of certain docs that can be obtained more easily while the applicant is abroad (like the verification of entry and exit stamps document from the home country). On the other hand, getting a removal order at POE would involve IAD and CBSA. I can not figure out why the official here has insisted on the PRTD...

It can tell during citizenship interview, the officer was very subjective bias with the case. She mentioned twice you cannot come via US on purposely, called "sneak in". As she found my wife's PR card expired and in breaching of RO. So she wants to set up a process to close us off as @dpenabill analyzed previously. I cannot understand either in fact. If people can go back to Oath, why would you bother not to? Thinking about our case In depth, IRCC seems still has valid actions in law even if you could get rid of Removal Order from CBSA, not even likely in our case though. Could you pls share a bit of your experience about appealing RO? Thank you.

 

[armoured]

@dpenabill and other experienced members:
I have been asking myself about the experience of @cango2017 above about why an official may ask them to get a PRTD and insist on it on a citizenship application. For one thing, getting a PRTD would involve the embassy in their home country and verification of certain docs that can be obtained more easily while the applicant is abroad (like the verification of entry and exit stamps document from the home country). On the other hand, getting a removal order at POE would involve IAD and CBSA. I can not figure out why the official here has insisted on the PRTD...

I think the reason is rather straightforward - from an administrative perspective, it's quite clear that the presumption of non-compliance with the RO is strong when a PR is applying for a PRTD abroad. Or in more simple terms: IRCC officers processing PRTD requests are (or at least seem to be) more consistently strict about non-compliance and deny PRTD applications more frequently than CBSA officers at ports of entry. It also means that the applicant cannot return to Canada (or at least much less easily) and so less likely to result in long appeals processes while the applicant potentially accrues more of a basis for H&C consideration. (I'd be willing to bet that a far higher percentage of such cases are just dropped by the applicant and not appealed - so cost savings for government).

She mentioned twice you cannot come via US on purposely, called "sneak in". As she found my wife's PR card expired and in breaching of RO. So she wants to set up a process to close us off

My impression stated above greatly reinforced by this point here: the officer seems to perceive the process at ports of entry to be much less rigorous and strict and akin to 'sneaking in' (even if it doesn't actually constitute sneaking). And quite probably the officer involved does think the facts don't warrant any leniency and wishes to 'close it off'.

A separate point is whether the officer's statement telling the applicant not to come by land is in any meaningful way 'enforceable.' My guess is not, it's only their preference stated with some vague potential problems referred to as a warning. (A lawyer would probably consider whether this type of warning is permissible - but that's way beyond my knowledge).

Now, whether this opinion or communicating the warning not to cross at a border is 'subjective' or unfair or somehow represents a bias - I have no opinion as don't know the whole story. I would just note that the individual should take scrupulous and detailed notes as close as possible to the time this occurred and - should it come to that - share with a lawyer.

My impression is that even if there is what appears (to the applicant) to be bias, it is very far from that to having something actionable (in an appeal or otherwise) that would help one's case. And certainly not cheap. The power that the officers have to exercise leniency with respect to H&C considerations is a power that requires them to exercise judgment in the face of incomplete or imperfect factual evidence, and where there is judgment, there is no system in the world where personal opinions (positive or negative) do not enter in to some degree.

That does not mean that the judgment exercised (or bias if you prefer) is automatically impermissible and hence a basis to overturn that judgment. (It's also asymmetrical in that if the bias is in favour of the applicant, no-one ever appeals it.)

Anyway - I share in the warning that this does not sound like an easy case and results may not be positive.