I go into some depth here because it touches a much broader issue: the extent to which Canada expects immigration applicants to be forthcoming, to disclose so Canadian officials can assess the significance of past events.
If a PR in breach of RO is indeed issued a Removal Order (A44), I understand the PR holder gets 30 days to appeal it, after which (if not appealed), the Removal order becomes enforced. The PR holder then additionally gets 30 days to depart.
Question: If the PR holder departs within the first 30 days (i.e. does not appeal, and leaves Canada well within the 30 days given to appeal), is the Removal Order then technically considered as not enforced, and, in future visa applications (to anywhere), when asked the standard question “Have you been removed from any country”, would an accurate response then be a “No”?
For applications made to countries other than Canada, I do NOT know what they ask, or what they expect. How to answer the question asked will very much depend on the question itself. Questions for which a Removal Order might be relevant are likely to vary considerably. As I address below, I do not accept that
“Have you been removed from any country” is a standard question, even though similar questions are very common.
For Canada:
The short answer is probably, usually,
YES. That is, if
issued a Removal Order, that is something that typically will need to be disclosed in many immigration-related applications. Even if the
soon-to-be-Foreign-National (former PR) leaves Canada before the date the Removal Order becomes effective. Note, after all, absent a successful appeal the Removal Order will still become effective, that is, take effect, or as sometimes referenced, become "
enforceable" (whether or not one would say it has been "
enforced"), thus terminating the individual's PR status, even if they left Canada prior to the date the Removal Order became effective or enforceable.
In the Canadian immigration context disclosing this should NOT be a big deal, NOT a problem. The person applying for a visa provides details which should very easily resolve any issues, and which will be readily verified in the individual's GCMS records. However, the individual may need to apply for and obtain an Authorization to Return to Canada (ARC); this should be NO problem, even though there is a substantial fee, as long as the former PR in fact left Canada timely. (Very different from scenarios in which a Removal Order has been issued based on inadmissibility for criminality, security concerns, or immigration violations including overstays, situations in which obtaining an ARC can be problematic -- remember, RO non-compliance is NOT about violating any immigration law or rules.)
Note: if there is an appeal, the Removal Order does not take effect while the appeal is pending.
It is a little more complicated a question if there is a successful appeal, one resulting in the Removal Order being set aside. Some may quite reasonably advocate that an IAD decision setting aside the 44(1) Report and Removal Order has the effect of voiding the order, making it as if it never happened.
Which leads to a quibble with the question: Despite what appears to be some standardization of questions, what is actually asked can, and often does vary considerably, both in terms of what is precisely asked, and in regards to how to answer it in context according to the laws, rules, and language employed in the jurisdiction doing the asking. I do not know much about what countries other than Canada ask, but at least in Canada the question is very often NOT asked or framed this way:
“Have you been removed from any country?”
In contrast, the background declaration for a PR visa application, for example, asks whether the applicant has ever . . .
". . . been refused admission to, or ordered to leave, Canada or any other country or territory?"
The prohibitions questions asked in an application for citizenship include this:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, under a removal order (have you been asked by Canadian officials to leave Canada)?"
These questions are NOT framed in technical terms. My best sense is this is very deliberate. What, for example, does "
under" a removal order mean? And "
asked to leave," wow, that's broad and open ended. "
Ordered to leave" (language used in PR visa application forms) is more precise, but still wide open to variable interpretations. These questions are, for sure, not limited to scenarios where the individual had been physically taken, accompanied by armed officers, to the border, or to be put on a plane.
Again, I do not know about other countries, but in the context of immigration Canada approaches background questions very broadly, more or less demanding disclosure far beyond the parameters of what will negatively affect the applicant. Canada wants immigration applicants to be very forthcoming so that Canadian officials can consider and weigh the significance, so Canadian officials can decide if it is something that should affect whether the individual is given status in Canada, temporary or otherwise.
All of which strays well beyond the question asked here, which is essentially asking what it means if the affected PR leaves Canada before a Removal Order takes effect. For which there is a very short answer: it means they complied with the order, but that does not alter or eliminate the force and effect, let alone the mere existence, of that order.
Question: During a primary or secondary interview at POE, due to missing the RO, can the PR holder voluntarily relinquish the PR if he/she prefers doing so and apply for a temp status? Or, is it at the discretion of the interviewer to allow the PR holder to voluntarily relinquish their PR? (i.e. can the interviewer disagree to the PR holder's request to voluntarily relinquish their PR during the process, and still issue them a departure order?)
Whether or not it is wise, or not so wise, to renounce PR status given the particular individual's circumstances, yes, an inadmissible PR can voluntarily renounce/relinquish their PR status during a PoE examination, and make an application for temporary status. How cooperative border officials will be in facilitating this I cannot forecast.
There is no guarantee temporary status will be granted. Depending on the passport the traveler is carrying, and depending on the type of temporary status the traveler is applying for, border officials might not even have the authority to grant temporary status to some travelers. Travelers with visa-exempt passports will likely be granted at least visitor status, but that can be for a rather short duration (border officials can limit authorized stay to way, way less than visa-exempt travelers would otherwise be allowed).
If the primary objective is to avoid having a Removal Order issued, to avoid having that on your record, so to say, I cannot offer much in the way of pros and cons, other than to reiterate that a Removal Order based on inadmissibility for a RO breach is very, very different from a Removal Order issued based on grounds of criminality, security, or immigration violations.
