People giving up PR status due to eTAs
- Thread starter alphazip
- Start date
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
Not surprising. A lot of them are hoping to fly under the radar to enter Canada knowing they no longer have legal PR status in the hope to regain PR status 2 years after entering Canada. We see this a lot.
The article is rife with errors and is otherwise misleading. Hopefully they misquoted the Toronto lawyer; otherwise it appears he needs to do some research or be more careful in how he states things.
Overall, it is not the case that PRs can be refused entry when they arrive at a PoE if they do not have a PR card, have an expired PR card, or are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. This is discussed in depth, at length, in numerous topics in the forum for PR obligations.
While eTA is having a big impact on PRs who carry visa-exempt passports, that is only one piece in the overall trend to increase screening and impose stricter enforcement for all travelers coming to Canada, including enforcement of the rules specifically applicable to PRs.
Without insinuating even a hint of fake news, since I respect and rely on the oft times difficult job journalists and media publishers have in the effort to help keep us informed, this article reminds us why it is important to always approach media stories critically if not skeptically.
All that said, the gist of the article is probably true, that a large number of PRs living abroad are either renouncing or losing PR status given the increased enforcement of the rules governing PRs. This should be no surprise. After all, there has been a definite trend toward more and stricter enforcement of the rules for PRs for many years . . . for example, it was at least as far back as 2010 that CBSA could be seen issuing Departure Orders even to PRs carrying a valid PR card if it was apparent they had been outside Canada long enough to be in breach of their PR status, even those still within their first five years since landing (there appeared to be a lot of leeway given such PRs prior to that).
Beyond that, given the delays there were in actually implementing eTA, there was extensive notice that the eTA program was coming and that it would mean PRs with visa-exempt passports would become subject to the same rules as all other PRs when it came to boarding a flight to Canada.
By the way, in addition to blatant errors like referring to expired PR when PR status does not expire, among the more salient errors in the article are references to airport officials deny eTA. Airport officials have nothing to do with granting or denying eTA. They do not even see whether a traveler has eTA or not. All the airline personnel get is a "board" or "no board" response from the API system. They can infer that a passenger with a visa-exempt passport does not have eTA if there is a "no board" response.
The article overlooks that the suggestion to surrender PR status is probably far more often given to PRs electronically, as part of the electronic response denying an application for eTA by a PR with a visa-exempt passport. We have seen many reports about this in the PR forum. No airport officials involved.
Overall, it is not the case that PRs can be refused entry when they arrive at a PoE if they do not have a PR card, have an expired PR card, or are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. This is discussed in depth, at length, in numerous topics in the forum for PR obligations.
While eTA is having a big impact on PRs who carry visa-exempt passports, that is only one piece in the overall trend to increase screening and impose stricter enforcement for all travelers coming to Canada, including enforcement of the rules specifically applicable to PRs.
Without insinuating even a hint of fake news, since I respect and rely on the oft times difficult job journalists and media publishers have in the effort to help keep us informed, this article reminds us why it is important to always approach media stories critically if not skeptically.
All that said, the gist of the article is probably true, that a large number of PRs living abroad are either renouncing or losing PR status given the increased enforcement of the rules governing PRs. This should be no surprise. After all, there has been a definite trend toward more and stricter enforcement of the rules for PRs for many years . . . for example, it was at least as far back as 2010 that CBSA could be seen issuing Departure Orders even to PRs carrying a valid PR card if it was apparent they had been outside Canada long enough to be in breach of their PR status, even those still within their first five years since landing (there appeared to be a lot of leeway given such PRs prior to that).
Beyond that, given the delays there were in actually implementing eTA, there was extensive notice that the eTA program was coming and that it would mean PRs with visa-exempt passports would become subject to the same rules as all other PRs when it came to boarding a flight to Canada.
By the way, in addition to blatant errors like referring to expired PR when PR status does not expire, among the more salient errors in the article are references to airport officials deny eTA. Airport officials have nothing to do with granting or denying eTA. They do not even see whether a traveler has eTA or not. All the airline personnel get is a "board" or "no board" response from the API system. They can infer that a passenger with a visa-exempt passport does not have eTA if there is a "no board" response.
The article overlooks that the suggestion to surrender PR status is probably far more often given to PRs electronically, as part of the electronic response denying an application for eTA by a PR with a visa-exempt passport. We have seen many reports about this in the PR forum. No airport officials involved.
Last edited:
An uninformed comment given visa exempt passport holders from these countries need an ETA to board a plane and whilst that is not an actual visa it still requires some government vetting. Even if passport holders from these countries chose the US route they need an ESTA which is yet more vetting. In either case no government can read a persons mind or intent if they are determined enough to do harm no matter whether a visa is required or not, terrorism is a worldwide issue Canada included not just these countries.
Last edited:
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
My sister in law saw a PR being denied entry due to not having her PR card with her at immigration check. This person ended up having to go back. This makes sense to me. This is to prevent people with expired PR status from getting in to reestablish their PR status.
I personally find that article very misleading and quite "defensive". What's with the use of "Europeans and anglophones" as if being anglophone is a separate nationality. I won't comment on some of the other errors that dpenabill highlighted but it sounds like many people who were leveraging the "visa-waiver" their first nationality gives them to abuse the system are now forced to think it over...
Being Canadian is a privilege that I'm proud of. If people think of it or being a permanent resident in Canada as a burden to them, then by all means, feel free to use the exit door and go back to where they were before and come visit us as tourists.
Being Canadian is a privilege that I'm proud of. If people think of it or being a permanent resident in Canada as a burden to them, then by all means, feel free to use the exit door and go back to where they were before and come visit us as tourists.
Writer is probably using "anglophone" as short hand for "Australian and New Zealander," which is a little cumbersome. Yes, its sloppy. Of course, ETA doesn't even apply to Americans....
Assuming the accuracy of the report, it illustrates that anomalies occur; it only shows that sometimes there are occasions in which things do not work as they should or as the law prescribes.
A Canadian PR is entitled to enter Canada. That is the law. A border officer does not have lawful authority to turn back or deny entry to any person whose identity is established (passport suffices) and who is a Canadian PR.
What may have happened is that the person claimed to be a PR but actually did not have PR status.
While PRs without a PR card are cautioned that it is best to carry some other documentation to show they have PR status, such as their CoPR, or alternatively some correspondence otherwise referencing their status, as long as the individual's identity can be established that will almost always suffice to also show PR status in the CBSA data bases. Once CBSA determines a person is a Canadian PR, entry must be allowed. The problem in not having positive proof of PR status is that means the examination can be more probing and take a lot longer, including a potentially lengthy period of waiting while CBSA makes inquiries to verify identity and concurrently status (again establishing identity almost always suffices to establish status). The problem is not about being turned back. With rare exception.
On the other hand (with some exceptions), a PR does need to present either a valid PR card or PR Travel Document before being issued a board pass and allowed to board a flight destined for Canada.
This has been discussed in depth and at length in the Permanent Residency Obligations conference.
Many travelers flying to Canada are not required to have eTA. Many travelers coming to Canada are not subject to eTA. Many are not eligible for eTA. That is, there are many exceptions to the eTA requirements. And airlines have discretion to allow travelers to board a flight to Canada even if the passenger is using a visa-exempt passport and does not have eTA. So it is difficult if not impossible to discern what happened or why based on a report with such minimal details.
There are two very different aspects of any such travel: how and why the traveler was allowed to board the flight is one. How and why a traveler is allowed to actually enter Canada upon arrival at a Canadian PoE is the other.
While the traveler's documentation is a big part of both, the requirements and restrictions are not the same for both. (As noted above, for example, if a PR manages to arrive at a Canadian PoE, no particular documentation is necessary for that person to be entitled to enter Canada, albeit of course some documentation is practically necessary to establish identity.)
A traveler with a visa-exempt passport (but not exempt from eTA) and who has not been granted a visa (work or study permit, TRP, or such) ordinarily needs to have eTA in order for the IAPI system to give the airline a "board" response, which generally an airline requires before it will issue a boarding pass and pursuant thereto allow the traveler to board the flight. BUT airlines have discretion to allow or deny boarding notwithstanding the IAPI response. (Noting, again, that even travelers with passports generally subject to eTA requirements are NOT subject to eTA requirements if they have a work or study permit, or a TRP otherwise issued.)
While technically a traveler who was allowed to board a flight to Canada based on presenting a visa-exempt passport, and who is otherwise subject to the eTA requirements but whose passport does not have eTA, upon arrival at the airport PoE can be denied entry into Canada on that ground alone. But denial of entry is not mandated. The person is not inadmissible because they do not have eTA. It is easy to think of scores of scenarios, situations, or circumstances in which CBSA might examine such a traveler perfunctorily and allow entry. Remember, the system is designed to identify and preclude inadmissible persons, and is not intended to unduly exclude travelers otherwise. Meaning that the objective is not strict enforcement of the eTA requirements, but better enforcement of inadmissibility restrictions.
It warrants noting that in the past, enforcement of the rules requiring PRs to present either a PR card or a PR Travel Document for the purpose of obtaining authorization to board a flight destined for Canada was indeed uneven. PRs with visa-exempt passports were so commonly and routinely allowed to board a flight to Canada without presenting a PR card that many assumed the rules actually allowed this; and Air Canada's online information about necessary travel documents even so stated. But that was NOT the rule. And on occasion PRs with visa-exempt passports but without a PR card were surprised and severely inconvenienced when an airline denied boarding. The eTA program changed this, not directly because PRs are not part of the eTA system, but indirectly because PRs are not eligible for eTA, so their visa-exempt passports cannot have eTA and thus will no longer get a pass for boarding. Canadian citizens with dual citizenship, with citizenship in a visa-exempt country, are affected the same way; they too now need to have a Canadian passport to board a flight to Canada (or obtain a special Travel Document).
Again, all this has been discussed in depth and at length in the Permanent Residency Obligations conference.
For me (a Canadian PR from a visa exempt country) this ETA is a deep shi... when I air travel to Canada.
For example - sometimes I can not check-in online (no queue, no wait). At the airport I can not check-in at the kiosk (no queue, no wait). I must check-in at a check-in counter (long queue, long wait) where often the person does not have the slightest idea how to enter the data from the PR card, and needs someone else for assistance (even longer wait). A big step back from the no hassle procedure in the past.
In summary procedure for PRs is cumbersome, inconvenient and time consuming. Similar to when I cross from the Canada to the USA on a land crossing with my EU passport.
For example - sometimes I can not check-in online (no queue, no wait). At the airport I can not check-in at the kiosk (no queue, no wait). I must check-in at a check-in counter (long queue, long wait) where often the person does not have the slightest idea how to enter the data from the PR card, and needs someone else for assistance (even longer wait). A big step back from the no hassle procedure in the past.
In summary procedure for PRs is cumbersome, inconvenient and time consuming. Similar to when I cross from the Canada to the USA on a land crossing with my EU passport.
Last edited:
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
While it is a major inconvenience for PR's, it helps remove those who claimed to have PR status or knowingly have expired PR status from being able to re-enter Canada to re-established PR status. If one can't maintain PR RO rules to maintain PR status, then he/she can't keep PR status. Plain and simple.
Yep, the eTA has made it much less convenient for PRs carrying a visa-exempt passport. They now are subject to the same rules other PRs have long been required to comply with.
Equality can suck for those who are experienced with privilege.
Euro and Commonwealth (former Commonwealth) preferences are gradually slipping away. More globally oriented preferences (many associated with economic circumstances) are looming larger. The world is changing. That tends to happen.
The western European passport, however, will still mean a lot, lot more convenience when traveling to the U.S. But that's not a destination I would recommend much.