Email from CIC that PR card renewal needs secondary review
- Thread starter Pual Newman
- Start date
The usual, but real and rather important disclaimer: I am no expert. I am not qualified to offer personal advice (for many practical reasons in addition to formal reasons).
I can offer some observations, nonetheless, including:
It is interesting that your partner has also been referred to SR.
Trying to explain that, however, would be like hunting in the dark with an unloaded gun and while wearing a blindfold and ear plugs. That is, we can only guess, and guess wildly, why all of you were referred to SR, and just as importantly, what IRCC's concerns are.
It warrants remembering that contrary to popular and common reports, SR is usually NOT about compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. Fraud, misrepresentation, and other inadmissibility issues, are more often the focus of SR even if cutting-it-close, as to the PR RO, factors into what triggered the SR.
If IRCC's focus is compliance with the PR RO, typically a formal Residency Determination is conducted sooner rather than later, including sending the PR a Residency Questionnaire. No SR necessary.
In the meantime, you and your family know your history, you know what information you submitted in the application for PR and how accurate that information was. You know what information was submitted in the application for a new PR card and how complete and accurate that information is. You know what representations you have made to CBSA officers at PoE examinations and how accurate and complete those representation were. You know what associations you have had, both recently and historically. And so on. That is, you know the details of your case. So you should know whether or not there is much risk that IRCC is focusing on a potential issue of real concern.
If, for example, the SR will almost certainly resolve in you and your family's favour, it is not likely it would derail a citizenship application. Indeed, inquiries made pursuant to SR processing of the PRC application may fully resolve potential concerns that might have affected a citizenship application, allowing the citizenship application to, in effect, sail through the process more smoothly than it might have otherwise.
That said, again, other than what you know about your own history, circumstances, and representations to CBSA and IRCC, and likewise for your partner, trying to guess what IRCC's concerns are would be guessing. If there is any substantive reason underlying IRCC's concerns, sure, that will affect and infect any other applications made to IRCC, including an application for citizenship. Unless and until the issue, whatever that issue is, is resolved, until then non-routine processing, elevated scrutiny, and perhaps skeptical scrutiny and decision-making, can be anticipated.
Considerations in deciding when to apply for citizenship:
Reaching the minimum threshold of the physical presence requirement is, of course, absolutely necessary. That is, however, only a part of the analysis a prospective applicant should make in deciding when would be the best time to apply.
PRs with a comfortable margin over and above the minimum and who are also comfortable with the rest of their case, who are confident about meeting all the requirements (including no prohibitions of course), particularly those whose circumstances and history includes a rather solid paper-trail of a life lived in Canada, should be able to apply for citizenship and anticipate proceeding relatively smoothly through the process. There is little or no reason to anticipate unusual problems, no reason to delay making the application beyond building a relatively comfortable margin over and above the minimum presence requirements.
Other PRs should be aware if there are potential issues looming in their case, and should take those into consideration before making the application. I waited well longer than a year before applying for citizenship, given my personal circumstances including, especially, the nature of the business I was engaged in and the fact that all my clients (customers, patrons, contractors, however one refers to those who pay for my services) were outside Canada. PRs with extensive travel histories, especially those with significant ongoing residential or work-related ties abroad, would be prudent to build a longer margin over the minimums.
Stranded without a PR card:
Technically you are not stranded, not restricted to Canada, merely because you do not have a currently valid PR card.
This is particularly true given that you can, apparently, travel to the U.S. At the very least, you could use private land transportation to get to an airport in the U.S. and from there fly where-ever you have status to go, and similarly for coming back to Canada, simply return to that airport and again cross the border into Canada via private transportation and a land crossing.
Depending on where you are located in Canada, sure this can range from a minor to a major inconvenience.
But not having a currently valid PR card does not affect your status in other countries, your authorization to travel to other countries. It only limits your ability to return to Canada by air.
Additional observations, FWIW:
How fair or unfair your situation is, that's a separate question, one depending on the totality of all the relevant circumstances.
My guess, emphasizing that it is merely a guess, is that there is something other than compliance with the PR Residency Obligation underlying the SR, especially since your partner has been referred to SR with (it appears) no reason for IRCC to be concerned about the extent of your partner's presence in Canada. I tend to disagree with the inference that your travel history is what underlies the SR issued to your partner.
I cannot guess whether your situation warrants going to a lawyer for at least a consultation, or not. It might. As I outlined above, you should know your own circumstances and history well enough to have at least a fair sense about whether there is a serious concern, some significant risk at stake. If there is such a risk, it warrants considering getting the advice of a competent lawyer.
Lots of extraneous and coincidental factors can trigger SR. IRCC tends to be fairly efficient in resolving those in way less time than the horror stories indicate. The horror stories tend to arise in cases where there are real and serious issues at stake, or at the least where it appears the PR may be exploiting the Canadian immigration system with no intent to fully settle permanently in Canada (recognizing that appearances matter).
Among the coincidental factors which can trigger SR, is the use of a consultant (no matter how long ago) who has been connected to fraud in other cases. A consultant who is connected to fraud will tend to implicate at least potential fraud for all the consultant's former clients. This can trigger elevated concern and more extensive and intensive inquiries, even investigations, when the consultant's former client makes any subsequent application with IRCC. Even if the particular client engaged in no fraud or misrepresentation at all. If this happens, if this is why there is a lengthy SR, all the PR can do is ride it out, wait for the system and process to complete its inquiries and resolve the questions. The problem is not with IRCC but rooted in the bad luck of having been connected with someone who, for rather obvious reasons, triggers suspicion.
Thanks Dpenabill for your detailed and extended explanation, most appreciated!
I agree with you that the SR doesn't necessarily mean that the RO are not met, it could be due to many other issues which you listed above.
Though in our situation, I am not able to figure out or to connect with anything, whatsoever, which we have encountered the past few years that might have caused negative impact
In the same time we filled in our applications with extra and especial care, we had proper records for all the dates of entry / exit and all details, we have a 100 % settled life in Canada,...
I guess we just need to wait and see, hoping this SR process will not be so long!
I agree with you that the SR doesn't necessarily mean that the RO are not met, it could be due to many other issues which you listed above.
Though in our situation, I am not able to figure out or to connect with anything, whatsoever, which we have encountered the past few years that might have caused negative impact
In the same time we filled in our applications with extra and especial care, we had proper records for all the dates of entry / exit and all details, we have a 100 % settled life in Canada,...
I guess we just need to wait and see, hoping this SR process will not be so long!
This thought has crossed my mind too. Appreciate answers from anyone who knows about the possibility.
I think its a no brainer. A public body is supposed to make a decision within reasonable time. PR renewal is merely about calculating whether someone was in Canada or not. It does not involve any security checks. Its not like citizenship where CIC can wait for 3 years and claim it is "reasonable". I think for people who were ACTUALLY present in Canada for 2 years, it is worth something to consider. And while a lawyer is recommended, a smart person can potentially navigate the maze of federal court on their own.
The Writ of Mandamus is a recourse available in extraordinary circumstances, pursuant to which the courts may order a government official to do an act which that government official has a clear, unequivocal duty to perform.
There are many difficulties and obstacles involved in obtaining Mandamus relief even when it is most warranted. Like most forms of civil litigation it will ordinarily take time. It can be prohibitively expensive.
But in the context of a PR card replacement (renewal) application, the prospect of obtaining Mandamus relief seems particularly unlikely because there is no compelling legal need for a PR to have a PR card. Not having a PR card does not directly have a detrimental legal effect on the PR's status.
There is no impact at all on the status of a PR in Canada.
A PR who is abroad without a PR card has the alternative remedy of applying for and obtaining a PR Travel Document.
(In regards to the latter, remember that in contrast to Canadian citizens, who have a Charter right to travel internationally, PRs only have a Charter right of mobility within Canada.)
For many, the practical impact is actually more severe, far more inconvenient. But Mandamus relief is not ordinarily available to make things more convenient, but rather only when an essential, legal right or privilege has been taken away or denied, and only then when there is no doubt about the government's obligation.
Even if the circumstances suggest that questions about PR RO compliance triggered the referral to SR, the scope of inquiry in SR is not limited to that and ordinarily is about other or additional issues.
In particular, admissibility itself, in broad terms, is at issue, which can include consideration of criminality, security issues, and misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining entry into Canada. This can involve revisiting the PR's representations in the original PR application. It can involve investigating representations the PR has made to CBSA officers during PoE examinations. It can involve assessing the authenticity and validity of any documents the applicant has presented to CIC or IRCC, at any time, ever.
As for navigating the federal court pro se (in one's own capacity, as in without representation), not all cases are created equal. As already noted, the Writ of Mandamus is a particularly complicated and difficult legal procedure. Many if not most lawyers are not particularly competent to litigate an application for a Writ of Mandamus. The prerequisites are technical and tricky. There is no absolute bar to proceeding pro se, and there are cases in which pro se applicants have been successful (but I have never seen any successful Mandamus applications for delayed PR card applications -- there are a couple older successful Mandamus cases where CIC refused to deliver already issued new cards), but the odds are long, the climb steep, and costs and fees can be charged against the applicant who loses . . . meaning, if one loses, they can be ordered to reimburse the government some of its costs including lawyer fees. Not much to be gained by not paying for a lawyer only to end up paying for the government's lawyers.
None of the above is intended to condone let alone justify the excessive and inordinate amount of time some, perhaps many PRs, suffer due to being left in limbo while their PR card application is bogged down in SR. That is, indeed, unfair, an injustice.
It is intended to clarify that PRs in SR have limited options and that, but for an extremely unusual case, they have little chance of obtaining recourse by way of the Writ of Mandamus.
For those who can travel in the U.S., while still inconvenient, at least they can travel abroad and return via a route through the U.S. without risking being stuck abroad for a long while while a PR Travel Document application is pending.
One year PR cards.
It is a sad irony that if IRCC has adjudicated a PR's application for either a PR card or a PR Travel Document, and determined the individual is inadmissible, no longer a PR, or a 44(1) Report has been reviewed by the Minister's Delegate and a Removal Order for Inadmissibility has been issued, that individual is entitled to a one-year PR card pending an appeal. It is a sad irony that those adjudicated inadmissible have, in effect, more rights to a status card than those who have not been adjudicated or otherwise determined to be inadmissible. It seems, to me, that justice requires that, at the least, PRs bogged down in inordinately long SR should be issued short-term, temporary PR cards.
This incongruity and disparity could be part of an equities argument in an application for a Writ of Mandamus. But again the hurdles involved in prosecuting the Mandamus application are daunting, prohibitive, and in the context of SR for PR card applications, generally not worth pursuing.
Further observation about proceeding pro se:
It does not matter how smart a person is. Legal procedure can be complicated and difficult in ways which only specialized training and experience helps. Legal terminology often does not comport with what a dictionary says.
And even the most competent jurist is well aware of the well-worn and well-apt adage: he who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Litigation and judicial procedures are in an entirely different realm than bureaucratic processes like immigration and citizenship applications. The latter are specifically, deliberately designed to make them as accessible to individuals as possible, to reduce the need for any professional assistance, let alone legal assistance, as much as practical. There is very little about formal procedures in the courts which is designed to make it accessible to the non-lawyer. As I already noted, when it comes to extraordinary procedures and process, like an application for a Writ of Mandamus, the procedure tends to be beyond the routine scope of what many if not most lawyers are competent doing. Sure, immigration lawyers may be something of an exception in this regard, since during the Harper government there was an extensive and widespread failure to timely process applications that resort to Mandamus was more frequently called for and pursued, with some success particularly in the context of suspended citizenship application processing. So perhaps more of these lawyers gained some experience in prosecuting Mandamus actions.
The biggest area of success, however, appears to have been cases in which CIC, as it was then, proceeded to process the application, thus making an application for Mandamus moot . . . and I suppose there are some SR cases in which the PR may similarly benefit, cases in which just giving the requisite notice (a proper demand that the responsible government official take action as required by law must be made before any application for Mandamus can be properly commenced) might incite IRCC to process the application rather than litigate an application for Mandamus. It is entirely possible that many more citizenship applicants obtained relief by just giving proper notice, making the proper demand for action, than the small number of litigated Mandamus cases reported in published decisions.
Which, however, leads back to the prospect of proceeding pro se: in terms of reports in the forums, it was apparent that those who had lawyers making the demand (which is a prerequisite to proceeding with a Mandamus application) tended to have far better responses from CIC (again, this was back in 2011 to 2014, the years when the Harper government let thousands and thousands of citizenship applications wallow for years), and in particular, many who reported making such a formal demand themselves simply received no response from CIC. It appears that CIC took the demand letters from lawyers far more seriously.
There are many difficulties and obstacles involved in obtaining Mandamus relief even when it is most warranted. Like most forms of civil litigation it will ordinarily take time. It can be prohibitively expensive.
But in the context of a PR card replacement (renewal) application, the prospect of obtaining Mandamus relief seems particularly unlikely because there is no compelling legal need for a PR to have a PR card. Not having a PR card does not directly have a detrimental legal effect on the PR's status.
There is no impact at all on the status of a PR in Canada.
A PR who is abroad without a PR card has the alternative remedy of applying for and obtaining a PR Travel Document.
(In regards to the latter, remember that in contrast to Canadian citizens, who have a Charter right to travel internationally, PRs only have a Charter right of mobility within Canada.)
For many, the practical impact is actually more severe, far more inconvenient. But Mandamus relief is not ordinarily available to make things more convenient, but rather only when an essential, legal right or privilege has been taken away or denied, and only then when there is no doubt about the government's obligation.
This is not correct. Indeed, as oft noted, Secondary Review is ordinarily about something other than compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. If the issue is compliance with the PR RO, the PR will be asked to complete a Residency Questionnaire and the local office will make a Residency Determination. (Every PR card application, and every PR TD application, inherently requires and involves a Residency Determination, but the validity of the PR's status otherwise can be questioned, and if referred to SR it is questioned.)
Even if the circumstances suggest that questions about PR RO compliance triggered the referral to SR, the scope of inquiry in SR is not limited to that and ordinarily is about other or additional issues.
In particular, admissibility itself, in broad terms, is at issue, which can include consideration of criminality, security issues, and misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining entry into Canada. This can involve revisiting the PR's representations in the original PR application. It can involve investigating representations the PR has made to CBSA officers during PoE examinations. It can involve assessing the authenticity and validity of any documents the applicant has presented to CIC or IRCC, at any time, ever.
As for navigating the federal court pro se (in one's own capacity, as in without representation), not all cases are created equal. As already noted, the Writ of Mandamus is a particularly complicated and difficult legal procedure. Many if not most lawyers are not particularly competent to litigate an application for a Writ of Mandamus. The prerequisites are technical and tricky. There is no absolute bar to proceeding pro se, and there are cases in which pro se applicants have been successful (but I have never seen any successful Mandamus applications for delayed PR card applications -- there are a couple older successful Mandamus cases where CIC refused to deliver already issued new cards), but the odds are long, the climb steep, and costs and fees can be charged against the applicant who loses . . . meaning, if one loses, they can be ordered to reimburse the government some of its costs including lawyer fees. Not much to be gained by not paying for a lawyer only to end up paying for the government's lawyers.
None of the above is intended to condone let alone justify the excessive and inordinate amount of time some, perhaps many PRs, suffer due to being left in limbo while their PR card application is bogged down in SR. That is, indeed, unfair, an injustice.
It is intended to clarify that PRs in SR have limited options and that, but for an extremely unusual case, they have little chance of obtaining recourse by way of the Writ of Mandamus.
For those who can travel in the U.S., while still inconvenient, at least they can travel abroad and return via a route through the U.S. without risking being stuck abroad for a long while while a PR Travel Document application is pending.
One year PR cards.
It is a sad irony that if IRCC has adjudicated a PR's application for either a PR card or a PR Travel Document, and determined the individual is inadmissible, no longer a PR, or a 44(1) Report has been reviewed by the Minister's Delegate and a Removal Order for Inadmissibility has been issued, that individual is entitled to a one-year PR card pending an appeal. It is a sad irony that those adjudicated inadmissible have, in effect, more rights to a status card than those who have not been adjudicated or otherwise determined to be inadmissible. It seems, to me, that justice requires that, at the least, PRs bogged down in inordinately long SR should be issued short-term, temporary PR cards.
This incongruity and disparity could be part of an equities argument in an application for a Writ of Mandamus. But again the hurdles involved in prosecuting the Mandamus application are daunting, prohibitive, and in the context of SR for PR card applications, generally not worth pursuing.
Further observation about proceeding pro se:
It does not matter how smart a person is. Legal procedure can be complicated and difficult in ways which only specialized training and experience helps. Legal terminology often does not comport with what a dictionary says.
And even the most competent jurist is well aware of the well-worn and well-apt adage: he who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Litigation and judicial procedures are in an entirely different realm than bureaucratic processes like immigration and citizenship applications. The latter are specifically, deliberately designed to make them as accessible to individuals as possible, to reduce the need for any professional assistance, let alone legal assistance, as much as practical. There is very little about formal procedures in the courts which is designed to make it accessible to the non-lawyer. As I already noted, when it comes to extraordinary procedures and process, like an application for a Writ of Mandamus, the procedure tends to be beyond the routine scope of what many if not most lawyers are competent doing. Sure, immigration lawyers may be something of an exception in this regard, since during the Harper government there was an extensive and widespread failure to timely process applications that resort to Mandamus was more frequently called for and pursued, with some success particularly in the context of suspended citizenship application processing. So perhaps more of these lawyers gained some experience in prosecuting Mandamus actions.
The biggest area of success, however, appears to have been cases in which CIC, as it was then, proceeded to process the application, thus making an application for Mandamus moot . . . and I suppose there are some SR cases in which the PR may similarly benefit, cases in which just giving the requisite notice (a proper demand that the responsible government official take action as required by law must be made before any application for Mandamus can be properly commenced) might incite IRCC to process the application rather than litigate an application for Mandamus. It is entirely possible that many more citizenship applicants obtained relief by just giving proper notice, making the proper demand for action, than the small number of litigated Mandamus cases reported in published decisions.
Which, however, leads back to the prospect of proceeding pro se: in terms of reports in the forums, it was apparent that those who had lawyers making the demand (which is a prerequisite to proceeding with a Mandamus application) tended to have far better responses from CIC (again, this was back in 2011 to 2014, the years when the Harper government let thousands and thousands of citizenship applications wallow for years), and in particular, many who reported making such a formal demand themselves simply received no response from CIC. It appears that CIC took the demand letters from lawyers far more seriously.
Hi everyone
I'm here to share my case......
I renewed my pr card on 2015 August ,and underwent secondary ....asked additional documentsI
I got a email yesterday mentioned:following your review of your file,it has been determined that you meet the residency obligation.your pr card valid for five years ,be created. This will take approximately 8-12weeks.
Any one got this email after secondary review?is it a good news?8-12weeks?taht long?hahah...
I'm here to share my case......
I renewed my pr card on 2015 August ,and underwent secondary ....asked additional documentsI
I got a email yesterday mentioned:following your review of your file,it has been determined that you meet the residency obligation.your pr card valid for five years ,be created. This will take approximately 8-12weeks.
Any one got this email after secondary review?is it a good news?8-12weeks?taht long?hahah...
Congrats!!
so there is a ray of light for applicants like us! I also applied on August 2015 and still waiting!
thanks！！！！
will let you know when i "really"get my pr card!
and wish you get yours soon!
If you don't mind can you share some details of your application, like when submitted, what documents you submitted initially and what were asked later,was there any updates from IRCC later and what was there response when you call IRCC, did you take any steps like contacting your MP or any other steps to follow up...etc. Basically want know what triggered and how it was resolved if at all it was. Thanks
Applied August 13, 2015
Received letter advising SR Jan 19, 2016
Request for entry/exit record Oct. 20, 2016 ( which I provided)
No update since then
Right now I am in contact with my MP`s office and they are following my case with IRCC
Total numbers of days inside Canada when applied 760 days
Total number of days inside Canada as of today 1250
I was so naive that I applied 3 months before my PR expired. If I knew then what I know now, I would have waited to have more days.
Yes! Under the new law I am eligible for citizenship and I will apply for citizenship when it comes to effect.
I don’t care about my renewed PR. I only need it for travel. So far I traveled twice outside Canada and returned with PRTD. Not to mention that while waiting for PRTD many aspect of my life in Canada was ruined
Document I submitted:
- Color copy of all pages of my passport
- Certified translation of stamps that were not in English
- Valid OHIP
- Valid Driving License
- Employment letter
- Notice of assessment 2010 to 2015
- Bank statement
- Credit card statement
- Copy of all my boarding passes entering and exiting Canada between landing ( sep. 2010) and August 13 when I applied for renewal
Last edited:
Thank you for the details, no doubt, someone in IRCC messed up with your file. Please let us know when you get the card and also the outcome of the follow up with your MP.