Returning PR

[robfis]

SUZROA, I believe your case is a little different because when you left in 2001 the law for PR obligation was different. The new law with 2 out of 5 years obligation came out in 2002. It's possible that before that you could and/or were supposed to ask for permission to leave for an extended period of time, like 12 mo to 2 yrs as you said.
I believe you're fine, nobody took your PR, I'm convinced you would have known about it.
Also, you traveled three times a year since 2001, it's simply possible that they haven't noticed your PR and you were admitted as a tourist.
That would be an interesting experience to share if you could, have you ever told them that you were a pr when you showed your passport at the point of entry after 2001?
Robert

 

[Rob_TO]

Could I ask forum members how much estimated time each of the option would take in terms of closing PR status - outright PR surrender versus applying for a PR Travel Document. My thought is that if I apply for PR Travel Document, I could still take a shot at keeping / reinstating my PR status even though the chances might be very slim. I would like to explore this possibility before opting for a new application unless of course it takes considerably longer (say more than six months). Does anyone have any experience of doing this or is there any relevant post in the forum on this or related topics - your usual insights will be much appreciated.

I'm not sure how long requesting a PRTD would take to get a response in your case.

However if you simply wanted to surrender your PR status (if you still indeed have it) then I believe that can be done instantly next time you try to enter Canada.

 

[Rob_TO]

Also, you traveled three times a year since 2001, it's simply possible that they haven't noticed your PR and you were admitted as a tourist.
That would be an interesting experience to share if you could, have you ever told them that you were a pr when you showed your passport at the point of entry after 2001?

It's definitely very interesting. I find it hard to believe that CBSA could fail to notice a traveler entering as a tourist was actually a PR, not just once but several dozen times over a span of almost 15 years. If it was this easy to do, countless PRs not meeting RO would try to enter Canada as a "tourist" in order to bypass RO examination.

I had always assumed based on your basic passport bio data that was scanned by CBSA at a POE (name, b-day, nationality, place of birth, etc) you were automatically matched against a current database of PRs, and would pop up as such on CBSA's computer.

Perhaps if she married since getting PR her last name was changed on passport, meaning it's no longer flagged as a PR on entry to Canada? Or some other such material information changed that makes automatic detection of her PR status at a POE not readily available? Only other solution is her PR was actually revoked at some point, I'm not sure if rules were different back then. Just throwing out some guesses here.

 

[dpenabill]

Also, you traveled three times a year since 2001, it's simply possible that they haven't noticed your PR and you were admitted as a tourist.

It's definitely very interesting. I find it hard to believe that CBSA could fail to notice a traveler entering as a tourist was actually a PR, not just once but several dozen times over a span of almost 15 years. If it was this easy to do, countless PRs not meeting RO would try to enter Canada as a "tourist" in order to bypass RO examination.

I had always assumed based on your basic passport bio data that was scanned by CBSA at a POE (name, b-day, nationality, place of birth, etc) you were automatically matched against a current database of PRs, and would pop up as such on CBSA's computer.

I am not sure of the source for the statement about visiting three times a year, but assuming that is the case for a PR with a visa-exempt passport:

Note, first, that in the past it was indeed common, and perhaps approached countless numbers, for PRs with visa-exempt passports to, in effect, slip back into Canada.


As members of the public we do not know what pops up on the monitor when a traveler's identification is scanned at the PIL. It warrants remembering, though, that it was not all that long ago that identification was often examined without being scanned. And not that long before that, at land crossings identification was only sporadically examined (and for some, like Americans, before that it was actually rare to even be asked for identification -- in my life, I have probably entered Canada at least sixty, or perhaps a hundred times, without being asked to show identification).

If identification is scanned, or the traveler's name and DoB are entered into the system, at the least the monitor does confirm identity including the immigration client number for any traveler who has been given a CIC client number. For Americans this has also been tied to the automobile registration since before 2001, again if the traveler has had an interaction with CBSA or CIC resulting in being given a client number (and of course all PRs have been).

In any event, overall and depending on the nationality of the visitor (not all visa-exempt nationals are treated the same), the level of scrutiny for visa-exempt travelers has varied extensively and for some (Americans and UK citizens especially, and to some extent certain other Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries) the level of scrutiny has often been rather lax.

Which leads to the three-times per year visit. Until recently that may have been plenty enough for the CBSA and FOSS system to not flag a returning PR, even if the PR is presenting his or her visa-exempt passport rather than a currently valid PR card. Moreover, for example, even quite recently there was a personal report in this forum about a PR without a valid PR card who, having presented a visa-exempt passport, appears to have been referred to secondary because of the duration of his planned stay in Canada, and it was in secondary that his PR status was identified.

That is, overall, for visa-exempt travelers it is quite possible the PIL officer scans the passport, confirms identity, and unless there is a flag in the system or something else triggers a more thorough reading of the information on the screen, gives the traveler a pass, that is, waives the traveler through.

I have never had a border officer ask me what "status" I was seeking entry into Canada based upon. Status is a conclusion, not a fact. BSOs tend to ask fact questions. Like: Where do you live? What is the purpose of your trip? If it is first indicated that where the traveler lives is outside Canada, the question may be what is the purpose of your visit? how long will you be in Canada? where are you staying? And so on. (Going the other way, into the U.S., I have long been asked these latter questions even though I am a U.S. citizen.)

Thus, the traveler presenting a visa-exempt passport, and especially one who has been regularly coming and going, that is who has apparent ongoing ties to Canada, might arouse no further attention let alone suspicion despite the fact that he is a PR. The PIL officer waives the traveler through as though either a "visitor" or otherwise without concern regarding compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

This is probably coming to an end. It is clear that CBSA is increasingly tracking both exits and entries (and for example has overtly begun doing so for travel to the U.S., the "exit" information derived from shared U.S. entry information). It is obvious that this government has also elevated the level of scrutiny related to enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation. Given the trends in technology, policies, and in obtaining and retaining border crossing data, it will be more and more difficult for PRs in breach of the PR Residency Obligation to, in effect, fly-below-the-radar and slip back into Canada.

As I have said before, for a visa-exempt PR, without a valid PR card and not in compliance with the PR RO, for now the odds of slipping back into Canada without a problem are unknown. Declining, almost for sure, but beyond that we simply do not know.

There are other factors, though, which can for sure reduce the odds. Among those, I am confident, is how long it has been since the last trip into Canada. The more recent the last entry, the better the odds of a waive through. This is still about risks however, not rules or routines, absolutely no guarantees.

 

[Rob_TO]

If identification is scanned, or the traveler's name and DoB are entered into the system, at the least the monitor does confirm identity including the immigration client number for any traveler who has been given a CIC client number. For Americans this has also been tied to the automobile registration since before 2001, again if the traveler has had an interaction with CBSA or CIC resulting in being given a client number (and of course all PRs have been).

I still wonder if a PR changes their last name and passport, if they will still be tracked automatically under any previous CIC client number they may have had.

Several years ago my wife and I traveled back to Canada and she was a PR but with no PR card, and at PIL CBSA very quickly was able to confirm her PR status. I just find it odd that someone could enter so many times year over year with no PR card, and not even once have their PR status mentioned. Though what you say could be perfectly true and in each case the officer simply waved them on.

 

[dpenabill]

I still wonder if a PR changes their last name and passport, if they will still be tracked automatically under any previous CIC client number they may have had.

Several years ago my wife and I traveled back to Canada and she was a PR but with no PR card, and at PIL CBSA very quickly was able to confirm her PR status. I just find it odd that someone could enter so many times year over year with no PR card, and not even once have their PR status mentioned. Though what you say could be perfectly true and in each case the officer simply waved them on.

Different name, even slight changes in name, and use of a travel document (passport et al) different from any previously used with CIC, often slipped by in the past, which I think is precisely because neither the name nor the travel document were connected to the client number. So long as the entering traveler has a client number, that is usually identified . . . but to what extent the PIL inspector looks beyond that varies. And perhaps one thinks it irony, but the more often one crosses the border the more easily the individual is waived through . . . as if, this is an individual waived in easily before so there is no reason to screen him or her any more closely.

There was a time when applicants for citizenship talked about the problem of "missing stamps," and while that was not really a problem for many applicants, if a citizenship applicant had travel for which a stamp was expected (by CIC of course) and it was not there, CIC often looked more closely for other indications the applicant was using some other travel document, especially one with some variation in name . . . this was, apparently, a somewhat commonly-employed scheme to leave and re-enter Canada without leaving a trail. Probably worked as well for PRs but I mostly noticed the cases arising in the citizenship application processing context.

But, many, many visa-exempt passport holders have reported returning to Canada without a PR card and in effect sailing through the POE without question, and this includes many not in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

A lot depends on whether there is something to flag the PIL inspector's attention. Could be chance. Could be a flag. One tends to see, in the cases, an oddly high number of citizenship applicants snagged at the POE, and so I wonder if there some sort of flag for returning PRs with a citizenship application pending (although I left and returned multiple times while my citizenship application was pending with hardly a blink from the PIL inspectors and no problem arising in the citizenship application).

In any event, it appears obvious to me that until fairly recently there were many loopholes and gaps, and that many of these loopholes and gaps of the past are being closed as the technology is advancing to accommodate more thorough tracking and easier access to the record.

 

[Rob_TO]

Different name, even slight changes in name, and use of a travel document (passport et al) different from any previously used with CIC, often slipped by in the past, which I think is precisely because neither the name nor the travel document were connected to the client number. So long as the entering traveler has a client number, that is usually identified . . . but to what extent the PIL inspector looks beyond that varies. And perhaps one thinks it irony, but the more often one crosses the border the more easily the individual is waived through . . . as if, this is an individual waived in easily before so there is no reason to screen him or her any more closely.

There was a time when applicants for citizenship talked about the problem of "missing stamps," and while that was not really a problem for many applicants, if a citizenship applicant had travel for which a stamp was expected (by CIC of course) and it was not there, CIC often looked more closely for other indications the applicant was using some other travel document, especially one with some variation in name . . . this was, apparently, a somewhat commonly-employed scheme to leave and re-enter Canada without leaving a trail. Probably worked as well for PRs but I mostly noticed the cases arising in the citizenship application processing context.

But, many, many visa-exempt passport holders have reported returning to Canada without a PR card and in effect sailing through the POE without question, and this includes many not in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

A lot depends on whether there is something to flag the PIL inspector's attention. Could be chance. Could be a flag. One tends to see, in the cases, an oddly high number of citizenship applicants snagged at the POE, and so I wonder if there some sort of flag for returning PRs with a citizenship application pending (although I left and returned multiple times while my citizenship application was pending with hardly a blink from the PIL inspectors and no problem arising in the citizenship application).

In any event, it appears obvious to me that until fairly recently there were many loopholes and gaps, and that many of these loopholes and gaps of the past are being closed as the technology is advancing to accommodate more thorough tracking and easier access to the record.

Interesting stuff.
It would be in the best interests of Canada to move to a totally automatic system of record keeping to track exit/entries from Canada. And anytime a PR returning from abroad presents themselves at a POE, an automatic message would be displayed to CBSA indicating their PR status, and whether or not they currently satisfy the RO. And anytime a CBSA officer allows someone flagged as not meeting RO through without being reported, the CBSA officer should be accountable and on the record as to exactly why they decided to allow them through (due to living with Canadian spouse, a H&C reason, or whatever). In the past and arguably up to today, it seems in too many cases CBSA simply doesn't do a thorough enough job in enforcing RO, whether that's due to their own discretion or insufficient technology to efficiently identify PRs in the first place.

 

[SUZROA]

SUZROA, I believe your case is a little different because when you left in 2001 the law for PR obligation was different. The new law with 2 out of 5 years obligation came out in 2002. It's possible that before that you could and/or were supposed to ask for permission to leave for an extended period of time, like 12 mo to 2 yrs as you said.
I believe you're fine, nobody took your PR, I'm convinced you would have known about it.
Also, you traveled three times a year since 2001, it's simply possible that they haven't noticed your PR and you were admitted as a tourist.
That would be an interesting experience to share if you could, have you ever told them that you were a pr when you showed your passport at the point of entry after 2001?
Robert
I replied to your email, but did not save it, please re-post if you did not receive my response.

 

[dpenabill]

Interesting stuff.
It would be in the best interests of Canada to move to a totally automatic system of record keeping to track exit/entries from Canada. And anytime a PR returning from abroad presents themselves at a POE, an automatic message would be displayed to CBSA indicating their PR status, and whether or not they currently satisfy the RO. And anytime a CBSA officer allows someone flagged as not meeting RO through without being reported, the CBSA officer should be accountable and on the record as to exactly why they decided to allow them through (due to living with Canadian spouse, a H&C reason, or whatever). In the past and arguably up to today, it seems in too many cases CBSA simply doesn't do a thorough enough job in enforcing RO, whether that's due to their own discretion or insufficient technology to efficiently identify PRs in the first place.

The POE experience has moved a lot in this direction in the last decade, especially so recently, especially so since the information-sharing-initiative with the U.S. was entered into. That said, the logistics are far more complicated than might be apparent if only considering one group of travelers, that is, PRs. CBSA screens many millions of travelers each year. The travelers come with a huge, huge range of backgrounds, from nationality to status, travel histories, variations in spelling of names, variations in Travel Documents being presented, and traveling companions (such as families traveling together). Some of these logistics are being addressed in the move toward more uniform biometrical data in Travel Documents. But as soon as the system goes beyond displaying (on the PIL officer's monitor) basic identity related information (potentially including a photograph) and status, the amount of the information on the screen can be more distracting than helpful for screening. Remember, screening for security and criminality concerns are a far higher priority than enforcing conditions for status. A PIL officer can process . . . I don't know, at least dozens of travelers per hour.

If there are no overt indications of an issue, no alerts or flags, and the traveler is a Canadian (that is, a Canadian Permanent Resident or Canadian citizen), that is someone who is clearly entitled to enter Canada, and there are no obvious issues (no alerts, no flags), a quick pass is in order so the officer can go on to processing other travelers.

If there are no overt indications of an issue, no alerts or flags, and the traveler presents a visa-exempt passport, and the information given by the traveler in response to the usual questions of the day raises no issues, similarly the officer is not inclined to spend valuable time asking investigatory questions or analyzing detailed on-screen information.

But from instances of randomly elevated scrutiny, to occasions when the PIL officer notices something which catches his or her attention, leading to a closer look and potentially something raising enough of a concern to initiate a referral to secondary, it does not always go so smoothly. A traveler presenting a visa-exempt passport and declaring an intent to stay in Canada for 170 days, for example, invites further inquiries, additional scrutiny (just in terms of means of support for that time period if nothing else).

As I noted, though, the trend is in the direction toward more complete records of exits and entries, and there will no doubt be software programmed to identify and flag individuals based on certain criteria, well beyond what human officers might notice in the course of occasional border crossing interviews.

Considering the other side of the border (the U.S.), for example, an MP in British Columbia recently issued a warning to so-called Canadian snow-birds who will spend the winter in the southern parts of the U.S., alerting them to the potential use of the information-sharing between the U.S. and Canada, which is more likely now to flag those who overstay in the U.S., for which there may be substantial consequences (including potential ban from the U.S., which can be devastating for a Canadian who owns a recreational/seasonal home in the States).

Nonetheless, the irony is that the frequent traveler is likely to be the least scrutinized.

Another distinction warrants some emphasis: the referral to secondary for immigration purposes (referral to the customs counter is no big deal) changes the dynamics of the POE experience dramatically. The BSO in secondary often (albeit not always) takes the time to run queries and further examine information in the system. As I have oft said, in the past many PRs have been able to fly-under-the-radar, so to say, and slip into and out of Canada without much scrutiny, including a significant number who are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. These are almost always travelers waived through at the PIL. But if the traveler is referred to secondary, the risks rise dramatically. Thus, while there are many, many anecdotal reports of PRs easily entering Canada without strict enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation, my strong impression is that once an issue is identified in a secondary interview/examination, it gets a lot tougher . . . and for those who appear to be in breach of the PR RO and who do not give an explanation which persuades the examining officer, one way or another, for one reason or another, that they deserve to retain their PR status, I believe they face substantial odds of being reported.

 

[sukrithy]

Hi
I was a Canadian PR holder , but have renounced it as I have been outside Canada for 15 years. Now I got marri d and am planning to re apply with my husband via express entry. I renounced my old PR as my husband as it seems like the better option.
When I re enter Canada with a new PR, will my old SIN be still valid? Can it be renewed or something or do I get a new SIN??
Thankyou

 

[sukrithy]

Thanks for the helpful feedback.

Could I ask forum members how much estimated time each of the option would take in terms of closing PR status - outright PR surrender versus applying for a PR Travel Document. My thought is that if I apply for PR Travel Document, I could still take a shot at keeping / reinstating my PR status even though the chances might be very slim. I would like to explore this possibility before opting for a new application unless of course it takes considerably longer (say more than six months). Does anyone have any experience of doing this or is there any relevant post in the forum on this or related topics - your usual insights will be much appreciated.

I have renounced my PR a few months back. There is no fee for it. We have to download the application from CIC website and send it to them. I got an email with a pdf stating that my PR is officially renounced in 30 days

 

[Canehdian Girl]

Hi,
My husband has voluntarily relinquished his PR at the airport once the officer told him that he did not meet the RO. Now, I am a Canadian citizen, living in Canada and I want to sponsor him back. My question is how can I do that? Is it a whole new application with proofs that we are married and all? or since he had a PR previously and a UCID# and a COPR and SIN, there is another trajectory?
Kindly advise
Thank you

 

[scylla]

Hi,
My husband has voluntarily relinquished his PR at the airport once the officer told him that he did not meet the RO. Now, I am a Canadian citizen, living in Canada and I want to sponsor him back. My question is how can I do that? Is it a whole new application with proofs that we are married and all? or since he had a PR previously and a UCID# and a COPR and SIN, there is another trajectory?
Kindly advise
Thank you

Yes - it's a brand new application with all supporting evidence, as well as medicals and police certificates.

Start here:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/spouse.asp

 

[Canehdian Girl]

Thank you,
You know we have been married for 20 years and have 2 kids, one of whom is going to college soon, so its a bit funny to proof our marriage after all this time.
Thanks for the link