. . . continued from previous post . . .
Appearance, or lack thereof, the PR is settled and permanently living in Canada:
This factor demands separate consideration. On its face this does NOT directly indicate whether or not a PR is in compliance with the PR RO. Even though the clear intention (as stated many, many times by IAD panels and often by Federal Court justices as well) of the grant of PR status is so the individual can and will settle and live permanently in Canada, it is NOT a requirement. The PR RO is the requirement.
While this factor is overtly addressed in IAD and Federal Court decisions, I have not seen any reports suggesting that PoE officers will ask direct questions about this. However, questions indirectly implicating this factor are very common, especially for those referred to Secondary, but even at the PIL. Just the commonly asked question "where do you live?" implicates this factor. "What do you do" (as in, are you employed and if so what work do you do)? Moreover, and importantly, many collateral circumstances readily project indications of this one way or another.
Note, for example, a PR with a valid PR card driving a vehicle the PR owns and which is registered in a Canadian province, pulling up to the PIL booth at a crossing from the U.S. into that same province, has very, very good odds of being waived through with no referral to Secondary. It APPEARS, and clearly so, the PR is settled and living in Canada. Unless there is some outstanding flag or alert in the PR's record, or something else triggering suspicion about the PR, a PIL officer screening a returning PR with a valid PR card driving the PR's own Canadian registered car will readily recognize the PR as someone settled and living in Canada and thus very unlikely to be in breach of the PR RO. Result: Waived Through.
While this is a very particular situation what it illustrates, what it illuminates, is that the overall impression a PR makes upon arrival at the PoE can and will influence whether the PR is waived through or referred to Secondary. Waived through equals NOT Reported. If referred to Secondary, that leads to a closer examination of the various factors which can influence whether the PR is Reported. Not all PRs in breach, and referred to Secondary, are Reported. The difference at that stage demands a more complicated discussion of the relevant factors. For now, suffice to note that many of the factors which can influence whether there is a referral to Secondary will also influence how it goes in Secondary.
But this one, whether or not it appears the PR is settled and permanently living in Canada, is a BIG ONE. And, in turn, there are many factors or circumstances which can influence the impression made, influence whether or not the PIL officer perceives the traveler to be a RETURNING resident or a PR who is visiting Canada.
This is NOT to say that the PR who is settled and permanently living in Canada, and who makes that impression at the border, gets a free pass. BUT the odds are a lot, lot better. Even if the PoE officers see indications the PR might be in breach of the PR by some, a little, the odds appear to still be good the PR (one thought to be settled in Canada) will be more or less easily waived through. It appears that so long as the PR appears to be genuinely settled or on track to be settled in Canada, and is not clearly too seriously in breach of the RO, border officers are still fairly lenient if not generous.
In contrast, a PR who appears to be visiting Canada or otherwise not living in Canada, or otherwise infrequently coming to Canada for relatively short periods of time, has a much greater risk of being examined more extensively, being referred to Secondary and potentially subject to a formal PR RO compliance examination (there are many reports now this is often done by requiring some PRs to complete a written questionnaire in Secondary at the border).
SOME (just some, not anywhere near most) RELEVANT FACTORS:
As noted above, key overriding factors which can have a big influence in whether a PR in breach is referred to Secondary (and thus, if referred to Secondary, then at much higher risk for being Reported), include:
-- possession of a valid PR card; this alone gives the PR better odds of being waived through
-- flagged PRs; flagged PRs are at high risk for a Secondary referral at the PoE
-- appearance (or NOT) of being settled and living in Canada; this is a much bigger factor than many realize, and is a lot more apparent to examining officers than many might realize
Beyond that, there are numerous other factors with variable influence. Many of these factor into whether the PR appears to be settled and living in Canada but also can be important apart from that (for example, among the most obvious, is the duration of the PR's last absence from Canada, the longer the PR has been abroad the more it is a factor itself tending to raise questions about PR RO compliance but it is also a factor affecting whether the PR appears to be returning to his home in Canada or is coming from a home abroad).
A list of additional factors: For a PR who is in breach of the PR who presents a valid PR card at the PoE, the risk factors include:
-- extent of the breach; the bigger the breach the more the risk of being reported
-- duration of most recent absence; the longer the absence, the greater the risk of a referral to Secondary (absence for three years or more is definitively a breach)
-- apparent enter/exit history; generally the more frequent it appears the PR has been coming and going, the lower the risk of a referral to Secondary BUT the opposite if there is a readily recognized pattern suggesting the PR comes to Canada to visit
-- general indications the PR is living outside Canada (or in Canada); obviously, a PR who is living outside Canada is more likely to fall short of meeting the RO, and thus indications the PR is living outside Canada increases the risk of a referral to Secondary
Again, the above is but a small sample of more general factors. These are offered as illustrations. It should be easy to extrapolate from these to many other quite obvious factors which can increase or decrease how much it appears the PR might be in breach of the PR RO.
It warrants cautioning that many factors can have variable influences. EXAMPLE: The amount of baggage a PR has upon returning to Canada after a rather long absence can have various implications and thus have variable influence. Arriving with a small amount of baggage after a long absence might contribute to the impression the PR is living abroad and merely visiting Canada, elevating the risk of a Secondary referral and more extensive RO related examination. But arriving with a large amount of baggage including items indicating the PR is coming to Canada to live after a time living abroad, can have MIXED influences; it can indicate the PR has been living abroad so is more likely to be in breach of the RO, BUT it also can indicate the PR is genuinely settling in Canada permanently and should be allowed some leniency EVEN if in breach of the PR RO. How this will go in a particular instance will depend on many other factors, not the least of which is just how much the PR has been abroad, and including, of course, how strict the examining border officer is (so yes, there is some
LUCK, just some not a lot).
Edit to Add Recent Entry and Continuing Canadian Ties Factors:
A relatively recent entry into Canada can be a factor which pushes the scales toward a waive through, toward NO referral to Secondary. BUT not always.
I do not want to digress into even more complicated aspects of the factors. BUT extent of continuing ties in Canada is also, itself, a huge factor. HOWEVER it is so broad, and the appearance of being settled permanently in Canada covers most aspects of this factor, and the other factors cover the other aspects, I have been hesitant to specifically discuss it on its own.
But it would be remiss to skip the importance of
continuing-ties, or the absence thereof, as a factor which can significantly influence whether there is a waive-through or a referral to Secondary at the PoE. And in many situations (but not all), recent entries into Canada are an indicator of continuing ties in Canada.
(for more direct observations about OP's conclusions, see next post)
