Again, my apologies to
@Besram for the tangent . . . .
How exactly do you think those accounts put anything into perspective? They are accounts that are based entirely on a specific subset of people who have failed to meet the RO and therefore have a significantly higher chance of more intensive scrutiny than people who still meet the RO.
For PR RO issues in particular: Foremost, the IAD decisions offer many guide posts for identifying issues and evaluating factual claims, precisely because some (though many do not) outline in some detail factual claims made by PRs, the arguments advanced by PRs or their lawyers, the factual findings in the 44(1) Report, the factual and legal assertions advocated by the Minister's representative, and the IAD panel's consideration of all these. In key respects the procedures are documented (again, not always, probably not usually, but often enough to be informative). Key policies, practices, interpretations, and applications of the rules and laws, are sometimes addressed in detail. Overall some will offer a great deal of insight into the decision-making at the PoE, by the Minister's delegate, by the Minister's representative before the IAD or FC, and by the IAD decision-maker, all of which is influenced by many, many variable factors.
But they also offer a good deal of background information about how PRs get themselves into difficulty. Many PRs did not intend for things to go as they did. Their versions of the facts, and how the various decision-makers in the process respond to those, is particularly illuminating . . . albeit, yes, to learn from these sources demands some focus and careful analysis, lots of cross-checking, and yes a great, great deal of reading.
Ask almost anyone which is a better way to navigate something like the Canadian immigration system, in ignorance or with as much knowledge and information one can reasonably acquire, and very, very few will suggest ignorance is the way to go. Yet forums like this are rife with overly broad and oft times unfounded generalizations derived from ignorance, not knowledge.
As to some specifics:
NOT ALL IAD CASES ARE CREATED EQUAL -- IN PARTICULAR, THE PR DID NOT ALWAYS BREACH THE RO:
Actually (like more than a few broad generalizations populating this forum) it is
NOT true that the IAD cases, or even all the Federal Court cases, are "
based entirely on a specific subset of people who have failed to meet the RO." Some of these cases are overruled because they are found to NOT be valid in law. That is, it was determined the PR did not fail to comply with the RO.
Reminder: "valid in law" is strictly about whether the PR met the RO based on number of days; H&C reasons ONLY come into play if the Report is determined to be "valid in law." The vast majority of IAD decisions are cases in which the Report was "valid in law," but again in some of the cases it is determined the Report was NOT valid in law, that the PR was IN FACT in compliance with the RO. Sure, one has to read a lot of cases to see the full range.
In any event, while there are not a lot of these cases, and they are not easy to find (which is why simply reading a lot over the course of years helps), these particular cases tend to establish a kind of base line. And very much help to put many other situations into perspective.
THEN THERE ARE THE CASES IN WHICH THE PR CLAIMS TO HAVE MET THE RO BUT . . .
These cases help to put many forum reports in perspective. There are patterns. Then there are patterns in the way the factual versions deviate from the more common patterns. Not easy to summarize what can be gleaned from more than a decade of reading and comparing what PRs claim in formal proceedings versus what forum participants claim, but a far more complete picture of the whole range definitely helps put individual segments into focus . . . perspective.
In the vast majority of these cases the PR asserts RO compliance AND alternatively seeks H&C relief. I do not keep track of numbers going one way or the other, but I'd guess most fail on both counts. Nonetheless, here again the information that is available helps to identify key elements, key factors, key questions, and the range of variables. That is, the more complete picture one has, the more that puts individual situations into perspective.
But let's be frank about a key element of what constitutes "perspective" regarding forum reporting: The factual situation described in many forum anecdotal reports often tends to be a rather generous if not outright gratuitous account favouring the reporting PR. Having read a hundred or three hundred IAD and FC cases does not necessarily give someone a credibility-meter, but it helps. A lot. That's perspective.
MORE THAN A FEW OF THE IAD DECISIONS INVOLVE PRs WHO HAD BEEN CAUTIONED DURING PREVIOUS PoE EXAMINATIONS:
The decisions in which previous history of PoE events is recounted are especially informative. These too are few and not easy to find by ordinary search criteria . . . but again, for those who are actually interested in real facts, and thus read a lot of ACTUAL cases described in the OFFICIAL sources, these cases offer a lot of insight. The PoE exchanges described include instances in which the PoE official cautioned the PR (which is sometimes seen in situations similar to that described in the current discussion: a PR absent for an extended period of time, in compliance but obviously approaching the brink of noncompliance), and instances in which the PR was specifically admonished (this comes up, for example, in cases in which the PR is claiming credit based on being employed abroad by a Canadian business, and is admonished to have PROOF the next time . . . I recall one case in which it appeared the PR had been so cautioned or admonished on at least THREE occasions before the PoE examination resulting in a 44(1) Report). Again, there are only a few cases like this, but they are ACTUAL cases as recounted in an OFFICIAL source, so the accounts describing earlier PoE exchanges are reliable and informative and help to put forum anecdotal accounts into perspective.
THE IMPORTANCE OF H&C ASSESSMENTS IN THE IAD DECISIONS:
A rather significant contextual insight the IAD cases offer is rooted in the extent to which H&C cases depend on the number of days actually present in Canada. In many, many cases the number is disputed or at least there are conflicting accounts of how many days credit the PR should be allowed. Why should be obvious. And is not the point here anyway. The point here is that when the IAD panel digs into the details about counting days in Canada, which on many occasions it does (though in many other cases this is not contested), that assessment often illuminates a good deal about how IRCC officials weigh the PR's claims. Regardless what the total number eventually is determined to be, its the way the IAD panel weighs the evidence which provides real context for looking at other cases and situations. Perspective.
