Left Canada when a minor

[asaeed100]

Did you read the whole story? The family specifies that their child would like to return and attend a Canadian university although the family spent 3 weeks and then 5 months in Canada all before 2004. How is their situation different from the other international students. Although they have not lost PR their family has not made any attempts to relocate to Canada for 15 years.

regardless what they intend to do or not
the fact is the have every right as long as the system allows
they are not doing anything illegal !
one does not have the right to judge or question anyone.
this is not the purpose of the forum if i am not mistaken - VIP member or not
where is your outrage for the ones who come, stay, get educated and leave for the US the first chance they get

 

[jddd]

regardless what they intend to do or not
the fact is the have every right as long as the system allows
they are not doing anything illegal !
one does not have the right to judge or question anyone.
this is not the purpose of the forum if i am not mistaken - VIP member or not
where is your outrage for the ones who come, stay, get educated and leave for the US the first chance they get

The system SPECIFIES that PRs MUST physically live in Canada for 2 years out of 5 years so if you are speaking technicality then TECHNICALLY AND LEGALLY, they should lose PR.

I don’t think comments that to you are negative are judgements. They are simply stating that if that person does not contribute to Canadian taxes, then the person should not have access to subsidized schooling. You view this negatively because it seems you are in the same predicament. You are reprimanding a Canadian taxpayer when other people want to use their taxes for themselves when they themselves did not show loyalty to Canada by staying and paying taxes here.

 

[canuck78]

regardless what they intend to do or not
the fact is the have every right as long as the system allows
they are not doing anything illegal !
one does not have the right to judge or question anyone.
this is not the purpose of the forum if i am not mistaken - VIP member or not
where is your outrage for the ones who come, stay, get educated and leave for the US the first chance they get

Any Canadian should also be outraged. Having citizenship for life for you and your future children comes with a lot of potential benefits and costs. Canada does not want any immigrant to leave after 3 years. The whole goal of immigration is to add workers to our own economy not to facilitate immigration to other countries.

 

[asaeed100]

The system SPECIFIES that PRs MUST physically live in Canada for 2 years out of 5 years so if you are speaking technicality then TECHNICALLY AND LEGALLY, they should lose PR.

I don’t think comments that to you are negative are judgements. They are simply stating that if that person does not contribute to Canadian taxes, then the person should not have access to subsidized schooling. You view this negatively because it seems you are in the same predicament. You are reprimanding a Canadian taxpayer when other people want to use their taxes for themselves when they themselves did not show loyalty to Canada by staying and paying taxes here.

like i said having a PR status and maintaining the RO are two different things as per the policy
the fact is if someone did not meet his/her RO (for whatever reasons) and is trying to come back,
they are simply taking a late start. you simply cannot question their intentions

people dont just simply give up their immigration after spending money, time and efforts to abandon it later. they all have genuine reasons.
some people seem to have forgotten the purpose of such forums and use it as platform to vent our their anger on issue they do not seem to agree with - this is coming after seeing some really discouraging replies from the main contributors.

if someone has the information and knowledge , they had better use is to help and support and inform others, all while keeping aside their personal views. if they dont, all their post and replies and time spent will be worth "Nothing"

thank you

 

[jddd]

like i said having a PR status and maintaining the RO are two different things as per the policy
the fact is if someone did not meet his/her RO (for whatever reasons) and is trying to come back,
they are simply taking a late start. you simply cannot question their intentions

people dont just simply give up their immigration after spending money, time and efforts to abandon it later. they all have genuine reasons.
some people seem to have forgotten the purpose of such forums and use it as platform to vent our their anger on issue they do not seem to agree with - this is coming after seeing some really discouraging replies from the main contributors.

if someone has the information and knowledge , they had better use is to help and support and inform others, all while keeping aside their personal views. if they dont, all their post and replies and time spent will be worth "Nothing"

thank you

Ensuring COMPLIANCE to RO is the RESPONSIBILITY of a PR. You can’t have it all. If you chose to stay out of Canada and contribute to another country then WHY SHOULD YOU use money paid by those who chose to stay in Canada for yourself? Simple as that.

I don’t care about their intention. I don’t even care if they get to save their RO. Just stop using taxpayer money until YOU HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO.

How people use their time is none of your business. If we want to express our anger about abusers we will keep doing just that...just like you have the right to TRY and save your PR and just like you have the right to ALSO say what you want to say which to us also does nothing.

 

[asaeed100]

Ensuring COMPLIANCE to RO is the RESPONSIBILITY of a PR. You can’t have it all. If you chose to stay out of Canada and contribute to another country then WHY SHOULD YOU use money paid by those who chose to stay in Canada for yourself? Simple as that.

I don’t care about their intention. I don’t even care if they get to save their RO. Just stop using taxpayer money until YOU HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO.

How people use their time is none of your business. If we want to express our anger about abusers we will keep doing just that...just like you have the right to TRY and save your PR and just like you have the right to ALSO say what you want to say which to us also does nothing.

Thank you
might as well get on the "DT" bandwagon and contribute to building a wall between the US and CAN

 

[asaeed100]

Any Canadian should also be outraged. Having citizenship for life for you and your future children comes with a lot of potential benefits and costs. Canada does not want any immigrant to leave after 3 years. The whole goal of immigration is to add workers to our own economy not to facilitate immigration to other countries.

i agree but who made you judge dredd? . you have used the same yard stick and applied to different issues, sometime where it didnt even matter .
you have painted everyone with the same brush -
you have tried to discourage people in different ways and given them wrong advises over the years. while respecting your personal opinions i think you done more damage to your self esteem then to any immigrant with any issues.
you may have helped a few however when someone has such negative feelings and ideology, it takes away all the good intentions he/she had (if any)
that is so racists and so "un-Canadian". it is time for a reality check Holding a canadian passport and being "Canadian" are two different things. give it a thought sometimes.
how you even sleep with such a burden over your shoulders is beyond my comprehension. .


if anyone was to take their PRC, Canadian college degree and passport to their graves in hopes of a higher rank in paradise, even then i wouldnt put such efforts as you have done.

good luck sir.

 

[Copingwithlife]

regardless what they intend to do or not
the fact is the have every right as long as the system allows
they are not doing anything illegal !
one does not have the right to judge or question anyone.
this is not the purpose of the forum if i am not mistaken - VIP member or not
where is your outrage for the ones who come, stay, get educated and leave for the US the first chance they get

Good grief

 

[dpenabill]

The system SPECIFIES that PRs MUST physically live in Canada for 2 years out of 5 years so if you are speaking technicality then TECHNICALLY AND LEGALLY, they should lose PR.

This overstates it a bit.

The PR Residency Obligation is an "obligation" not a condition. Moreover, it does not entirely depend on living in Canada. PRs accompanying Canadian citizen spouses abroad, for example, meet the PR RO by living together with their citizen spouse anywhere in the world (and they can do this for many, many years).

A breach of the RO has NO legal consequences UNLESS the government decides to take formal, official action against the PR.

It is somewhat ironic that the RO is misunderstood from both directions. Both by those who would wield it like sword and sever status for, as you reference, technically not meeting it; while not exclusively, this tends to more often blow with the chill wind of an anti-immigrant sentiment. (Without judging the aptness of their observation, why some apprehend an anti-immigrant animus in the tone of more than a few comments posted here is readily understood, whether that really is motivating those comments or it just appears to be that way.) AND by those who approach the RO with little regard for the purpose PR status is granted, which is so an individual can settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY, failing to grasp that the two in five year obligation is specifically intended to accommodate special needs NOT facilitate an ongoing lifestyle.

The history of flexibility and leniency in the manner and methods of enforcing the RO pervades Canadian immigration policy. Which appears to irritate some, many who may or may not harbour anti-immigrant sentiments. But which also tends to be exploited or outright abused by others.

Scores and scores of PRs engaged in the real life travails of making a life in a new country navigate the "system" in between those opposing ends of the spectrum. And Canadian bureaucrats, including CBSA officers as well as IRCC processing agents, can be and very often are remarkably tolerant and forbearing, if not outright generous, when they are dealing with new or relatively new immigrants who are making a genuine, good faith effort to settle in Canada, even if they have fallen short of meeting the PR RO. This is as much a part of the "system" as the particular rules are.

Note, for example, if a disgruntled landlord or colleague or neighbour calls IRCC to "report" they know an immigrant in Canada who has not been in Canada for two of the last five years, who is not in compliance with the RO, that will NOT trigger any action or investigation. IRCC is FINE with such an immigrant continuing to live in Canada. Worst thing that might happen, maybe, is a note to GCMS, so if that individual leaves Canada she will examined upon arrival when she returns, or if that individual applies for a new PR card, then too he will be examined as to RO compliance before a new PR card is issued. But IRCC is NOT going to initiate inadmissibility proceedings for a breach of the RO by PRs living in Canada because they learn a PR has not met the RO. (In contrast, upon receiving information that a PR has acted in a way that constitutes other grounds for inadmissibility, like misrepresentation or serious criminality, or a security threat, IRCC will investigate and, if deemed warranted, proceed to take action.)

None of this should be understood to minimize let alone dismiss the risk posed by failing to comply with the RO. Even what many consider fairly strong H&C reasons can fail to save a PR's status, particularly for lengthy breaches. This includes CBSA and IRCC sometimes denying H&C relief to PRs who were "removed" as a minor, albeit this DEPENDS on the particular facts in the individual case.

It warrants noting, as well, so far as I have seen in published IAD decisions, that is official accounts of actual cases, more than a few PRs seeking H&C relief based on having been removed as a minor explicitly affirm their primary intention is to live in Canada for the purpose of further education . . . this appears to generally be considered a POSITIVE not a negative factor (it alone is not a big positive factor, and is largely about corroborating the PR's claim of intent to actually come to live in Canada; other factors tend to loom larger, like how soon after reaching majority the PR makes an effort to come to Canada, or to what extent was the PR established in Canada before being removed, and as always how long it has been since the PR was last in Canada). Notwithstanding there are a few, perhaps more than a few, who prefer the contrary, who oppose allowing PRs removed as minors to retain PR status so they can take advantage of Canada's educational system.

 

[jddd]

This overstates it a bit.

The PR Residency Obligation is an "obligation" not a condition.

Though I agree that there are other ways to meet RO like accompanying a Canadian spouse, that does not relate to the circumstance of the person in question which is why I did not mention it.

In terms of saying RO is only an obligation, though I am not a lawyer myself, any professor (all lawyers) who taught us as well as lawyers we work for now agree that when the word “must” is used in law, then the person it refers to “shall” do it.


Residency obligation

• 28 (1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.

Below that describes what you refer to as other ways to meet RO. So IMO, CBSA may exercise discretion on reporting those who violate it, why I do not know but if these PRs (I being one of them) would like to keep being PR, then we must comply with the extremely lenient RO. If we don’t, then IRCC has the legal right to revoke our PR based on s.28(1) of IRPA.

 

[canuck78]

i agree but who made you judge dredd? . you have used the same yard stick and applied to different issues, sometime where it didnt even matter .
you have painted everyone with the same brush -
you have tried to discourage people in different ways and given them wrong advises over the years. while respecting your personal opinions i think you done more damage to your self esteem then to any immigrant with any issues.
you may have helped a few however when someone has such negative feelings and ideology, it takes away all the good intentions he/she had (if any)
that is so racists and so "un-Canadian". it is time for a reality check Holding a canadian passport and being "Canadian" are two different things. give it a thought sometimes.
how you even sleep with such a burden over your shoulders is beyond my comprehension. .


if anyone was to take their PRC, Canadian college degree and passport to their graves in hopes of a higher rank in paradise, even then i wouldnt put such efforts as you have done.

good luck sir.

I encourage people daily to move to Canada but would like people to follow the residency rules, work hard and contribute to the Canadian economy and their community. I also don’t give people wrong advise and in the rare instances where it has happened it is by accident and others correct my error. If people want to pay for advice they should pay to see an immigration lawyer. Canada has incredibly lenient residency obligations. The other Canadians who immigrated with you have worked and paid taxes for the past 15 years. They would also think that it is not fair for your child to get domestic tuition rates when they have been working hard, likely made quite a few sacrifices and paid into the Canadian tax base.

 

[canuck78]

This overstates it a bit.

The PR Residency Obligation is an "obligation" not a condition. Moreover, it does not entirely depend on living in Canada. PRs accompanying Canadian citizen spouses abroad, for example, meet the PR RO by living together with their citizen spouse anywhere in the world (and they can do this for many, many years).

A breach of the RO has NO legal consequences UNLESS the government decides to take formal, official action against the PR.

It is somewhat ironic that the RO is misunderstood from both directions. Both by those who would wield it like sword and sever status for, as you reference, technically not meeting it; while not exclusively, this tends to more often blow with the chill wind of an anti-immigrant sentiment. (Without judging the aptness of their observation, why some apprehend an anti-immigrant animus in the tone of more than a few comments posted here is readily understood, whether that really is motivating those comments or it just appears to be that way.) AND by those who approach the RO with little regard for the purpose PR status is granted, which is so an individual can settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY, failing to grasp that the two in five year obligation is specifically intended to accommodate special needs NOT facilitate an ongoing lifestyle.

The history of flexibility and leniency in the manner and methods of enforcing the RO pervades Canadian immigration policy. Which appears to irritate some, many who may or may not harbour anti-immigrant sentiments. But which also tends to be exploited or outright abused by others.

Scores and scores of PRs engaged in the real life travails of making a life in a new country navigate the "system" in between those opposing ends of the spectrum. And Canadian bureaucrats, including CBSA officers as well as IRCC processing agents, can be and very often are remarkably tolerant and forbearing, if not outright generous, when they are dealing with new or relatively new immigrants who are making a genuine, good faith effort to settle in Canada, even if they have fallen short of meeting the PR RO. This is as much a part of the "system" as the particular rules are.

Note, for example, if a disgruntled landlord or colleague or neighbour calls IRCC to "report" they know an immigrant in Canada who has not been in Canada for two of the last five years, who is not in compliance with the RO, that will NOT trigger any action or investigation. IRCC is FINE with such an immigrant continuing to live in Canada. Worst thing that might happen, maybe, is a note to GCMS, so if that individual leaves Canada she will examined upon arrival when she returns, or if that individual applies for a new PR card, then too he will be examined as to RO compliance before a new PR card is issued. But IRCC is NOT going to initiate inadmissibility proceedings for a breach of the RO by PRs living in Canada because they learn a PR has not met the RO. (In contrast, upon receiving information that a PR has acted in a way that constitutes other grounds for inadmissibility, like misrepresentation or serious criminality, or a security threat, IRCC will investigate and, if deemed warranted, proceed to take action.)

None of this should be understood to minimize let alone dismiss the risk posed by failing to comply with the RO. Even what many consider fairly strong H&C reasons can fail to save a PR's status, particularly for lengthy breaches. This includes CBSA and IRCC sometimes denying H&C relief to PRs who were "removed" as a minor, albeit this DEPENDS on the particular facts in the individual case.

It warrants noting, as well, so far as I have seen in published IAD decisions, that is official accounts of actual cases, more than a few PRs seeking H&C relief based on having been removed as a minor explicitly affirm their primary intention is to live in Canada for the purpose of further education . . . this appears to generally be considered a POSITIVE not a negative factor (it alone is not a big positive factor, and is largely about corroborating the PR's claim of intent to actually come to live in Canada; other factors tend to loom larger, like how soon after reaching majority the PR makes an effort to come to Canada, or to what extent was the PR established in Canada before being removed, and as always how long it has been since the PR was last in Canada). Notwithstanding there are a few, perhaps more than a few, who prefer the contrary, who oppose allowing PRs removed as minors to retain PR status so they can take advantage of Canada's educational system.

Canada has continued to be overly generous and trusting in various immigration programs and has not put enough money into actually crackdown Hen it comes to fraud or crack down or processing many people not meeting their residency obligations. For example there have been many of articles in the past year about paying for jobs through LMIA in the lower mainland and other regions or large numbers of foreign nationals, supposedly Chinese, running across the BC borders on foot through smuggling. Most of the policies are usually addressing issues that have been going on for 10 years and the lack of enforcement allows people to exploit the system even more. The removal as a minor reason is not a guaranteed way to get a PRTD like it was in the past because I suspect the volume of these applicants have increased over the past few years. It has become known as a way to secure domestic tuition for your children or another option should they want to move to Canada at 18. It is much less costly to secure PR for your family than pay multiple years of international tuition especially if you have more than one child. There are families who have posted on this forum asking whether their child will be able to use the removed as a minor reason 10-15 years from now.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . there are other ways to meet RO like accompanying a Canadian spouse, that does not relate to the circumstance of the person in question which is why I did not mention it.

The statutorily enumerated ways of complying with the PR simply illustrate that complying with the RO does NOT necessarily require that "PRs MUST physically live in Canada."

Beyond that, even if it is determined that a PR has failed to comply with the RO, that does not necessarily mean the PR should lose PR status. Thus, even rephrasing the premise of your statement to say "PRs must comply with the residency obligation," it is NOT necessarily correct to say if they don't "they should lose PR." That is NOT what the law prescribes. Not what the law mandates. That is not how it works. (Noting, however, most will lose PR; but that is NOT an outcome mandated by the law.)

In fact, the law requires consideration of any reasons explaining the absence from Canada with due regard for a number of H&C factors, which are repeatedly articulated in numerous IAD and Federal Court decisions, BEFORE a decision to terminate PR status is made, and if there are H&C reasons justifying the retention of PR status, the law specifically states that "overcomes any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination." Meaning not only that it is NOT correct to say "they should lose PR," but in such cases where there are sufficient H&C reasons, the law specifies they be allowed to retain PR status. Even though they failed to comply with the RO.

Caveat: Again, this should not be understood to minimize let alone dismiss the risk posed by failing to comply with the RO.

Which leads to your reliance on the legal imperative language in Section 28(1).

In terms of saying RO is only an obligation, though I am not a lawyer myself, any professor (all lawyers) who taught us as well as lawyers we work for now agree that when the word “must” is used in law, then the person it refers to “shall” do it.

Legal imperatives come in various shapes and sizes. After all, the import of "must" in a statutory prescription does not have the force and effect of the physical laws of science. What is the operation and effect of this particular statutory prescription? That is what matters. As I said, the RO is explicitly an "obligation," and not, for example, a condition. The RO is neither self-executing nor self-enforcing. Indeed, Subsection 28(2) specifies a number of provisions governing the RO, and there is an extensive volume of IAD and Federal Court decisions which amply illustrate and illuminate what the law specifies, how it is interpreted and applied, and its effects. Simplistic dichotomies, such as what is mandatory ("shall") versus what is permissive ("may"), might pass for jurisprudence in a rudimentary course about legal terminology (perhaps like one I taught for court reporters nearly four decades ago) but it does not illuminate much about how a complex matter like the PR RO is actually construed and applied.

Some legal imperatives are self-executing, some are self-enforcing, many impose conditions, while many more involve a range of remedies or POTENTIAL consequences. The RO is among the latter. Thus . . .

"If we don’t [comply with the RO], then IRCC has the legal right to revoke our PR based on s.28(1) of IRPA."​

That is almost, but not quite, the gist of it. And I'd substitute the term "authority" for "legal right," or if one wants to emphasize that authority derives from law, the "legal authority" to determine a PR is inadmissible due to a breach of the RO. But this is NOT unfettered legal authority to revoke PR status let alone a mandate to terminate or revoke PR status. Bringing this back to 28(2)(c) as just one of the complex aspects of the RO and its application.

This in turn brings the discussion around to its context, "the circumstance of the person in question:"

Actually, as others have pointed out, we know only a small slice of the relevant details, so I emphatically agree with those who caution against making judgmental pronouncements based on sketchy facts and, relative to some comments posted here, unfounded assertions about what matters. The general outline, however, fits a somewhat common pattern: family landed and became PRs, did not stay long, and then many years later one or more of the children wants to come to Canada to attend university or such; in more than an occasional instance, which appears is the case being discussed here, the parents and/or other family members are also looking or at least hoping to also finally come to Canada to settle.

The precise details matter. The few details shared suggest the odds are not good. But the target of some disdain here, the young PRs whose objective is to take advantage of educational opportunities in Canada, actually have the better odds. That is not to say they have good odds. Or poor odds. Again their specific details matter. Including how much past 18 years of age they are. Among other factors, like how long ago they were last in Canada, and when in Canada for how long.

The general situation being discussed here is somewhat similar to an actual case decided by the IAD earlier this year. And I have discussed, cited, and linked this case in this particular topic, back during the summer as I recall. Family landed as PRs, stayed in Canada just 20 days, left and never returned, and thus in the five years preceding the date they applied for PR Travel Documents they had spent ZERO days in Canada. Parents and two sons. One of the sons, the younger one, had just turned 18. All were denied a PR TD by visa office in Turkey. But the IAD allowed the appeal for the youngest son, who had explicitly expressed the intention to come to Canada to attend school. This decision was specifically predicated on H&C relief for a removed-as-a-minor PR seeking to come to Canada soon after his 18th birthday.

See Ashoori v Canada 2019 CanLII 31048 http://canlii.ca/t/hzrg8 . . . in which the IAD emphasized that the reason for this individual's absence was NOT at all in the young PR's control.

So lets be clear, the removed-as-a-minor PR has among the strongest possible positive reason-for-absence factors, given a total lack-of-personal-choice. And as long as the young PR makes the effort to return to Canada soon after attaining the age of majority, that reason covers the full period of absence. This factor, however, does NOT negate or totally override all the other factors. So there are varying results for young PRs attempting to return to Canada relatively soon after reaching the age of majority. In general, it appears the policy still leans well IN FAVOUR of allowing young PRs a chance to come and live in Canada, EVEN IF their stated or apparent objective is primarily to take advantage of Canadian educational opportunities.

In particular, so far as I have found in researching this, the young PR's intention to come to Canada because of educational opportunities in Canada does NOT hurt the PR's H&C case.

In particular, there is NO support for the following:

The removal as a minor reason is not a guaranteed way to get a PRTD like it was in the past because I suspect the volume of these applicants have increased over the past few years.

The premise of this is incorrect. Removed-as-a-minor WAS NOT a guaranteed way to get a PR TD "in the past," not anymore than now. I addressed and debunked that in this very topic back in the summer, again citing and linking OFFICIAL ACTUAL cases illustrating that ten and fifteen years ago the results varied much like recently. Again, the particular details in each case matter.

I specifically asked for any sources which evidence that CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD has taken a more negative view toward removed-as-a-minor cases, or that suggest CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD considers a motive related to taking advantage of Canadian educational opportunities (including resident tuition) as a negative factor, and NONE have been offered. I have made this request repeatedly.

All I have found (and I have looked) are cases which indicate that at least lawyers representing such individuals must think it is actually a positive factor, based on their advocating the young PR's intention to come to Canada to go to school as a positive factor in making their client's H&C cases to the IAD.

There may have been an apparent increase in anecdotal reports in this forum, but the actual number is so small and sporadic even that now seems not credible, and in any event the scope of detail offered in the few, isolated reports is rarely informative. AGAIN, the details in the particular case matters . . . this past summer, here, I also went into some detail about how several of the key elements play out in the OFFICIAL accounts of ACTUAL cases published in IAD and Federal Court decisions, and its no mystery why the outcome for some can be very different than the outcome for others.

There is a big, big difference between pushing what someone thinks the law should be and how they think it should be applied, versus actually doing the research to discern what the law actually is and how it is actually being applied.

The removed-as-a-minor H&C case still appears to be among the strongest, if not specifically the strongest H&C case for retaining PR status.

 

[jddd]

The statutorily enumerated ways of complying with the PR simply illustrate that complying with the RO does NOT necessarily require that "PRs MUST physically live in Canada."

Beyond that, even if it is determined that a PR has failed to comply with the RO, that does not necessarily mean the PR should lose PR status. Thus, even rephrasing the premise of your statement to say "PRs must comply with the residency obligation," it is NOT necessarily correct to say if they don't "they should lose PR." That is NOT what the law prescribes. Not what the law mandates. That is not how it works. (Noting, however, most will lose PR; but that is NOT an outcome mandated by the law.)

In fact, the law requires consideration of any reasons explaining the absence from Canada with due regard for a number of H&C factors, which are repeatedly articulated in numerous IAD and Federal Court decisions, BEFORE a decision to terminate PR status is made, and if there are H&C reasons justifying the retention of PR status, the law specifically states that "overcomes any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination." Meaning not only that it is NOT correct to say "they should lose PR," but in such cases where there are sufficient H&C reasons, the law specifies they be allowed to retain PR status. Even though they failed to comply with the RO.

Caveat: Again, this should not be understood to minimize let alone dismiss the risk posed by failing to comply with the RO.

Which leads to your reliance on the legal imperative language in Section 28(1).



Legal imperatives come in various shapes and sizes. After all, the import of "must" in a statutory prescription does not have the force and effect of the physical laws of science. What is the operation and effect of this particular statutory prescription? That is what matters. As I said, the RO is explicitly an "obligation," and not, for example, a condition. The RO is neither self-executing nor self-enforcing. Indeed, Subsection 28(2) specifies a number of provisions governing the RO, and there is an extensive volume of IAD and Federal Court decisions which amply illustrate and illuminate what the law specifies, how it is interpreted and applied, and its effects. Simplistic dichotomies, such as what is mandatory ("shall") versus what is permissive ("may"), might pass for jurisprudence in a rudimentary course about legal terminology (perhaps like one I taught for court reporters nearly four decades ago) but it does not illuminate much about how a complex matter like the PR RO is actually construed and applied.

Some legal imperatives are self-executing, some are self-enforcing, many impose conditions, while many more involve a range of remedies or POTENTIAL consequences. The RO is among the latter. Thus . . .

"If we don’t [comply with the RO], then IRCC has the legal right to revoke our PR based on s.28(1) of IRPA."​

That is almost, but not quite, the gist of it. And I'd substitute the term "authority" for "legal right," or if one wants to emphasize that authority derives from law, the "legal authority" to determine a PR is inadmissible due to a breach of the RO. But this is NOT unfettered legal authority to revoke PR status let alone a mandate to terminate or revoke PR status. Bringing this back to 28(2)(c) as just one of the complex aspects of the RO and its application.

This in turn brings the discussion around to its context, "the circumstance of the person in question:"

Actually, as others have pointed out, we know only a small slice of the relevant details, so I emphatically agree with those who caution against making judgmental pronouncements based on sketchy facts and, relative to some comments posted here, unfounded assertions about what matters. The general outline, however, fits a somewhat common pattern: family landed and became PRs, did not stay long, and then many years later one or more of the children wants to come to Canada to attend university or such; in more than an occasional instance, which appears is the case being discussed here, the parents and/or other family members are also looking or at least hoping to also finally come to Canada to settle.

The precise details matter. The few details shared suggest the odds are not good. But the target of some disdain here, the young PRs whose objective is to take advantage of educational opportunities in Canada, actually have the better odds. That is not to say they have good odds. Or poor odds. Again their specific details matter. Including how much past 18 years of age they are. Among other factors, like how long ago they were last in Canada, and when in Canada for how long.

The general situation being discussed here is somewhat similar to an actual case decided by the IAD earlier this year. And I have discussed, cited, and linked this case in this particular topic, back during the summer as I recall. Family landed as PRs, stayed in Canada just 20 days, left and never returned, and thus in the five years preceding the date they applied for PR Travel Documents they had spent ZERO days in Canada. Parents and two sons. One of the sons, the younger one, had just turned 18. All were denied a PR TD by visa office in Turkey. But the IAD allowed the appeal for the youngest son, who had explicitly expressed the intention to come to Canada to attend school. This decision was specifically predicated on H&C relief for a removed-as-a-minor PR seeking to come to Canada soon after his 18th birthday.

See Ashoori v Canada 2019 CanLII 31048 http://canlii.ca/t/hzrg8 . . . in which the IAD emphasized that the reason for this individual's absence was NOT at all in the young PR's control.

So lets be clear, the removed-as-a-minor PR has among the strongest possible positive reason-for-absence factors, given a total lack-of-personal-choice. And as long as the young PR makes the effort to return to Canada soon after attaining the age of majority, that reason covers the full period of absence. This factor, however, does NOT negate or totally override all the other factors. So there are varying results for young PRs attempting to return to Canada relatively soon after reaching the age of majority. In general, it appears the policy still leans well IN FAVOUR of allowing young PRs a chance to come and live in Canada, EVEN IF their stated or apparent objective is primarily to take advantage of Canadian educational opportunities.

In particular, so far as I have found in researching this, the young PR's intention to come to Canada because of educational opportunities in Canada does NOT hurt the PR's H&C case.

In particular, there is NO support for the following:



The premise of this is incorrect. Removed-as-a-minor WAS NOT a guaranteed way to get a PR TD "in the past," not anymore than now. I addressed and debunked that in this very topic back in the summer, again citing and linking OFFICIAL ACTUAL cases illustrating that ten and fifteen years ago the results varied much like recently. Again, the particular details in each case matter.

I specifically asked for any sources which evidence that CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD has taken a more negative view toward removed-as-a-minor cases, or that suggest CBSA, IRCC, or the IAD considers a motive related to taking advantage of Canadian educational opportunities (including resident tuition) as a negative factor, and NONE have been offered. I have made this request repeatedly.

All I have found (and I have looked) are cases which indicate that at least lawyers representing such individuals must think it is actually a positive factor, based on their advocating the young PR's intention to come to Canada to go to school as a positive factor in making their client's H&C cases to the IAD.

There may have been an apparent increase in anecdotal reports in this forum, but the actual number is so small and sporadic even that now seems not credible, and in any event the scope of detail offered in the few, isolated reports is rarely informative. AGAIN, the details in the particular case matters . . . this past summer, here, I also went into some detail about how several of the key elements play out in the OFFICIAL accounts of ACTUAL cases published in IAD and Federal Court decisions, and its no mystery why the outcome for some can be very different than the outcome for others.

There is a big, big difference between pushing what someone thinks the law should be and how they think it should be applied, versus actually doing the research to discern what the law actually is and how it is actually being applied.

The removed-as-a-minor H&C case still appears to be among the strongest, if not specifically the strongest H&C case for retaining PR status.

In all honesty, your reply is too long for me to read. I will assume you disagree with me so let us just agree to disagree.

To simplify here is how I see it and how we have been taught to interpret the LAW: IF RO is NOT a MUST then by DEFAULT, ANYONE who appeals due to losing PR because of non compliance to RO MUST THEN have their appeal accepted. This is NOT the case.

Note that I am not talking about those with valid H&C reasons. I will ALWAYS hate those who abuse the system.

 

[dpenabill]

In all honesty, your reply is too long for me to read. I will assume you disagree with me so let us just agree to disagree.

To simplify here is how I see it and how we have been taught to interpret the LAW: IF RO is NOT a MUST then by DEFAULT, ANYONE who appeals due to losing PR because of non compliance to RO MUST THEN have their appeal accepted. This is NOT the case.

Note that I am not talking about those with valid H&C reasons. I will ALWAYS hate those who abuse the system.

"In all honesty, your reply is too long for me to read. I will assume you disagree with me so let us just agree to disagree."​

Symptomatic of the times. Spout opinions without bothering to even consider the evidence let alone do the homework. And then firmly stand behind such opinions. Regardless.

No, I do not agree to disagree on such conditions.

That said, perhaps we do agree. I agree, for example, that if pursuant to due process and procedural fairness it is determined, under the current law, that a PR should lose PR status, yeah, that means the PR should lose PR status. If that is what you mean, I agree.

BUT where it appears our views diverge is whether a finding that a PR has failed to comply with the RO necessarily means the PR should lose PR status. Spoiler: the law says NO. The policy and practice, including interpretation and application of the current law says IT DEPENDS. This is NOT my personal view. This is what official sources say the law actually is.

"To simplify here is how I see it and how we have been taught to interpret the LAW: IF RO is NOT a MUST then by DEFAULT, ANYONE who appeals due to losing PR because of non compliance to RO MUST THEN have their appeal accepted."​

There is NO MUST be this or MUST be that outcome. In either direction. Whether a PR who has not complied with the PR RO "should" (under current law) lose PR status DEPENDS. It VARIES depending on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual case. Outcomes go in both directions.

First rule of interpretation is to read the actual law. Including its interpretation and the application of the law by official authorities. The IAD and Federal Court for example. Contrary to popular views, not all opinions are created equal. A little homework can go a long way. Beyond that, only the fool consults with her car mechanic about a medical issue rather than a qualified physician.

In any event: PRs do have a definite right (statutory "right") to have their appeal of a RO inadmissibility determination heard.

Even before that, however, BEFORE an officer, including a Minister's Delegate, can make a determination terminating a PR's status, NO MATTER how big the breach of the RO is, the officer MUST consider whether there are H&C reasons justifying retention of PR status. That is definitely the law. And if there are H&C reasons justifying retention of PR status, Section 28(2)(c) is clear: that "overcomes any breach of the residency obligation."

Which, as I have attempted to emphasize, does not necessarily give PRs a pass, and does not necessarily do so when they have what many might believe are compelling reasons (this forum is rife with PR stories illustrating highly unrealistic expectations about getting H&C relief). The outcome VARIES. Again, there is NO MUST be this or MUST be that outcome. The outcome DEPENDS on the particular details in the individual case. Even for the strongest H&C cases, like the removed-as-a-minor PR seeking to return to Canada soon after reaching the age of majority. DEPENDING on the particular facts, some go one way, some go the other way.

"Note that I am not talking about those with valid H&C reasons."​

Then who are you talking about? Obviously reasonable minds should agree that those who should lose PR status should lose PR status. That's kind of a tautology. If it's blue it's blue. Sure.

The point is that a breach of the RO does NOT, not necessarily, mean a PR should lose PR status, NOT under the current law. Again, IT DEPENDS. And what it depends on is whether there are H&C reasons justifying retention of PR status. If there are such reasons, the law is clear: such a PR is NOT among those who should lose PR. Despite failing to comply with the RO.

What some here have objected to, and their objection is well-founded, is the oft espoused opinion that removed-as-a-minor PRs who have not been in Canada for many years are among those who categorically should lose PR, especially if it appears their objective is to return to Canada to take advantage of educational opportunities here. That opinion is about what they think the law should be, and does not reflect what the current law is or how it currently works.

Even if the young PR's objective is largely to come to Canada to take advantage of educational opportunities here, including tuition benefits, the removed-as-a-minor PR seeking to return to Canada soon after reaching the age of majority is STILL among the stronger H&C cases, if not the strongest. Many if not most such PRs have the best shot at being allowed to retain their status.

"I will ALWAYS hate those who abuse the system."​

I am no Catholic, and being human (despite vociferous epithets to the contrary often aimed at those of us who engage in my profession) my emotions sometimes overcome my reason (intellectually I am a firm pacifist, for example, but am well aware it is likely I'm prone to reacting with violence if threatened or sufficiently provoked), I personally side with the sentiments recently expressed by the U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who told reporters she does not "hate" anyone (not even the bone-spurs-would-be-king monster she was being asked about). For me it is more in the nature of I try to not hate anyone, but again sometimes my emotions get the better of me.

Apart from that, I do not condone let alone support or encourage abuse of the Canadian immigration system. I definitively oppose its abuse.

Taking advantage of certain PR-favourable policies and practices, however, does NOT constitute abuse. What the law allows essentially defines what is acceptable, what does not constitute an abuse of the system.

Even though there are some here who make a concerted effort to frame the removed-as-a-minor PR seeking to return to Canada as an abuse of the system, and who seem all-too-ready to pass derisive judgment with no more than a scant familiarity with the facts that matter. I do not know if such views actually derive from an anti-immigrant animus or just appear to. I do know, however, because I do the homework, that consistent with current law the policy and practice of the Canadian government continues to be generous toward those removed-as-a-minor PRs seeking to return to Canada.