Re-entering Canada by US land border without PR card

[asaeed100]

A Canadian PR (valid PR of course) will be allowed to enter Canada at a PoE into Canada upon establishing identity and PR status. Passport plus any additional documents tending to show the traveler is a PR should suffice. Expired PR card is one of the better documents to present.

Of course a PR who has not complied with the PR Residency Obligation may be examined, Reported, and issued a Departure Order. But must still be allowed to enter Canada. (Departure Order is NOT enforceable for 30 days, or if an appeal is timely made not until there is a final disposition of the appeal.)

It does not matter how the PR traveled to the PoE. But, of course, unlike certain members of the Gaddafi family who had private jets to bring them to Canada, the only practical way for a PR to travel to a Canadian PoE without a valid PR card or PR Travel Document, is to utilize private land transportation to reach and cross the U.S./Canada border.

correct me if i am wrong
i believe the sequence goes like this, section 44 report by the secondary, 30 days to appeal, minister delegate involvement with Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference (if there is no resolution, case goes to court) , Court Appearance (1yr plus) , if you loose the case, you get Removal order, you can try for stay order, if that doesnt go your way and you overstay then finally you get the deportation order

you are also entitled to a 1yr PRC (renewable) once the case reaches the court

 

[dpenabill]

correct me if i am wrong
i believe the sequence goes like this, section 44 report by the secondary, 30 days to appeal, minister delegate involvement with Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference (if there is no resolution, case goes to court) , Court Appearance (1yr plus) , if you loose the case, you get Removal order, you can try for stay order, if that doesnt go your way and you overstay then finally you get the deportation order

While the practical procedure can vary, if the examining officer in Secondary at a PoE concludes the PR is inadmissible due to a breach of the PR Residency Obligation, that usually results in the issuance of the 44(1) Report for inadmissibility and a nearly IMMEDIATE referral to a "Minister's Delegate," who is typically just another officer at the PoE, or sometimes an officer available by telephone. Usually, but not always, the MD interviews the PR and makes a decision about whether to issue a Departure Order while the PR is still there in the PoE.

Sometimes, if the PoE is overly busy or another officer qualified to act as a MD is not available (even by telephone), the PR can be issued the 44(1) Report and advised there will be a follow-up with a MD.

MD's involvement in this process is NOT about an Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference. Remember, proceedings based on inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO are handled differently than other 44(1) Reports based on other grounds. Much of this is spelled out in the respective Operational Manuals, for which PDF versions are readily accessible here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html

In particular, see the Enforcement Manuals, ENF 1 Inadmissibility; ENF 3 Admissibility Hearings and . . . ; ENF 4 Port of Entry Examinations; ENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports; and especially ENF 23 Loss of Permanent Resident Status.

CAVEAT: The Operational Manuals are NOT well maintained. They are not law. They are not binding. And they tend to be out-of-date in this and that regard. But if read in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the respective statutory provisions and regulations, they are a valuable resource for anyone making an effort to figure out what the rules actually are and how they are applied. That said, one of the most common errors made is cherry-picking provisions in these manuals without due consideration for context and relationship to other provisions.

In any event, if the Minister's Delegate issues a Departure Order and the PR appeals, the tribunal which hears and decides the appeal is the Immigration Appeal Division in IRB, which operates independently of IRCC. This is a quasi-judicial process. There may be a procedure pursuant to which the Minister's representative in these proceedings conferences with the PR appealing before there is a hearing before the IAD, which could possibly result in an agreed upon resolution; however, for PoE issued Reports and Departure Orders, for breach of the PR RO, we see virtually no reports of any success derived from any such conferences, least not where the 44(1) Report was valid in law (meaning the PR was short of complying with the RO).

 

[gta88]

Interesting!

 

[asaeed100]

While the practical procedure can vary, if the examining officer in Secondary at a PoE concludes the PR is inadmissible due to a breach of the PR Residency Obligation, that usually results in the issuance of the 44(1) Report for inadmissibility and a nearly IMMEDIATE referral to a "Minister's Delegate," who is typically just another officer at the PoE, or sometimes an officer available by telephone. Usually, but not always, the MD interviews the PR and makes a decision about whether to issue a Departure Order while the PR is still there in the PoE.

Sometimes, if the PoE is overly busy or another officer qualified to act as a MD is not available (even by telephone), the PR can be issued the 44(1) Report and advised there will be a follow-up with a MD.

MD's involvement in this process is NOT about an Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference. Remember, proceedings based on inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO are handled differently than other 44(1) Reports based on other grounds. Much of this is spelled out in the respective Operational Manuals, for which PDF versions are readily accessible here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html

In particular, see the Enforcement Manuals, ENF 1 Inadmissibility; ENF 3 Admissibility Hearings and . . . ; ENF 4 Port of Entry Examinations; ENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports; and especially ENF 23 Loss of Permanent Resident Status.

CAVEAT: The Operational Manuals are NOT well maintained. They are not law. They are not binding. And they tend to be out-of-date in this and that regard. But if read in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the respective statutory provisions and regulations, they are a valuable resource for anyone making an effort to figure out what the rules actually are and how they are applied. That said, one of the most common errors made is cherry-picking provisions in these manuals without due consideration for context and relationship to other provisions.

In any event, if the Minister's Delegate issues a Departure Order and the PR appeals, the tribunal which hears and decides the appeal is the Immigration Appeal Division in IRB, which operates independently of IRCC. This is a quasi-judicial process. There may be a procedure pursuant to which the Minister's representative in these proceedings conferences with the PR appealing before there is a hearing before the IAD, which could possibly result in an agreed upon resolution; however, for PoE issued Reports and Departure Orders, for breach of the PR RO, we see virtually no reports of any success derived from any such conferences, least not where the 44(1) Report was valid in law (meaning the PR was short of complying with the RO).

thank you for your reply,
per my conversation with many layers, most RO cases end up in the court where the wait is around one to one and half years.
none of them spoke about RO at the PoE initiated by the MD.

 

[dpenabill]

thank you for your reply,
per my conversation with many layers, most RO cases end up in the court where the wait is around one to one and half years.
none of them spoke about RO at the PoE initiated by the MD.

The IAD is not a "court" as such. It is an administrative tribunal, which, again, is quasi-judicial.

It is likely that most "RO cases" are NOT appealed. Very few such cases, even among those appealed, ever make it to a "court" (the Federal Court in particular, which is the judicial tribunal which may grant judicial review for IAD decisions).

"RO cases" generally arise in three situations:

-- PR TD application is denied due to RO non-compliance and PR appeals that (this is the most common, by a big margin)
-- PR is Reported and issued Departure Order at a PoE upon arrival from abroad when in breach of the RO
-- PR engaged in some other transaction with IRCC (such as a PR card application or an application to sponsor a family member's PR) is determined to be in breach, and issued a 44(1) Report and then a Departure by a local IRCC office​

I listed these in the order in which such cases are seen in the published, official decisions by the IAD. The number of these case arising from the denial of a PR TD appears to vastly exceed the others.

If by "layers" you are referring to lawyers, immigration lawyers in particular, I cannot explain what you say they say about RO cases ending up in "court." Very few RO cases make it to the Federal Court. Very, very few.

If by "court" they are referring to the IAD, well, again, that is not actually a "court," but an administrative tribunal, and again the officially published decisions are overwhelmingly dominated by cases where a PR appeals the denial of an application for a PR Travel Document. Which, however, might explain why none of those you have talked to spoke of appeals from PoE Reports and Departure Orders . . . lawyers, after all, are experienced in the kinds of cases they are hired for.

In this latter regard, it warrants consideration of the practical aspects involved. Most PRs with a valid PR card, and thus able to travel directly to a Canadian PoE, are in compliance with the RO. PRs without a valid PR card need to apply for a PR TD, and if not in compliance with the RO that will typically be denied. Sure, some PRs without a valid PR card can and do travel via the U.S., and thus are able to arrive at a PoE despite the lack of a valid PR card and notwithstanding their breach of the RO. How many PRs abroad without a valid PR card but with status to travel via the U.S. are making such a trip is hard to guess, but given the logistics in conjunction with the RISKS, the number is undoubtedly limited. And then, among those who do, the number who will appeal when Reported and issued a Departure Order, is likely fewer than those who can readily forecast a negative outcome and who do not bother to pursue a rather likely futile and, if lawyers are involved expensive appeal.


PROCEDURE FOR PR'S ISSUED REPORT AT PoE:

In any event, whatever the number, the procedure for a PR who is examined at a PoE and determined to be in breach of the RO by the examining officer (in Secondary), is what I described in my previous post. Again, some, apparently a few, have the interview with the Minister's Delegate deferred to a later time, but perusing the officially published decisions in IAD RO cases which involve a PR Reported upon arrival at a PoE, the usual procedure appears to be very much the procedure described in the Operational Manuals (with a few wrinkles). That is, the 44(1) Report is nearly immediately followed by the Minister's Delegate interviewing the PR and issuing a Departure Order. Thus, the PR who is Reported is typically issued a Departure Order while still at the PoE.

And to be clear, just like the Visa Office decision denying an application for a PR TD, that is the decision which terminates PR status. It means PR status is lost UNLESS the PR appeals and that appeal is successful.

To research the IAD decisions, see https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/

 

[asaeed100]

The IAD is not a "court" as such. It is an administrative tribunal, which, again, is quasi-judicial.

It is likely that most "RO cases" are NOT appealed. Very few such cases, even among those appealed, ever make it to a "court" (the Federal Court in particular, which is the judicial tribunal which may grant judicial review for IAD decisions).

"RO cases" generally arise in three situations:

-- PR TD application is denied due to RO non-compliance and PR appeals that (this is the most common, by a big margin)
-- PR is Reported and issued Departure Order at a PoE upon arrival from abroad when in breach of the RO
-- PR engaged in some other transaction with IRCC (such as a PR card application or an application to sponsor a family member's PR) is determined to be in breach, and issued a 44(1) Report and then a Departure by a local IRCC office​

I listed these in the order in which such cases are seen in the published, official decisions by the IAD. The number of these case arising from the denial of a PR TD appears to vastly exceed the others.

If by "layers" you are referring to lawyers, immigration lawyers in particular, I cannot explain what you say they say about RO cases ending up in "court." Very few RO cases make it to the Federal Court. Very, very few.

If by "court" they are referring to the IAD, well, again, that is not actually a "court," but an administrative tribunal, and again the officially published decisions are overwhelmingly dominated by cases where a PR appeals the denial of an application for a PR Travel Document. Which, however, might explain why none of those you have talked to spoke of appeals from PoE Reports and Departure Orders . . . lawyers, after all, are experienced in the kinds of cases they are hired for.

In this latter regard, it warrants consideration of the practical aspects involved. Most PRs with a valid PR card, and thus able to travel directly to a Canadian PoE, are in compliance with the RO. PRs without a valid PR card need to apply for a PR TD, and if not in compliance with the RO that will typically be denied. Sure, some PRs without a valid PR card can and do travel via the U.S., and thus are able to arrive at a PoE despite the lack of a valid PR card and notwithstanding their breach of the RO. How many PRs abroad without a valid PR card but with status to travel via the U.S. are making such a trip is hard to guess, but given the logistics in conjunction with the RISKS, the number is undoubtedly limited. And then, among those who do, the number who will appeal when Reported and issued a Departure Order, is likely fewer than those who can readily forecast a negative outcome and who do not bother to pursue a rather likely futile and, if lawyers are involved expensive appeal.


PROCEDURE FOR PR'S ISSUED REPORT AT PoE:

In any event, whatever the number, the procedure for a PR who is examined at a PoE and determined to be in breach of the RO by the examining officer (in Secondary), is what I described in my previous post. Again, some, apparently a few, have the interview with the Minister's Delegate deferred to a later time, but perusing the officially published decisions in IAD RO cases which involve a PR Reported upon arrival at a PoE, the usual procedure appears to be very much the procedure described in the Operational Manuals (with a few wrinkles). That is, the 44(1) Report is nearly immediately followed by the Minister's Delegate interviewing the PR and issuing a Departure Order. Thus, the PR who is Reported is typically issued a Departure Order while still at the PoE.

And to be clear, just like the Visa Office decision denying an application for a PR TD, that is the decision which terminates PR status. It means PR status is lost UNLESS the PR appeals and that appeal is successful.

To research the IAD decisions, see https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/

again thanks for the detailed reply
of all the forums i checked, i could not find a case where a RO was issued at the border.unless their case was already flagged due to other felonies
i know of friends who have gone in and out of canada with expired PR card multiple times (PR expiry was short) and were given only a warning or request to renew right away
the lawyers i communicated with are very prominent lawyers. i contact around 50 plus. some were kind enough to give a detailed answer free of charge
some even advertised this procedure on their website
https://www.matkowsky.ca/single-post/2018/06/10/What-to-do-if-my-PR-Card-expired

 

[dpenabill]

again thanks for the detailed reply
of all the forums i checked, i could not find a case where a RO was issued at the border.unless their case was already flagged due to other felonies
i know of friends who have gone in and out of canada with expired PR card multiple times (PR expiry was short) and were given only a warning or request to renew right away
the lawyers i communicated with are very prominent lawyers. i contact around 50 plus. some were kind enough to give a detailed answer free of charge
some even advertised this procedure on their website
https://www.matkowsky.ca/single-post/2018/06/10/What-to-do-if-my-PR-Card-expired

"i know of friends who have gone in and out of canada with expired PR card multiple times (PR expiry was short) and were given only a warning or request to renew right away"​

REMINDER: the validity of a PR card is NOT relevant when calculating compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.

If the PR card has expired that means they have been a PR for more than five years. What matters for purposes of the PR Residency Obligation, then, is how many days they have been IN Canada during the previous five years of the day they arrive at the PoE.

As I have discussed in several topics, border officials are known to exercise their discretion so as to allow returning PRs a significant amount of flexibility.

That said, make NO mistake, in both this forum and in officially published decisions in actual cases, there are scores of examples of PRs in breach of the RO, including more than a few who had valid PR cards, and many who were arriving via a land crossing from the U.S., who upon arrival at a PoE were issued the 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO AND issued a Departure Order, at the PoE. I doubt the lawyers you have spoken with say anything to the contrary of this. Again, many of these cases are documented in the officially published IAD decisions. There is no doubt about their existence.

"i could not find a case where a RO was issued at the border.unless their case was already flagged due to other felonies"​

Again, to be clear, there are many such cases reported in the officially published decisions.

I suspect you use the term "felonies" to mean something other than serious criminal offences, but I do not know what meaning you do use this term. RO compliance is not related to criminal allegations or criminal cases. Serious criminality is an entirely separate ground for PR inadmissibility.

But there are scores of cases where a Departure Order (sometimes referred to as a Removal Order) was issued at the border described in the officially published IAD decisions. If you found none either you are not really looking or your search terms are off the mark.

In the meantime, while you were posting this, I just happened to be reading a Federal Court decision in which an individual had been approved for citizenship, scheduled for the oath, actually issued (but not delivered) a citizenship certificate and then upon his arrival at the PoE from abroad (no known "felonies" involved) for the purpose attending the scheduled oath ceremony, was examined at the PoE regarding his compliance with the PR Residency Obligation and issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility . . . which led to an appeal which eventually went his way, many years later, so he was able to keep PR status. This all happened some time ago, but he was not allowed to take the oath of citizenship and his appeal of that has only just recently been heard and decided, against him. Which I just happened to be reading this afternoon. See Almuhaidib v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CF 1543 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/j45z8

I do not mention this case because it is particularly relevant here (it is a citizenship case after all) but because it just happens to be a case illustrating precisely the procedure I described above, coming across an example of a PR examined at the PoE and issued the 44(1) Report and Departure Order. Much as I have described how the process typically works.

More to the point, there is NO shortage of cases similar to Haghi v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 106894 (CA IRB), see http://canlii.ca/t/j3bbh

Again, no hint of any "felonies," but after an absence of more than two years Mahmoud Haghi and upon his return to Canada he . . . "was interviewed at the port of entry where an officer determined that [he] was in contravention of the [RO and a] departure order was issued . . . " Mahmoud Haghi was fortunate, however, in that given he had two children living in Canada the IAD concluded H&C reasons were sufficient to allow him to keep PR status despite the valid-in-law determination he had breached the RO.

Ehsanul Haque was not so fortunate. See http://canlii.ca/t/j39z5 Likewise examined upon arrival at a PoE and "examined by an immigration officer and found to be non-compliant with his residency requirements" he was thus Reported and issued a Departure Order; he appealed, and the IAD concluded he did not present sufficient H&C reasons to warrant special relief.

There is nothing particularly remarkable or unusual about these cases. These are just samples. Among many samples. They are very much akin to many, many, more. The process is no mystery. PR in breach of RO is examined upon arrival at PoE, Reported and issued a Departure Order. PR appeals. IAD hears and decides the appeal. Almost all these cases are "valid in law" (meaning the PR did indeed breach the RO), but in some the IAD finds sufficient H&C reasons to "warrant special relief." In many, probably most (I have not crunched the numbers but the outcomes easily appear to lean against relief), the decision goes the other way and PR status is lost.

There are so many OFFICIALLY reported such cases that it is not likely many, if any lawyers, say this is not how it works. If that is what you think they have said, my guess is you misunderstood them.

In any event, if you have in fact researched the reliable sources or forums, you must have seen some of these cases, if not scores of them.

That said, there are many, many more cases where the decision finding a PR "to be inadmissible for failing to comply with the residency obligation" was made outside Canada, at a Visa Office, in response to an application for a PR Travel Document. Nonetheless, the nature of inquiry is largely the same, the criteria the same, so there are very little substantive difference one sees in the official decisions (except the weight of the presumption against valid PR status for PRs who do not possess a valid PR card when abroad, but that tends to be a small factor compared to the extent of the breach and such).

 

[canuck78]

Would add that based on some of the cases @dpenabill posted you will see that being close to your 18 year old child will not be considered as “best interest of a child” argument. Your child will be considered an adult and it sound like there is extended family in Canada if your child needs support during college or university. The fact that you have a 6 year old without PR status and that you have been out of Canada for 10 years is a much bigger problem than you seem to realize. Having never actually settled in Canada will be brought up since you, your wife and your children have never lived in Canada long enough for losing PR to be a major life change that will affect them negatively. Immigration lawyers are also trying to get your business so it is not unusual for them to tell potential clients that there situation is easily dealt with if they just hire them. Unless you have the extra funds I would be very cautious when it comes to leaving a job in your home country and buying property in Canada. If you are reported things like buying property in Canada will not influence the outcome of your hearing.

 

[asaeed100]

Would add that based on some of the cases @dpenabill posted you will see that being close to your 18 year old child will not be considered as “best interest of a child” argument. Your child will be considered an adult and it sound like there is extended family in Canada if your child needs support during college or university. The fact that you have a 6 year old without PR status and that you have been out of Canada for 10 years is a much bigger problem than you seem to realize. Having never actually settled in Canada will be brought up since you, your wife and your children have never lived in Canada long enough for losing PR to be a major life change that will affect them negatively. Immigration lawyers are also trying to get your business so it is not unusual for them to tell potential clients that there situation is easily dealt with if they just hire them. Unless you have the extra funds I would be very cautious when it comes to leaving a job in your home country and buying property in Canada. If you are reported things like buying property in Canada will not influence the outcome of your hearing.

Would add that based on some of the cases @dpenabill posted you will see that being close to your 18 year old child will not be considered as “best interest of a child” argument. Your child will be considered an adult and it sound like there is extended family in Canada if your child needs support during college or university. The fact that you have a 6 year old without PR status and that you have been out of Canada for 10 years is a much bigger problem than you seem to realize. Having never actually settled in Canada will be brought up since you, your wife and your children have never lived in Canada long enough for losing PR to be a major life change that will affect them negatively. Immigration lawyers are also trying to get your business so it is not unusual for them to tell potential clients that there situation is easily dealt with if they just hire them. Unless you have the extra funds I would be very cautious when it comes to leaving a job in your home country and buying property in Canada. If you are reported things like buying property in Canada will not influence the outcome of your hearing.

that is why i keep telling you that you misdirect people without knowing any details or any facts. your anti-immigration sentiments give you away all the time.

in my case, if i come back, i have not much to loose considering i havent lived in my home country ever. i have no ties to it whatsoever as of yet. so once i i finally decide to leave the current country of residence and live in canada for a year or two while fighting an appeal i will still be in a plus (with the will of God). having properties is for investment purposes, whether it help me in the appeal or not, wouldnt really matter. my case will be build around H&C..
and if i do loose the appeal, my wife and I i could come back on a TRV or supervisa. my family in canada would look after the investments while being away . also having US visa, i woudnt have to go far after every 6 months.

 

[Bentham]

again thanks for the detailed reply
of all the forums i checked, i could not find a case where a RO was issued at the border.unless their case was already flagged due to other felonies
i know of friends who have gone in and out of canada with expired PR card multiple times (PR expiry was short) and were given only a warning or request to renew right away
the lawyers i communicated with are very prominent lawyers. i contact around 50 plus. some were kind enough to give a detailed answer free of charge
some even advertised this procedure on their website
https://www.matkowsky.ca/single-post/2018/06/10/What-to-do-if-my-PR-Card-expired

I got a report at the PoE having committed no other offense excepting the breach of the RO. I have also attended an appeal hearing where a family returned to Canada one year before the expiration of their PR cards to settle permanently, and they got a report at the airport immigration. No other wrongdoings committed by them were discussed at the hearing.

People may have flags on their files, and this is why the need to go through secondary examination, but this flag may be just an indicator of RO problems, not necessarily "other felonies".

 

[Bentham]

correct me if i am wrong
i believe the sequence goes like this, section 44 report by the secondary, 30 days to appeal, minister delegate involvement with Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference (if there is no resolution, case goes to court) , Court Appearance (1yr plus) , if you loose the case, you get Removal order, you can try for stay order, if that doesnt go your way and you overstay then finally you get the deportation order

you are also entitled to a 1yr PRC (renewable) once the case reaches the court

At the appeal stage the person who represents CBSA or IRCC is called Minister's Counsel not Minister's Delegate. It is not the same person who reviews the report. At ADR, should it ever take place, you will be dealing with Minister's Counsel who regularly participates in hearings at local IAD offices.

 

[Bentham]

that is why i keep telling you that you misdirect people without knowing any details or any facts. your anti-immigration sentiments give you away all the time.

They are not anti-immigrant, they are telling you what the real life IAD practice is. If the facts that they are referring to do not relate to you and you have stronger H&C considerations, good for you.

If these facts are relevant, they are not misdirecting people. All these are very relevant considerations.

It won't help you to take such comments personally, dismiss them, and label people. Better to verify them before making any conclusions.

I am an immigrant who has recently gone through an appeal hearing. I can confirm that they are telling relevant things. You can't blame me of being anti-immigrant, can you?

 

[canuck78]

I got a report at the PoE having committed no other offense excepting the breach of the RO. I have also attended an appeal hearing where a family returned to Canada one year before the expiration of their PR cards to settle permanently, and they got a report at the airport immigration. No other wrongdoings committed by them were discussed at the hearing.

People may have flags on their files, and this is why the need to go through secondary examination, but this flag may be just an indicator of RO problems, not necessarily "other felonies".

What happened to your case? We often don’t hear the outcomes.

 

[Bentham]

What happened to your case? We often don’t hear the outcomes.

My RO was stayed until 2022 when the appeal will be reopened.

I will start a new thread describing procedural aspects of it soon. It is just that have got the decision very recently

 

[canuck78]

that is why i keep telling you that you misdirect people without knowing any details or any facts. your anti-immigration sentiments give you away all the time.

in my case, if i come back, i have not much to loose considering i havent lived in my home country ever. i have no ties to it whatsoever as of yet. so once i i finally decide to leave the current country of residence and live in canada for a year or two while fighting an appeal i will still be in a plus (with the will of God). having properties is for investment purposes, whether it help me in the appeal or not, wouldnt really matter. my case will be build around H&C..
and if i do loose the appeal, my wife and I i could come back on a TRV or supervisa. my family in canada would look after the investments while being away . also having US visa, i woudnt have to go far after every 6 months.

This is where you are incorrect. If your appeal gets refused and you don’t. resettle in your country of citizenship you will have difficulty getting a TRV. The fact that you don’t have strong ties to your home country will also make getting a TRV difficult. If you are reported and attempt to appeal you have shown that you want to remain in Canada so will have to show very strong ties to your home country to get a TRV. Given that you have a minor child without PR how would you come to Canada? Getting a TRV for your youngest child is not as easy as you seem to think. You and your spouse would not qualify for a supervisa (without your youngest child) until your eldest child is working and has earned a good income for over a year so that will likely be in over 5 years. Where will your youngest child attend school? She doesn’t have PR and your other plan involves you trying to visit between Canada and the US for the rest of your lives which is not actually a realistic plan if you don’t have a home base in your home country. There are a lot of holes in your plan that you aren’t considering. It is not anti-immigrant sentiment. Your desire to be with your adult child while they attend school and with extended family is not strong reasons that you need to return to Canada. Owning property in Canada is also not a reason why you need to retain PR especially if you purchase after not being in Canada for over 10 years. @dpenabill has already pointed out that your confidence that you will return to Canada and remain either as a PR or a visitor isn’t consistent with the reality of your I migration situation. What is your 6 year old doesn’t get a TRV? What will you do then? TRP? How about their schooling?