Re-Entering Canada with Expired PR Card and without meeting the RO

[vensak]

I have been round this block since the day I landed and became a PR. The officer who did my paperwork finished by saying congratulations, "you are now a Canadian." Which surprised me. Which I thought was incorrect. I described this in multiple forums at the time (yeah, it has been awhile, a rather long while), and was simply told (by reliable sources) that the officer was correct, that upon becoming a Canadian PR a person becomes a "Canadian."

I was still a bit surprised. So I did the homework. I did the research. And what I learned was that under Canadian immigration law there are two broad categories: Foreign Nationals and Canadians. There are many variations of immigration status in Canada that Foreign Nationals may have. There are only two variations of status that Canadians have: Canadian citizens (including indigenous persons) and Canadian PRs.

Thus the definitions specifically define Foreign Nationals to be anyone who is NOT either a Canadian citizen or a Canadian PR.

Thus the PoE in some airports have a separate line for Canadians, which includes PRs.

This is in strong contrast to countries like the U.S. where Permanent Residents continue to be "aliens" under the U.S. law.

While it may seem that the label "Canadian" itself has little legal import apart from the legalities which attach to or are a part of the particular type of Canadian a person is, that is the legal effect of being a citizen, and the legal effect of being a PR, the fundamental rights and privileges of being a Canadian apply to all Canadians, citizens and PRs, with specific exceptions which, when prescribed, explicitly state which apply to "Canadian citizens" (not just "Canadians") and which apply to Canadian Permanent Residents, including in provisions which explicitly state they apply to both Canadian citizens and Canadian PRs as opposed to all other persons (Section 6 in the Charter for example, which prescribes certain mobility rights of citizens, and separately the mobility rights of both citizens and PRs).

ok here are some immediate problems.

1. According to the English dictionary, Canadian as a noun refers to either native or inhabitant of Canada.
2. Native according to the english dictionary can mean either indigenous person in order to distinguish from strangers or foreigners (or colonisators); or it can mean a person born in that place or country.

So according to these standard definitions (at least when using normal English language), you can understand noun Canadian as anybody and everybody that is living in Canada at that moment (so it would not matter if that person was a citizen a PR or just a holder of a TRV).

Or you can understand it as native Canadians only, in which case it might not even include all Canadian citizens (a Canadian citizen can be a complete stranger to Canada and is a citizen just because he or she was born to a Canadian citizen parent).

As you can see from simple English usage you can have ambiguous meaning of the word Canadian as a noun. So in that case most likely broader definition is used whenever laws refers to Canadians (unless there is a specific definition of Canadian at the beginning of that law).

3. Now comes the interesting part. In the law you have linked (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) ever so often word Canadian as a noun is mentioned. However there is a very specific definition of a permanent resident there as well (among others to clarify, that from that definition onward permanent resident will mean permanent resident of Canada).

4. Additionally, that so beloved Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, also ever so often uses word Canadian as a noun. However most of the time is more specific and uses term citizen of Canada or Permanent resident of Canada.

5. Now with all that logical knowledge a completely different picture of what is regarded as Canadian in these laws appear.
Actually all those sentences are referring to inhabitants of Canada. Because interestingly, the word Canadian is only used in instances of very general and basic rights.

Here are some examples:
(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
this means for example that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee that has for a different ethnicity, race or religion; just because they are not permanent residents.
Of course requirements to follow the law (to have a valid temporary visa or whatever else is needed) do apply for all of them. So if the law states that only certain groups can legally work (holders of work permit, PR or Canadian citizens), then refusing to employ somebody that cannot legally work is not a discrimination

(g) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society; and
This practically means that Canadian police is there for the safety of all people that are in Canada at that moment - inhabiting Canada.
It would be childish to think that safety is only reserved to those with PR or citizens and all those international students, temporary worker, live in caregivers or tourist would be acceptable casualties.
At the end of the day, Canada does have a certain basic responsibilities against all those other countries from which these citizens are from.

(c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
Again, just because you are just a temporary resident, it does not mean, that you will not need certain basic services. Those can vary from the mentioned police assistance for a tourist up to the registration of a newborn child. Of course certain services are locked behind either the minimum amount of the time you can stay or a requirement of a specific status (to be a PR or to be a CA citizen for example). And which are locked that way is stated in the law.
But if there is no lock point there, then those services should be accessible to all inhabitants of Canada.

Here comes the bonus. Many time on this forum, it was referred, that a PR holder has right to enter Canada. Sadly, according to the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, it does not seem so. This right is only for Citizens of Canada

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
There is nothing mentioned there about PR (and yes under certain circumstances you can be denied PRTD even for the sake to appeal in Canada) and there is also nothing mentioned about being physically on the borders would change anything (so yes, it seems that an officer can reject you entering Canada as long as it is according to their valid instructions).



Permanent residents have only right to move to a different province.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

• (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
• (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
  

But even these have limitations (few times mentioned grey zone for provincial nominees):

• (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
  
  • (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
    
  • (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
    
• Marginal note:Affirmative action programs
  (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
  

And as for USA, holders of green cards are identified as "Lawful permanent residents". The problem of USA is that using standard English, you can ever so often identify inhabitants of USA as "Americans", however this noun is even much more ambiguous and can be understood in several different ways (from indigenous people from America, through citizens of USA or inhabitants of USA to inhabitants of any country that is part of America as a continent). So yes, using such word in any legal documents would be like opening a can of worms.

 

[dpenabill]

Here comes the bonus. Many time on this forum, it was referred, that a PR holder has right to enter Canada. Sadly, according to the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, it does not seem so. This right is only for Citizens of Canada

Discussions in this forum, like discussions generally, often blur and confuse the meaning of terms, and especially so when the ordinary usage differs significantly from more precise usage in particular contexts, like legal terms. "Rights" is one of the most commonly butchered terms. I have made a concerted effort to illuminate some distinctions that matter.

In this forum, for example, many refer to "rights" which are prescribed by statute, which careful jurists will more often refer to as privileges or entitlements. The "right" of a PR to enter Canada, which as you say many refer to, is of this sort: a traveler whose identity and status as a PR is established cannot be denied entry at a PoE. Not because the PR has a Charter Right to enter Canada, but because a PR is a Canadian with the rights and privileges statutorily prescribed for PRs. But the net effect is that, in practical terms, PRs are entitled to enter Canada. And so many refer to this as a "right" to enter Canada. They are not wrong so much as they are imprecisely using the term.

When I am referring to the fact that PRs cannot be denied entry, I try to phrase it in terms of a "statutory right" or "entitlement."

(In contrast, there is also a statutory provision which specifies that a Canadian PR ABROAD who does not possess and present a valid PR card is presumed to NOT have valid PR status, so Visa Offices can and do deny persons the issuance of PR Travel Documents UNLESS the individual affirmatively proves both status and compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.)

Among the more common instances in which "right" is mis-used in this forum is in reference to citizenship eligibility. Many express the view that those who meet the requirements have a "right" to the grant of citizenship. Again, they are not wrong so much as they are imprecisely using the term.

But to be clear, even though a "right" is prescribed by the Charter, that is not absolute but may be subject to countervailing government interests, even to the extent that the right can be, in effect, totally denied. There are, for example, tens of thousands of Canadian citizens whose mobility is very heavily restricted, by the government, to rather securely confined spaces, with bars on the windows except there are few windows. For good reason.

In any event, Canadian immigration law and policy recognizes two broad categories: Foreign Nationals and Canadians, the latter consisting of Canadian citizens and Canadian PRs.

How people use these terms in other contexts is about other contexts. Not about Canadian immigration policy.

And how politicians use such terms is yet another tale.

As for differences with the U.S., in addition to U.S. permanent residents still being considered "aliens" ("aliens" is the actual term used in U.S. law, comparable to but not entirely the same as how Canada uses the term "Foreign Nationals"), there is also a big difference in U.S. law regarding citizenship. Unlike Canada, the U.S. has birthright citizenship, as prescribed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("All persons born in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.") Citizenship in Canada appears to be entirely derived from statute. While there is some argument to the contrary, both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal have ruled that there is no fundamental right to citizenship even for those born on Canadian soil. Those born on Canadian soil are citizens by virtue of the applicable statute, which is Section 3 in the Citizenship Act (and indeed, it includes exceptions, and in the past included more exceptions).

 

[keesio]

How people use these terms in other contexts is about other contexts. Not about Canadian immigration policy.

Indeed. Context matters. But because of inconsistent usage of the term, without proper context, it is no wonder that this is so confusing.

I think I mentioned in another thread that when my wife got her citizenship, the first line in her congrats letter from the Minister of IRCC (Hon. Ahmed Hussein) was:

"Today, you are a Canadian."

Not "citizen", not "Canadian citizen", just "Canadian".

It is clear he means "Canadian citizen" when looking at the context, but the fact that even he apparently uses the terminology wrong indicates that the laws are from clear.

 

[zardoz]

Indeed. Context matters. But because of inconsistent usage of the term, without proper context, it is no wonder that this is so confusing.

I think I mentioned in another thread that when my wife got her citizenship, the first line in her congrats letter from the Minister of IRCC (Hon. Ahmed Hussein) was:

"Today, you are a Canadian."

Not "citizen", not "Canadian citizen", just "Canadian".

It is clear he means "Canadian citizen" when looking at the context, but the fact that even he apparently uses the terminology wrong indicates that the laws are from clear.

Indeed. It is clear from the context that (as far as he, and by association, IRCC, are concerned), you were NOT a Canadian prior to that point in time. Otherwise, he would have said, "Today, you are still a Canadian.".

You know what, let's ask them...
https://twitter.com/Zardoz37099403/status/1209171572747051013?s=19

 

[zardoz]

Indeed. It is clear from the context that (as far as he, and by association, IRCC, are concerned), you were NOT a Canadian prior to that point in time. Otherwise, he would have said, "Today, you are still a Canadian.".

You know what, let's ask them...
https://twitter.com/Zardoz37099403/status/1209171572747051013?s=19

IRCC’s answer : "Hi. The term "Canadian" is generally used to refer to Canadian citizens."
https://twitter.com/CitImmCanada/status/1209216894374490117?s=19

 

[vensak]

Discussions in this forum, like discussions generally, often blur and confuse the meaning of terms, and especially so when the ordinary usage differs significantly from more precise usage in particular contexts, like legal terms. "Rights" is one of the most commonly butchered terms. I have made a concerted effort to illuminate some distinctions that matter.

In this forum, for example, many refer to "rights" which are prescribed by statute, which careful jurists will more often refer to as privileges or entitlements. The "right" of a PR to enter Canada, which as you say many refer to, is of this sort: a traveler whose identity and status as a PR is established cannot be denied entry at a PoE. Not because the PR has a Charter Right to enter Canada, but because a PR is a Canadian with the rights and privileges statutorily prescribed for PRs. But the net effect is that, in practical terms, PRs are entitled to enter Canada. And so many refer to this as a "right" to enter Canada. They are not wrong so much as they are imprecisely using the term.

When I am referring to the fact that PRs cannot be denied entry, I try to phrase it in terms of a "statutory right" or "entitlement."

(In contrast, there is also a statutory provision which specifies that a Canadian PR ABROAD who does not possess and present a valid PR card is presumed to NOT have valid PR status, so Visa Offices can and do deny persons the issuance of PR Travel Documents UNLESS the individual affirmatively proves both status and compliance with the PR Residency Obligation.)

Among the more common instances in which "right" is mis-used in this forum is in reference to citizenship eligibility. Many express the view that those who meet the requirements have a "right" to the grant of citizenship. Again, they are not wrong so much as they are imprecisely using the term.

But to be clear, even though a "right" is prescribed by the Charter, that is not absolute but may be subject to countervailing government interests, even to the extent that the right can be, in effect, totally denied. There are, for example, tens of thousands of Canadian citizens whose mobility is very heavily restricted, by the government, to rather securely confined spaces, with bars on the windows except there are few windows. For good reason.

In any event, Canadian immigration law and policy recognizes two broad categories: Foreign Nationals and Canadians, the latter consisting of Canadian citizens and Canadian PRs.

How people use these terms in other contexts is about other contexts. Not about Canadian immigration policy.

And how politicians use such terms is yet another tale.

As for differences with the U.S., in addition to U.S. permanent residents still being considered "aliens" ("aliens" is the actual term used in U.S. law, comparable to but not entirely the same as how Canada uses the term "Foreign Nationals"), there is also a big difference in U.S. law regarding citizenship. Unlike Canada, the U.S. has birthright citizenship, as prescribed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("All persons born in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.") Citizenship in Canada appears to be entirely derived from statute. While there is some argument to the contrary, both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal have ruled that there is no fundamental right to citizenship even for those born on Canadian soil. Those born on Canadian soil are citizens by virtue of the applicable statute, which is Section 3 in the Citizenship Act (and indeed, it includes exceptions, and in the past included more exceptions).

Ok I guess here are several misconseptions here.

When dealing with offices or with legal courts, following is used:
1. Written law that can clearly explain how to handle situation. If there is such law it is used in that situation. If there are several different laws which are contradicting each other, there is also an order for those laws. Meaning the one that has higher priority will be the valid one.
Now if that is a situation that is not explicitly stated in that higher law (in this case would be constitution for example), but such situation is listed in some lower level law or directives, then that one can be used (as it is not opposing the higher law).
2. If there is no such law or definitions, legal cases from the past are used to build a precedence. However attention, this part is a tricky one, because the moment somebody decides to put something to a law, then you cannot use that old case anymore, because law is more important than any past judgement.
3. If there is not even a past case, then best common practice is used to deal with the issue.
But the best common practice might not always be what you think it is. So for example if in this case most people will understand or recognize the Word Canadian as a Canadian citizen, then that is what it will be during the process.
Anyway, from the laws I have seen so far, all of them were careful enough not to use alone standing noun Canadian defining anything properly specified or important. On a contrary, those sentences looks more like political declaration than anything else to me. Meaning they are too vague to identify any specific right or assigned responsibility.

What is clear from the Charter of rights is, that permanent residents do not have right to enter Canada. Yes they might have a directive for CIC officers to let them pass. Also again I guess, that it will be more likely something protecting officer as such (like they are not obliged to further examine if they can enter Canada or not). But these things can change pretty quickly. So if ever it will happen to any PR (being denied to enter on POI) and he starts screaming about his rights... well it might be ready for a nasty surprise.

Now hold on your horses. A valid PR card has nothing to do with your PR status. You can still have in your possession a valid PR card but be no longer PR and you can have an expired PR, but be in compliance with RO. Also not being in compliance with RO as such does not automatically mean that you have lost your status.
Why because there is nothing about RO mentioned in a definition of PR. You either are a PR or are not a PR.
permanent resident means a person who has acquired permanent resident status and has not subsequently lost that status under section 46. (résident permanent)

Sure you do have burden to prove that you are in compliance with RO, but that does not mean automatic loss of PR at the time of sending application.

So yes all those people that got PRTD denied are still PR at the moment moment they have sent out their application and even when their application was received. Yet they are denied to get temporary travel document. Why? because they have no right guaranteed for that document. So what does happen is, that they have their internal directives and are using the obligation of PR (which is written in the immigration law) in order to start the process or stripping them out of status according to the section 46. And same can happen if the person in question is involved in serious criminal activity (another way how to loose your status when discovered).

Now you were talking about jail and restricted freedom / right of movement. In that case people were not fulfilling their obligations that were coming from other laws (for example they robbed or killed somebody). However all those were acts of their own free will and decision. So restriction of movement is a consequence of your actions (and yes they were your own decisions even if you were not aware about the law, which is no excuse).
Additionally, restriction of the movement did not come at the moment when they committed a crime (give it or take exceptions that were caught and arrested on the scene). It usually happened after. And even if they were arrested on the spot, there is again a law given limit when they have to be accused of crime or released. Plus in order to be arrested, there must be a good reason for it (being a suspect of a crime - which is if I am not mistaken a term used until verdict of your guilt is passed.).


However your right is guaranteed against any 3rd party trying to strip you of that right (for example and officer on the border crossing decides, that they do not like you and they will refuse to let you in). In that very moment law is on your side and your right to enter is guaranteed (if you are Canadian citizen of course) because this is not your own decision but a 3rd party decision to disregard law.


You can again argue, that there are still situation where you can be stripped of your right - for example Martial law. However we would be speaking about highly emergency situations which have again certain process and conditions to be triggered.

 

[dpenabill]

You can again argue, that there are still situation where you can be stripped of your right - for example Martial law. However we would be speaking about highly emergency situations which have again certain process and conditions to be triggered.

There are literally hundreds of situations in which governmental interests are deemed to outweigh this or that Charter Right. Many, many laws have a restrictive impact on Charter Rights, some important governmental interest having been determined to outweigh an affected Charter or fundamental right.

This balancing is not at all about what is arguable or a far-fetched extreme situation. Just driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of .08 can result in the total loss of mobility rights for up to TEN YEARS. No martial law at play.

For another example, the threshold for being denied a Canadian passport is actually fairly low; does not require much abuse of a passport to trigger the government's seizure of a citizen's passport, and refusal to issue another, notwithstanding Section 6 in the Charter and the restrictive impact this will have on the mobility rights of a Canadian citizen.

Otherwise you appear to totally disregard the distinction between fundamental rights (which are mostly but not exclusively rights explicitly protected by the Charter) and "rights" prescribed by statute. In terms of practical effect, statutory rights have virtually the same force and effect as Charter "rights" EXCEPT that Parliament can give or take away or (what is usually done) restrict statutory rights without meeting the higher burden of showing there is an important governmental interest warranting the impact on a Charter right.

Moreover, the difference means that Parliament can impose various conditions on the statutory rights which can have a restrictive impact. Perhaps the most salient example of this is found in statutory schemes which put the burden of proof on the individual. In contrast, where restriction of a Charter right is involved, the Crown will typically have the burden of proof. Thus, PRs have the burden of proof in showing compliance with the RO, or establishing entitlement to a grant of citizenship. But the Crown has the burden of proof before it can radically restrict anyone's mobility rights, such as imposing imprisonment for driving while impaired or trafficking in illegal drugs.

What is clear from the Charter of rights is, that permanent residents do not have right to enter Canada. Yes they might have a directive for CIC officers to let them pass.

This is a clear example of NOT recognizing the distinction between fundamental or Charter rights versus statutory rights.

PRs MUST be allowed to enter Canada when they properly apply for entry at a PoE. Which in practical terms, is the SAME for Canadian citizens. Noting, for example, that the Charter right of a Canadian citizen to leave and return to Canada is restricted in that citizens, like everyone else, MUST properly apply for entry and subject themselves to examination in order to return to Canada.

For PRs, the entitlement to enter Canada is not protected by the Charter but it is nonetheless statutorily protected. Thus, for example, if CBSA acted to deny entry to a PR, the Federal Court can (and if a proper application is made will) order that as a MATTER of LAW the PR must be allowed to enter Canada. That is, this entitlement is not derived from a mere administrative directive BUT is a matter of law.

Overall, at my citizenship oath ceremony the Citizenship Judge and others specifically referenced becoming a "Canadian citizen," not a "Canadian." As I noted, the CBSA immigration officer who did my PR landing paperwork explicitly congratulated me and said "you are now a Canadian." Sure, how many "generally" use the term "Canadian" is more restrictive. I have a friend who has lived in Canada for around a half century and been a Canadian citizen for at least several decades, but many people still refer to him as an "American," which I suspect does not please him, much as I would feel about that as well. And we see scores of Canadian born celebrities who have long lived in the U.S. and become U.S. citizens, but who are generally referred to as "Canadians," or "Canadians" living in the U.S., or "Canadians" who have also become a U.S. Citizen. General usage is one thing . . . but, nonetheless, under IRPA there are two categories of status, Foreign Nationals and Canadians, and PRs are not Foreign Nationals . . . and again this is amply illustrated at the PoE in some airports by separate lines for Canadians, which includes returning PRs.

 

[armoured]

PRs MUST be allowed to enter Canada when they properly apply for entry at a PoE. Which in practical terms, is the SAME for Canadian citizens. ...
For PRs, the entitlement to enter Canada is not protected by the Charter but it is nonetheless statutorily protected.

Honest question, where is this in statute?

 

[dpenabill]

PRs MUST be allowed to enter Canada when they properly apply for entry at a PoE. Which in practical terms, is the SAME for Canadian citizens. ...
For PRs, the entitlement to enter Canada is not protected by the Charter but it is nonetheless statutorily protected.

Honest question, where is this in statute?

Section 19(2) IRPA. (Under heading "Right of entry of permanent residents")

see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274419

 

[armoured]

Section 19(2) IRPA. (Under heading "Right of entry of permanent residents")

see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274419

Thank you!

 

[dpenabill]

What is clear from the Charter of rights is, that permanent residents do not have right to enter Canada. Yes they might have a directive for CIC officers to let them pass. Also again I guess, that it will be more likely something protecting officer as such (like they are not obliged to further examine if they can enter Canada or not). But these things can change pretty quickly. So if ever it will happen to any PR (being denied to enter on POI) and he starts screaming about his rights... well it might be ready for a nasty surprise.

It occurs to me that you really were NOT aware of the specific statutory provision which specifies the right of PRs to enter Canada.

I am guessing that you must have dismissed my repeated references to the "statutory" right of PRs to enter Canada as my opinion. To be clear, even though my posts often contain analysis I make a concerted effort to minimize the extent to which I express an opinion, and rather try to focus on what the law and rules actually are.

So let's be clear, as noted in response to another query, there is a specific section in IRPA specifying the right of PRs to enter Canada. This is Section 19(2) IRPA.
see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#h-274419

In particular, under heading "Right of entry of permanent residents" IRPA Section 19(2) states:

"An officer shall allow a permanent resident to enter Canada if satisfied following an examination on their entry that they have that status."​

And NO, it is NOT correct that "these things can change pretty quickly." The parliamentary process for amending statutes requires tabling the proposed changes, three readings with consultation and debate, multiple readings and a vote in the Senate, and then Royal Assent, or more if the Senate adopts amendments. Even Harper's bulldozer approach to legislating typically involved many months, if not years, between announcing proposed changes and Royal Assent, and for measures like this there would ordinarily be a significant time period before the changes took effect. It would be a big deal, a very BIG DEAL, and take a lot of time with a lot of public notice, to significantly change the basic obligations and rights of PRs.

 

[21Goose]

What is clear from the Charter of rights is, that permanent residents do not have right to enter Canada. Yes they might have a directive for CIC officers to let them pass. Also again I guess, that it will be more likely something protecting officer as such (like they are not obliged to further examine if they can enter Canada or not). But these things can change pretty quickly. So if ever it will happen to any PR (being denied to enter on POI) and he starts screaming about his rights... well it might be ready for a nasty surprise.

Just chiming in with @dpenabill - a Canadian PR does, in fact, have the right to enter Canada. If a PR can make it to a Canadian border, and prove that they are indeed a PR (regardless of meeting RO), the CBSA officer must allow them to enter (IRPA 19(2)). The officer may begin the process to strip PR if RO is not met, but till that process is complete (PRs are allowed 30 days to appeal), the PR has the right to enter Canada.

A PR cannot be turned away at the border if they are able to prove that they are in fact a PR.

However, a PR does not have the right to a travel document (PRTD or new PR card) if they haven't met RO. So if you're a PR that hasn't met RO and you cannot come to a land border (practically speaking, this means that you cannot enter the US and then drive/walk/swim/whatever to a border entry post), you can try applying for a PRTD - and your request will probably be denied and your PR status will be removed. Once that's done, your right to enter Canada is taken away from you.

 

[asaeed100]

Just chiming in with @dpenabill - a Canadian PR does, in fact, have the right to enter Canada. If a PR can make it to a Canadian border, and prove that they are indeed a PR (regardless of meeting RO), the CBSA officer must allow them to enter (IRPA 19(2)). The officer may begin the process to strip PR if RO is not met, but till that process is complete (PRs are allowed 30 days to appeal), the PR has the right to enter Canada.

A PR cannot be turned away at the border if they are able to prove that they are in fact a PR.

However, a PR does not have the right to a travel document (PRTD or new PR card) if they haven't met RO. So if you're a PR that hasn't met RO and you cannot come to a land border (practically speaking, this means that you cannot enter the US and then drive/walk/swim/whatever to a border entry post), you can try applying for a PRTD - and your request will probably be denied and your PR status will be removed. Once that's done, your right to enter Canada is taken away from you.

does the CBSA officer, secondary or Minsters delegate have the right to issue a RO at the PoE
if section 44 report different than a RO?

 

[dpenabill]

does the CBSA officer, secondary or Minsters delegate have the right to issue a RO at the PoE
if section 44 report different than a RO?

I assume "RO" as you are using it means "Removal Order" (I am more acquainted with RO to mean the "Residency Obligation").

"Removal Order" and "Departure Order" are different labels for the same thing.

A Minister's Delegate can issue a Departure or Removal Order at the PoE. In fact, as I have documented, this is the USUAL procedure when a returning PR is examined and determined to be in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. As I have previously stated, citing actual cases, there are many actual cases in which this has been done.

To be clear, however, this is ONLY for PR Residency Obligation cases. This is ONLY for PR inadmissibility based on a breach of the PR Residency Obligation.

Moreover, the Departure Order or "RO" issued by the Minister's Delegate at a PoE is NOT immediately enforceable. So the PR MUST be allowed to enter Canada.

A section 44(1) Report is NOT the same thing as a Departure Order or "RO."

As I tried to explain before, WHEN there is a PR Residency Obligation examination at a PoE, there is a TWO-STEP process.

-- First step is the officer in Secondary determining whether the returning PR is in breach of the Residency Obligation, and if the officer concludes the PR is in breach, this results in that officer issuing the Section 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the Residency Obligation.
-- Step two is an interview with the Minister's Delegate (usually just another officer) who makes the decision about whether to issue a Departure Order (or RO).
-- This usually happens while the PR is STILL in the PoE. (Not always but usually.)​

NOTE: There are other situations in which officers issue a Section 44(1) Report. These are "inadmissibility" reports, and can be issued for Foreign Nationals or PRs. And they can be issued to PRs for inadmissibility based on grounds other than inadmissibility for a breach of the Residency Obligation (Section 28 IRPA). A PR can be issued a Section 44(1) Report for misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds.

The procedure is different for a Section 44(1) Report issued for misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds. These cases go to IRCC and IRCC determines whether to proceed with an inadmissibility hearing.

The procedure for a Section 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the Residency Obligation is specifically limited to grounds based on a failure to comply with the Residency Obligation. Again, these 44(1) Reports ordinarily GO DIRECTLY to another officer, an officer who has authorization to act as a "Minister's Delegate." Then, following an interview with the PR, the Minister's Delegate makes a decision THEN and THERE at the PoE about whether to allow the PR to keep PR status based on H&C reasons or to issue a Departure Order (what you are referring to as an "RO").

It the Minister's Delegate issued the Departure Order the PR is then allowed to proceed into Canada. This RO is NOT enforceable for 30 days. If the PR makes an appeal within that time, the RO is NOT enforceable pending the outcome of the appeal. Appeals can take a year or more to be heard.

These appeals go directly to the IAD. Again, this is a different procedure from how it works for other types of inadmissibility, for 44(1) Reports issued based on other grounds.

 

[asaeed100]

I assume "RO" as you are using it means "Removal Order" (I am more acquainted with RO to mean the "Residency Obligation").

"Removal Order" and "Departure Order" are different labels for the same thing.

A Minister's Delegate can issue a Departure or Removal Order at the PoE. In fact, as I have documented, this is the USUAL procedure when a returning PR is examined and determined to be in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. As I have previously stated, citing actual cases, there are many actual cases in which this has been done.

To be clear, however, this is ONLY for PR Residency Obligation cases. This is ONLY for PR inadmissibility based on a breach of the PR Residency Obligation.

Moreover, the Departure Order or "RO" issued by the Minister's Delegate at a PoE is NOT immediately enforceable. So the PR MUST be allowed to enter Canada.

A section 44(1) Report is NOT the same thing as a Departure Order or "RO."

As I tried to explain before, WHEN there is a PR Residency Obligation examination at a PoE, there is a TWO-STEP process.

-- First step is the officer in Secondary determining whether the returning PR is in breach of the Residency Obligation, and if the officer concludes the PR is in breach, this results in that officer issuing the Section 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the Residency Obligation.
-- Step two is an interview with the Minister's Delegate (usually just another officer) who makes the decision about whether to issue a Departure Order (or RO).
-- This usually happens while the PR is STILL in the PoE. (Not always but usually.)​

NOTE: There are other situations in which officers issue a Section 44(1) Report. These are "inadmissibility" reports, and can be issued for Foreign Nationals or PRs. And they can be issued to PRs for inadmissibility based on grounds other than inadmissibility for a breach of the Residency Obligation (Section 28 IRPA). A PR can be issued a Section 44(1) Report for misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds.

The procedure is different for a Section 44(1) Report issued for misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds. These cases go to IRCC and IRCC determines whether to proceed with an inadmissibility hearing.

The procedure for a Section 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the Residency Obligation is specifically limited to grounds based on a failure to comply with the Residency Obligation. Again, these 44(1) Reports ordinarily GO DIRECTLY to another officer, an officer who has authorization to act as a "Minister's Delegate." Then, following an interview with the PR, the Minister's Delegate makes a decision THEN and THERE at the PoE about whether to allow the PR to keep PR status based on H&C reasons or to issue a Departure Order (what you are referring to as an "RO").

It the Minister's Delegate issued the Departure Order the PR is then allowed to proceed into Canada. This RO is NOT enforceable for 30 days. If the PR makes an appeal within that time, the RO is NOT enforceable pending the outcome of the appeal. Appeals can take a year or more to be heard.

These appeals go directly to the IAD. Again, this is a different procedure from how it works for other types of inadmissibility, for 44(1) Reports issued based on other grounds.

I assume "RO" as you are using it means "Removal Order" (I am more acquainted with RO to mean the "Residency Obligation").

"Removal Order" and "Departure Order" are different labels for the same thing.

A Minister's Delegate can issue a Departure or Removal Order at the PoE. In fact, as I have documented, this is the USUAL procedure when a returning PR is examined and determined to be in breach of the PR Residency Obligation. As I have previously stated, citing actual cases, there are many actual cases in which this has been done.

To be clear, however, this is ONLY for PR Residency Obligation cases. This is ONLY for PR inadmissibility based on a breach of the PR Residency Obligation.

Moreover, the Departure Order or "RO" issued by the Minister's Delegate at a PoE is NOT immediately enforceable. So the PR MUST be allowed to enter Canada.

A section 44(1) Report is NOT the same thing as a Departure Order or "RO."

As I tried to explain before, WHEN there is a PR Residency Obligation examination at a PoE, there is a TWO-STEP process.

-- First step is the officer in Secondary determining whether the returning PR is in breach of the Residency Obligation, and if the officer concludes the PR is in breach, this results in that officer issuing the Section 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the Residency Obligation.
-- Step two is an interview with the Minister's Delegate (usually just another officer) who makes the decision about whether to issue a Departure Order (or RO).
-- This usually happens while the PR is STILL in the PoE. (Not always but usually.)​

NOTE: There are other situations in which officers issue a Section 44(1) Report. These are "inadmissibility" reports, and can be issued for Foreign Nationals or PRs. And they can be issued to PRs for inadmissibility based on grounds other than inadmissibility for a breach of the Residency Obligation (Section 28 IRPA). A PR can be issued a Section 44(1) Report for misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds.

The procedure is different for a Section 44(1) Report issued for misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds. These cases go to IRCC and IRCC determines whether to proceed with an inadmissibility hearing.

The procedure for a Section 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the Residency Obligation is specifically limited to grounds based on a failure to comply with the Residency Obligation. Again, these 44(1) Reports ordinarily GO DIRECTLY to another officer, an officer who has authorization to act as a "Minister's Delegate." Then, following an interview with the PR, the Minister's Delegate makes a decision THEN and THERE at the PoE about whether to allow the PR to keep PR status based on H&C reasons or to issue a Departure Order (what you are referring to as an "RO").

It the Minister's Delegate issued the Departure Order the PR is then allowed to proceed into Canada. This RO is NOT enforceable for 30 days. If the PR makes an appeal within that time, the RO is NOT enforceable pending the outcome of the appeal. Appeals can take a year or more to be heard.

These appeals go directly to the IAD. Again, this is a different procedure from how it works for other types of inadmissibility, for 44(1) Reports issued based on other grounds.

thanks
there is a gentleman (@Bentham) who has indicated that he went through an appeal process of similar nature.
his experiences could clear up a lot of doubts and answer questions