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

[dpenabill]

@asaeed100 . . . it is indeed clear you misunderstand the PROCESS, the PROCEDURES. These are NOT vague.

I believe, based on many of your posts, that what you are really concerned about is not the process itself BUT WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL BE and what will determine that outcome.

The procedure officers follow in enforcing laws and rules is one thing. For PRs in breach of the Residency Obligation the procedure is well known, NOT at all vague, and this is what I have detailed above. No doubts about how this works.

What criteria is considered and what facts make a difference, and how officers will evaluate those facts, and what influence this or that particular fact has, and what decisions the officials will actually make, that is a separate discussion. A huge, huge topic. A very complicated subject.

The procedure is basically the same for everyone. The decision-making itself, however, varies and varies greatly.

I believe it is the latter, what factors into the decision-making itself, that is causing your concerns and frustrations and misunderstandings about the process.

In particular:

how the regulations are interpreted and enforced seem to be vague .it could even vary from one PoE to another (ie depending on the experience and volume of such cases they handle)

The laws, regulations, and even the policies and practices, are NOT vague in regards to the PROCEDURE.

How the rules are "enforced," however, does vary and varies greatly, BECAUSE the FACTS vary. No two PRs have the exact same facts. And, officers enforcing the rules have wide DISCRETION in how they apply the rules in individual cases.

For the vast majority of PRs with admissibility issues, what makes a difference for them is NOT the PROCEDURE. What matters are the FACTS and how officers will evaluate the facts and what conclusions the officers will make based on their perception of the FACTS. Which again vary and vary greatly from case to case.

Some forum participants are OK predicting outcomes based on knowing just a few facts. They are often correct, they are, probably, usually correct.

I do not share their view because individual cases are not about probabilities. It is not a matter of chance like what numbers come up when there is a roll of dice. It is about the FACTS for that particular individual. @Bentham recently posted some observations which illustrate this.

It helps little to other people to know . . . .

My impression is that your concerns are far more about what the decisions will be, and what those decisions are based on, than the procedure involved in making those decisions. AND THAT MAKES SENSE. That is the most difficult part of the process to forecast. That part of the process involves complicated decision-making which varies widely and involves a wide, wide range of influential factors. AND it is the part of the process that determines the OUTCOME. That is the part of the process which determines what actually happens to the individual PR:

will the PR be "reported?"
if reported will the PR be issued a "Departure Order?"
if issued a Departure Order will the PR win or lose the appeal?​

in short i fail to understand whether it is best to be a criminal and be able to cross the border scot-free or disclose that you have not fulfilled the RO and face an inevitable DO. ?

so you concur with @ dpenabil, that an inadmissible person has more "rights" than a poor baby yoda looking PR card holder (expired) who has not done anything remotely wrong - regardless of him/her getting caught or reported.

NOTHING I have observed so much as hints that PRs who are criminals have more leeway than PRs in breach of the PR Residency Obligation or that criminals are "able to cross the border scot-free."

NOTHING I have observed so much as hints that PRs who are criminals have more "rights" than PRs who have breached the PR Residency Obligation.

While I have mostly focused on explaining that the PROCEDURE involved in handling inadmissibility cases based on grounds like serious criminality is DIFFERENT from the procedure for breach of PR RO cases, I have avoided wandering into much detail about the procedure for criminality cases to avoid confusion. It is DIFFERENT. It does not illuminate how the breach of RO cases are handled.

That said, I also emphatically pointed out that YES, PRs who are inadmissible for serious criminality can be issued a Removal Order and DEPORTED. Moreover, I also noted that they can be DETAINED at a PoE pending action by the Immigration Division (of the IRB; I mistakenly referred to the Immigration Division in IRCC in some previous posts).

I cannot begin to fathom why you think being imprisoned at the PoE amounts to giving the criminal PR more rights than a PR found to be in breach of the RO who MUST then be allowed to enter Canada. But clearly, NO, a PR who is inadmissible for serious criminality does NOT have more rights than a PR who is inadmissible for a breach of the RO. I never suggested otherwise.


OVERALL --

Your concerns, @asaeed100, are clearly far more about what decisions will be made and what those decisions will mean for you and family members. The procedure itself has a lot less importance in this regard. You want to know whether you and family members will be allowed to keep PR status and live in Canada.

There are many discussions here, in the forum, about the factors which are considered in making such decisions. This is mostly about what are called "H&C" considerations. This is a far more complicated, difficult, and TRICKY topic than what the procedure is. It is far, far more difficult to forecast outcomes.

In this regard the situation reported by @Bentham again is illustrative: most key factors indicated a rather poor chance to keep PR status, and it was easy to point that out, but it was also important to remember that the actual outcome can vary. Moreover, as I emphasized at the time, circumstances occurring while the appeal is pending can influence the outcome (that is, despite the facts at the time the appeal is made, what happens after that can influence the final decision). Unfortunately, even though @Bentham has provided more and better detail than many who report their personal cases here, the outcome of her appeal remains unclear. She has recently reported there is a stay on her removal order. It is not clear whether that means there is not yet any final decision by the IAD regarding her appeal, or whether she lost the appeal but has obtained a stay of deportation (but it is clear that the appeal has not, not yet anyway, resulted in a final decision that she is allowed to keep PR).

In any event, for purposes of your concerns, @asaeed100, the details in the procedure are not what will make a difference in what the final outcome will be. If you or any PR family member arrive at a PoE, you MUST be allowed to enter Canada. Whether or not you will be able to keep PR status after that depends way, way more on the FACTS, the H&C factors, than details in the procedure.

 

[dpenabill]

CORRECTION: the Immigration Division is in the IRB not the IRCC

In some of my posts above I make the same mistake I have made in the past, and as much as I remind myself to keep this straight, in the rush to cover many details and, in particular, to more clearly distinguish the procedure in PR Residency Obligation cases by emphasizing that the PoE issued 44(1) Report and Departure Order THEN go directly to the IAD when there is an appeal, I mistakenly say that other inadmissibility reports (such as those for serious criminality) go to the Immigration Division in IRCC.

Thus the correction: the Immigration Division is in the IRB not the IRCC.

This does not affect any of what I describe above . . . except the particular detail that the Immigration Division is actually in the IRB and not IRCC.

I do not know why I keep slipping on this detail, except that many times this comes up when I am trying to emphasize that when a PR is issued a 44(1) Report and Departure Order at the PoE, that does NOT get referred to IRCC but goes directly to the IAD (the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB). This is usually in response to posts erroneously stating the contrary, that the 44(1) Report and Departure Order next goes to IRCC, suggesting that being Reported at the PoE is the "beginning" of the process to terminate PR status, when in fact it is the decision which terminates PR status albeit subject to appeal, and thus the affected PR must prosecute an appeal to keep PR status, and that appeal goes to the IAD not the IRCC.


Note: the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, is an independent administrative tribunal. For a clear and simple statement about the respective roles of IRCC, the IRB, and CBSA see https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/board/Pages/index.aspx

 

[Bentham]

@dpenabill
The stay on removal order is the IAD's decision. It is one of the three options available to it: to allow the appeal, to dismiss it or to stay the removal order. Unless the CBSA challenges it at the federal court, it will stay in force untill 2022 when the appeal will be reopened.

 

[asaeed100]

CORRECTION: the Immigration Division is in the IRB not the IRCC

In some of my posts above I make the same mistake I have made in the past, and as much as I remind myself to keep this straight, in the rush to cover many details and, in particular, to more clearly distinguish the procedure in PR Residency Obligation cases by emphasizing that the PoE issued 44(1) Report and Departure Order THEN go directly to the IAD when there is an appeal, I mistakenly say that other inadmissibility reports (such as those for serious criminality) go to the Immigration Division in IRCC.

Thus the correction: the Immigration Division is in the IRB not the IRCC.

This does not affect any of what I describe above . . . except the particular detail that the Immigration Division is actually in the IRB and not IRCC.

I do not know why I keep slipping on this detail, except that many times this comes up when I am trying to emphasize that when a PR is issued a 44(1) Report and Departure Order at the PoE, that does NOT get referred to IRCC but goes directly to the IAD (the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB). This is usually in response to posts erroneously stating the contrary, that the 44(1) Report and Departure Order next goes to IRCC, suggesting that being Reported at the PoE is the "beginning" of the process to terminate PR status, when in fact it is the decision which terminates PR status albeit subject to appeal, and thus the affected PR must prosecute an appeal to keep PR status, and that appeal goes to the IAD not the IRCC.


Note: the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, is an independent administrative tribunal. For a clear and simple statement about the respective roles of IRCC, the IRB, and CBSA see https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/board/Pages/index.aspx

let us be clear. i dont think i have tried to determine in any one my posts what the outcome will be in my case or my family. therefore, kindly do not put words in my mouth. i have simply tired to determine the process and the steps people go through at the PoE. Your replies have clarified many of my questions. and will serve to help many, many many years to come.

what threw me off is the below statement made by you , which you have reiterated time and time again
so a PR with valid PRC card with a criminal record or having some sort of flag on his file , DOES go Scot Free at the border. all he/she gets is a slap on the wrist with an inadmissibility report. Yet baby yoda with an expired card face a risk of getting a DO. Right?

"Indeed, officers authorized to act as a Minister's Delegate can only issue a Departure Order in 44(1) Report cases based on breach of the RO, and that Departure Order is NOT enforceable for at least 30 days SO the PR MUST be allowed to enter Canada. Border officials can issue inadmissibility reports, that is the 44(1) Report, based on other types of inadmissibility (misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds) BUT in those cases there is NO authority to issue a Departure Order at a PoE at all. Rather in those cases the PR must be allowed to enter Canada and the 44(1) Report is referred to IRCC which then decides whether to proceed with an admissibility hearing"

 

[asaeed100]

@dpenabill
The stay on removal order is the IAD's decision. It is one of the three options available to it: to allow the appeal, to dismiss it or to stay the removal order. Unless the CBSA challenges it at the federal court, it will stay in force untill 2022 when the appeal will be reopened.

what if you relocate or change addresses etc. how will they get in touch with you. do you have to keep your contact details up to date with IAD?
or do they contact you though your lawyers? one important thing, if your card was expired , were you able to get a renewal until the date of next hearing?

 

[Bentham]

what if you relocate or change addresses etc. how will they get in touch with you. do you have to keep your contact details up to date with IAD?
or do they contact you though your lawyers? one important thing, if your card was expired , were you able to get a renewal until the date of next hearing?

This is one of the conditions of the stay - to inform both CBSA and IAD about any change of address, travel documents and personal circumstances. Same for the time of the appeal - there is a special change of address form. If you do not inform about the change of address, you bear all the negative consequences of it. So, they will reach me at the address that I have provided. My only concern is that they never send anything by registered mail, which is a legal procedural requirement in some countries, meaning that if the sender cannot show the proof of delivery, the receiver is considered not to have received the mail. Here they just send everything by regular mail. If I genuinely do not get something and miss a deadline, for example, how can prove that the mail was not delivered to me? That was my nightmare while the appeal was pending. My guess is that if I do not act in response to some letter, they will send another one, may be by registered mail this time, but it is just a guess.

Yes, I did get a one-year card.

 

[Bentham]

This is one of the conditions of the stay - to inform both CBSA and IAD about any change of address, travel documents and personal circumstances. Same for the time of the appeal - there is a special change of address form. If you do not inform about the change of address, you bear all the negative consequences of it. So, they will reach me at the address that I have provided. My only concern is that they never send anything by registered mail, which is a legal procedural requirement in some countries, meaning that if the sender cannot show the proof of delivery, the receiver is considered not to have received the mail. Here they just send everything by regular mail. If I genuinely do not get something and miss a deadline, for example, how can prove that the mail was not delivered to me? That was my nightmare while the appeal was pending. My guess is that if I do not act in response to some letter, they will send another one, may be by registered mail this time, but it is just a guess.

To be on the safe side myself, I always asked CBSA and IAD people to stamp the first page of my documents each time when I delivered something to them.

Yes, I did get a one-year card.

 

[asaeed100]

This is one of the conditions of the stay - to inform both CBSA and IAD about any change of address, travel documents and personal circumstances. Same for the time of the appeal - there is a special change of address form. If you do not inform about the change of address, you bear all the negative consequences of it. So, they will reach me at the address that I have provided. My only concern is that they never send anything by registered mail, which is a legal procedural requirement in some countries, meaning that if the sender cannot show the proof of delivery, the receiver is considered not to have received the mail. Here they just send everything by regular mail. If I genuinely do not get something and miss a deadline, for example, how can prove that the mail was not delivered to me? That was my nightmare while the appeal was pending. My guess is that if I do not act in response to some letter, they will send another one, may be by registered mail this time, but it is just a guess.

Yes, I did get a one-year card.

thank you for the input. surely people will benefit from your experience.

 

[dpenabill]

The stay on removal order is the IAD's decision. It is one of the three options available to it: to allow the appeal, to dismiss it or to stay the removal order. Unless the CBSA challenges it at the federal court, it will stay in force untill 2022 when the appeal will be reopened.

Thank you for that clarification. And this does indeed clarify and illustrate this additional possibility.

I realize you are reluctant to share too many personal details, but (if I correctly recall) back in 2018 your posts suggested you needed to continue staying abroad extensively. Staying in Canada, or in contrast continued lengthy absences from Canada, appear to usually be among the more influential factors. If you are OK with sharing more about this aspect of your ongoing case that could be quite helpful in furthering our understanding.

let us be clear. i dont think i have tried to determine in any one my posts what the outcome will be in my case or my family. therefore, kindly do not put words in my mouth. i have simply tired to determine the process and the steps people go through at the PoE.

For any PR in breach of the PR Residency Obligation who manages to travel to Canada, and arrive at a PoE, what ultimately matters will be what decisions are made, not which officer makes which decision in what order. The process, the procedure, is of only secondary importance.

That is, I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I was identifying what matters, what will determine what happens, not in terms of the procedure but in terms of what actually happens to you and your PR family members. So I probably should not have said "You want to know . . . " which is ambiguous, but rather more clearly framed it in terms of "You should want to know . . . "

The point was that all this wrangling about the procedural details is NOT nearly as important as what will determine the outcome. That is the information you need more than the particular procedural details.

BUT that is not to suggest anyone can determine what the outcome will be in advance.

However, we do know many of the factors which are likely to influence the outcome. And any PR who is in breach of the PR RO who wants a chance to keep PR status can benefit from knowing what information to present and explain and to some extent provide evidence documenting the facts, to show to Canadian authorities favourable factors that can influence the decision-makers to allow the PR to keep PR status rather than to judge it terminated.

In any event . . . You seem to put a great deal of emphasis on the formality of who issues a Departure Order and when. And, sure, that is a crucial step in the process. BUT what really matters is the decision-making which results in the issuance of a Departure Order. And that, in turn, depends on the facts, the merits of the PR's H&C case. That is a more complicated, difficult, and tricky discussion, but in terms of navigating the process it is also the more relevant discussion.

what threw me off is the below statement made by you , which you have reiterated time and time again
so a PR with valid PRC card with a criminal record or having some sort of flag on his file , DOES go Scot Free at the border. all he/she gets is a slap on the wrist with an inadmissibility report. Yet baby yoda with an expired card face a risk of getting a DO. Right?

"Indeed, officers authorized to act as a Minister's Delegate can only issue a Departure Order in 44(1) Report cases based on breach of the RO, and that Departure Order is NOT enforceable for at least 30 days SO the PR MUST be allowed to enter Canada. Border officials can issue inadmissibility reports, that is the 44(1) Report, based on other types of inadmissibility (misrepresentation, serious criminality, or security grounds) BUT in those cases there is NO authority to issue a Departure Order at a PoE at all. Rather in those cases the PR must be allowed to enter Canada and the 44(1) Report is referred to IRCC which then decides whether to proceed with an admissibility hearing"

There is NOTHING in this which suggests PRs who are inadmissible for serious criminality go "Scot Free at the border."

I corrected the last sentence in what you quote from my post. PoE 44(1) Reports based on grounds OTHER than a failure to comply with the RO are not referred to IRCC but, rather, to the IRB (to the Immigration Division in IRB).

Otherwise, I have made a concerted effort to explain that the procedure for PoE 44(1) Reports based on grounds OTHER than a failure to comply with the RO are DIFFERENT from the procedure for those PoE 44(1) Reports which are based on a failure to comply with the RO. DIFFERENT. NOT more lenient. NOT a "Scot Free" pass. (Indeed, as I explained, for inadmissibility based on serious criminality, the PR can be detained, which means imprisoned, pending action by the Immigration Division. That is hardly "Scot Free.")

The procedure for PRs who are inadmissible for serious criminality are NOT relevant in how the procedure works for PRs who have breached the PR RO.

That said, many Canadian PRs do have a criminal record BUT a record that does not constitute serious criminality and that will not render them inadmissible. Of course admissible PRs will be given a pass at the PoE. Even if they do not have a valid PR card. This too is a DIFFERENT subject. This is NOT relevant to the procedure when returning PRs are identified as inadmissible for a breach of the PR RO.

As for "baby Yoda" without a valid PR card, NO, not having a valid PR card is NOT grounds for being issued a Departure Order at a PoE. And NOT grounds for being issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility. No risk based on not having a valid PR card.

The specific grounds of inadmissibility applicable to PRs are spelled out in IRPA (the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), in Sections 34(1) (Security related grounds), 35(1) (Human rights violations including war crimes), 36(1) (Serious criminality), which are all here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#docCont and also Sections 37(1) (Organized criminality), 40(1) (Misrepresentation), 40.1(2) (Cessation of refugee protection based on certain specified grounds), and 41(b) (Failure to comply with Residency Obligation), which are here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-9.html#docCont

Again, for the last of these, for 41(b) which is inadmissibility for a failure to comply with Section 28 (the Residency Obligation), the procedure is different from the procedure for inadmissibility based on the other grounds. Different does not mean more or less severe. Procedure is about the process, not about the consequences. Procedure is about the steps taken in reaching decisions.

The more important discussion for a PR in breach of the RO is about what is considered in the H&C assessment, what facts matter and how they matter, and whether those facts will justify the PR's retention of PR status despite the failure to comply with Section 28 (again, the RO).

 

[asaeed100]

Thank you for that clarification. And this does indeed clarify and illustrate this additional possibility.

I realize you are reluctant to share too many personal details, but (if I correctly recall) back in 2018 your posts suggested you needed to continue staying abroad extensively. Staying in Canada, or in contrast continued lengthy absences from Canada, appear to usually be among the more influential factors. If you are OK with sharing more about this aspect of your ongoing case that could be quite helpful in furthering our understanding.




For any PR in breach of the PR Residency Obligation who manages to travel to Canada, and arrive at a PoE, what ultimately matters will be what decisions are made, not which officer makes which decision in what order. The process, the procedure, is of only secondary importance.

That is, I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I was identifying what matters, what will determine what happens, not in terms of the procedure but in terms of what actually happens to you and your PR family members. So I probably should not have said "You want to know . . . " which is ambiguous, but rather more clearly framed it in terms of "You should want to know . . . "

The point was that all this wrangling about the procedural details is NOT nearly as important as what will determine the outcome. That is the information you need more than the particular procedural details.

BUT that is not to suggest anyone can determine what the outcome will be in advance.

However, we do know many of the factors which are likely to influence the outcome. And any PR who is in breach of the PR RO who wants a chance to keep PR status can benefit from knowing what information to present and explain and to some extent provide evidence documenting the facts, to show to Canadian authorities favourable factors that can influence the decision-makers to allow the PR to keep PR status rather than to judge it terminated.

In any event . . . You seem to put a great deal of emphasis on the formality of who issues a Departure Order and when. And, sure, that is a crucial step in the process. BUT what really matters is the decision-making which results in the issuance of a Departure Order. And that, in turn, depends on the facts, the merits of the PR's H&C case. That is a more complicated, difficult, and tricky discussion, but in terms of navigating the process it is also the more relevant discussion.





There is NOTHING in this which suggests PRs who are inadmissible for serious criminality go "Scot Free at the border."

I corrected the last sentence in what you quote from my post. PoE 44(1) Reports based on grounds OTHER than a failure to comply with the RO are not referred to IRCC but, rather, to the IRB (to the Immigration Division in IRB).

Otherwise, I have made a concerted effort to explain that the procedure for PoE 44(1) Reports based on grounds OTHER than a failure to comply with the RO are DIFFERENT from the procedure for those PoE 44(1) Reports which are based on a failure to comply with the RO. DIFFERENT. NOT more lenient. NOT a "Scot Free" pass. (Indeed, as I explained, for inadmissibility based on serious criminality, the PR can be detained, which means imprisoned, pending action by the Immigration Division. That is hardly "Scot Free.")

The procedure for PRs who are inadmissible for serious criminality are NOT relevant in how the procedure works for PRs who have breached the PR RO.

That said, many Canadian PRs do have a criminal record BUT a record that does not constitute serious criminality and that will not render them inadmissible. Of course admissible PRs will be given a pass at the PoE. Even if they do not have a valid PR card. This too is a DIFFERENT subject. This is NOT relevant to the procedure when returning PRs are identified as inadmissible for a breach of the PR RO.

As for "baby Yoda" without a valid PR card, NO, not having a valid PR card is NOT grounds for being issued a Departure Order at a PoE. And NOT grounds for being issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility. No risk based on not having a valid PR card.

The specific grounds of inadmissibility applicable to PRs are spelled out in IRPA (the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), in Sections 34(1) (Security related grounds), 35(1) (Human rights violations including war crimes), 36(1) (Serious criminality), which are all here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#docCont and also Sections 37(1) (Organized criminality), 40(1) (Misrepresentation), 40.1(2) (Cessation of refugee protection based on certain specified grounds), and 41(b) (Failure to comply with Residency Obligation), which are here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-9.html#docCont

Again, for the last of these, for 41(b) which is inadmissibility for a failure to comply with Section 28 (the Residency Obligation), the procedure is different from the procedure for inadmissibility based on the other grounds. Different does not mean more or less severe. Procedure is about the process, not about the consequences. Procedure is about the steps taken in reaching decisions.

The more important discussion for a PR in breach of the RO is about what is considered in the H&C assessment, what facts matter and how they matter, and whether those facts will justify the PR's retention of PR status despite the failure to comply with Section 28 (again, the RO).

you are right , i wanted to know who at the PoE has authority and up to what levels
but more importantly i wanted to get a feel of what to expect
but as you said, whatever happens the outcome of appeal will depend on an individuals case and how strongly he/she is prepared to present his/her case in the court.
selecting an experienced lawyer will matter too.

i hope our discussion and debate will benefit many
thank you

 

[canuck78]

you are right , i wanted to know who at the PoE has authority and up to what levels
but more importantly i wanted to get a feel of what to expect
but as you said, whatever happens the outcome of appeal will depend on an individuals case and how strongly he/she is prepared to present his/her case in the court.
selecting an experienced lawyer will matter too.

i hope our discussion and debate will benefit many
thank you

How much effort one wants to put into defending their case on appeal if reported only goes so far. An experienced lawyer will certainly help but it always comes down to the actual specifics of your case. You have one child without PR or TRV so part of your family may not even be able to enter Canada.

 

[asaeed100]

How much effort one wants to put into defending their case on appeal if reported only goes so far. An experienced lawyer will certainly help but it always comes down to the actual specifics of your case. You have one child without PR or TRV so part of your family may not even be able to enter Canada.

dont worry my friend. i just got started. i know how to manage because i have faith in the Lord. but hey thank you for the vote of confidence and your guidance so far.
if it wasnt for VIP contributors like yourself. poor immigrants stand no chance in whatever issues they may be facing
will update very soon. do keep checking this thread from time to time.

take care Cannuk warrior.

 

[canuck78]

dont worry my friend. i just got started. i know how to manage because i have faith in the Lord. but hey thank you for the vote of confidence and your guidance so far.
if it wasnt for VIP contributors like yourself. poor immigrants stand no chance in whatever issues they may be facing
will update very soon. do keep checking this thread from time to time.

take care Cannuk warrior.

Appreciate the sarcasm. For others reading this thread there is lots of information online for anyone to learn about immigration and previous cases when it comes to not meeting residency obligations. Unfortunately faith and a good lawyer only goes so far. If anything luck has a lot to do with things like not getting reported.

 

[dpenabill]

At the risk of beating another dead horse (PRs are Canadians):

A minor point but the OP is a PR and not a Canadian given that classification obviously applies to a citizen not to a PR

So to be clear permanent resident is not Canadian (citizen). Permanent resident is a permanent resident.

Somehow we went from discussion that if permanent resident is "Canadian" or not

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."

IRCC’s answer : "Hi. The term "Canadian" is generally used to refer to Canadian citizens."

Reason for making this post is at the end.

Some prefatory remarks:

Perhaps I mentioned it previously, but at my oath ceremony all the congratulations were for becoming a "Canadian citizen" not a "Canadian."

And I decided to revisit my archived records (having learned it is a good idea to keep certain records far longer than what is mandated and, at least for me, the documentation attendant my becoming a citizen is of great importance to me). I do not have any congratulatory letter from the Minister at that time. Possible I lost it even though I still have the congratulatory letters I received from two Federal MPs and two Provincial MPPs, which ALL explicitly congratulate me for becoming a "Canadian citizen." I also have the congratulatory letter from the PM, Stephen Harper at the time, which explicitly refers to me becoming a "Canadian citizen," with multiple references to this, but also twice refers to me becoming a member of "our Canadian family." All these congratulatory letters are form letters and thus not addressed to me personally.

The only thing I have that I got from the then Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Christopher Alexander, was my Certificate of Citizenship, which of course referenced me by name and states I am a Canadian citizen.

As for Harper's "our Canadian family," it warrants remembering he was the PM who pushed through changes to the Citizenship Act which briefly (promptly dropped in practice and soon repealed in law by the Liberal government elected in 2015) adopted, implemented, and immediately began aggressively prosecuting a provision allowing the government to revoke citizenship based on convictions for certain crimes committed after the person became a citizen, with NO right of appeal, and otherwise pursued policies which all too blatantly approached naturalized citizens and their families as second-class citizens. An approach rejected by most but not all Canadians.

In any event, why I am making this post, in regards to the discussion about PRs being "Canadians" and the assertions that notwithstanding the scheme of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, general usage of the term should trump how these terms are used in the law, some may find the following recent anecdotal report interesting.

She looked at the PR card & mentioned that I have been a PR since 2017 and am returning after close to 3 years . . . and . . . Made a quip about me being a Canadian now & following laws.

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/returning-after-2-years-11-months-with-job.667097/#post-8397538

This was in regards to a PoE Secondary examination just two days ago, and the officer making a quip about the PR "being a Canadian now." Yeah. That is how the immigration scheme in IRPA is intended to work.

 

[keesio]

And I decided to revisit my archived records (having learned it is a good idea to keep certain records far longer than what is mandated and, at least for me, the documentation attendant my becoming a citizen is of great importance to me). I do not have any congratulatory letter from the Minister at that time.

Here is a picture of my wife's.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/186349129@N08/49316100021/in/dateposted-public/

Note the first line. Also note that in other places, "Canadian citizen" is also used instead.

I am not disputing your claims regarding the proper definition of "Canadian". I am just pointing out that it can be very confusing, especially when the IRCC minister himself is inconsistent in its usage.