@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 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.
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.
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:
The laws, regulations, and even the policies and practices, are NOT vague in regards to the PROCEDURE.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)
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.
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:It helps little to other people to know . . . .
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?
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. ?
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."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 "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.