RE: Which PoE is Better (PoE-shopping)?
1. Whats the best way to enter in this situation air or land (I prefer air as of now).?
1) Impossible to say. There is no data on who gets reported where, only anecdotal evidence. Just do what is most convenient.
2) There is some data on this in this article:
https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2017/01/18/about-1400-immigrants-a-year-ordered-removed-from-canada-for-residency-non-compliance.html
Bottom line: avoid Montreal airport.
The Star article is dated information, more than three years old, and the data referenced in it largely relates to years well before that, to more than a year BEFORE Trudeau formed a majority Liberal government back in 2015, and thus derives from a period of time when, under PM Harper, and Ministers Kenney and then Alexander, Canada was significantly, if not dramatically, elevating scrutiny and enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation. But the link to this information is very much appreciated (I rarely read the The Star even though it has more than its share of informative articles related to immigration, most of which however tend to be largely opinion not hard information; some, however, such as this one, do report hard information, and since I do not recall seeing this one in particular, the link really is very much appreciated).
At the very least the data cited in the article illustrates that YES, CBSA is screening and examining returning PRs for RO compliance, and reporting a rather significant number of PRs who have failed to comply with the RO when they arrive at a PoE.
[
Interesting sidebar: article cites numbers of Departure Order appeals, and who did so successfully, comparing 2008 numbers and 2014 numbers; these numbers clearly illustrate the significantly elevated scrutiny and stricter enforcement implemented in the years between Harper's earlier minority government years and late in his majority government years. There is another article, which should link here, which similarly illustrates a dramatic increase in the number of PRs losing PR status between very early in Harper's time as PM (2006) and later (2011), further showing the extent to which Canada increased scrutiny and implemented stricter RO enforcement.]
This reinforces the conventional wisdom often observed in this forum: once a PR is in breach of the RO, there is a real and significant RISK of losing PR status, and in particular a real and substantial RISK the PR will be Reported and issued a Departure Order upon arrival at a PoE.
That article reports (as of 2014) an approximate AVERAGE of 1400 PRs being "
intercepted at the border each year and ordered removed from the country for not fulfilling their residency obligations." And, it appears, less than 100 of those PRs will successfully appeal the 44(1) Report and Departure Order (1413 issued Departure Order in 2014; of the 1008 appeals that year, only 78 were successful). This looks like real enforcement, and fairly strict enforcement.
This information is very illuminating even though it leaves open major gaps in relevant data, particularly contextual data such as the number of PRs who are waived through without being examined as to RO compliance, or the number of such PRs waived through despite failing to comply with the RO. BUT the article does offer some data as to a couple particular Ports of Entry, comparing the number of Departure Orders (for breach of RO) issued in the airports for Montreal versus Toronto. However, here again this difference lacks contextual data so we do not know if the respective numbers are proportional to the overall number of PRs arriving at those Ports of Entry from abroad.
But here again, conventional wisdom appears to be reinforced, as it has been widely and long reported that Quebec Ports of Entry appear to be more strict, both in terms of screening RO compliance and in deciding who is Reported and issued a Departure Order (also called a "Removal Order").
Note, however, I ordinarily steer clear of these sorts of observations. In part I do not want to contribute to PoE-shopping; I do not condone let alone offer guidance about how to manipulate Canada's immigration system. However there are also pragmatic reasons for this.
In particular, as I noted above, there are many other factors which will have far more influence in how it goes when a returning PR arrives at a PoE. And even if Quebec Ports of Entry tend to be more strict, those other factors are still what will most likely influence (1) whether there is RO compliance questioning, and (2) if so, whether that results in being Reported.
Leading to . . . the observation numbered 1 in a recent post by
@IndianBos. Note: observations numbered 2 and 3 in the post by
@IndianBos are very good observations well worth making and emphasizing, with one clarification. How long a returning PR in breach of the RO should avoid international travel can be up to 2 years, but may also be significantly less; what matters is that the PR avoid international travel until the PR is in full compliance with the Residency Obligation (which can be significantly less than two years if the PR has spent much time in Canada in the previous three or four years) and even then only travel abroad if the PR can readily show he or she is in compliance with the RO on the date the PR returns to Canada (remembering that days in Canada more than five years prior to the date the PR arrives at the PoE NO LONGER COUNT toward RO compliance).
Observation numbered 1 in the post by
@IndianBos, however, is at least potentially confusing.
"1. Avoid land border, I think there is more scrutiny. That is my experience based on using both land crossing and airports."
Generally there are many other factors, other than which PoE is used, which have more influence in the level of scrutiny a PR encounters at a PoE. There is no where near enough statistically reliable information to discern any advantage or disadvantage in using a land or airport PoE for the return to Canada. With some exceptions. Smaller, less busy land border crossings appear to scrutinize irregular travelers more (which is probably more about the irregularity than it is about how busy the that crossing is -- smaller, less busy crossings are obviously smaller and less busy because they are primarily local crossing points and NOT mainstream travel routes). And Quebec. And for Quebec this appears to apply to both a land crossing as well as an airport PoE.
For a PR whose PR card is expired, however, many will suggest it is better to travel to the U.S. and approach re-entering Canada at a land crossing PoE. The reason for this is not that there is less scrutiny at a land crossing PoE but because this avoids making a PR Travel Document application. There are many indications that PR TD applications are indeed more thoroughly scrutinized for Residency Obligation compliance than is done at a PoE. It is not that the land crossing PoE is a better re-entry point, but rather about the ability to travel to the land crossing PoE without first obtaining a PR TD.
Beyond that, of course CBSA officials are not nearly so slow or dim witted as some might characterize them. No particular genius is required to have questions about WHY a particular PR is using this or that land crossing when that seems to be a route taking the traveler out of the way. So, when someone flying from Asia goes through the U.S. and travels to a border crossing near Buffalo, N.Y., it is totally natural to wonder why this route given the availability of faster more direct routes, and probably less expensive routes. Or even flying to Seattle and taking the not so short land route to B.C. and Vancouver.
Which brings this around to an off-the-mark, albeit persistent observation in this forum, suggesting how it goes at the PoE depends a lot on "luck."
NOT REALLY. Luck has rather little to do with it. There are all sorts of clues and indicators which can alert CBSA personnel there is reason to ask more questions, do more probing, to expand the inquiry to include questions about RO compliance. The PR's situation, the particular details, matter.
