Loss of PR

[JJN]

If I successfully renew my PR status (by having >= 730 days in the last five year period - rolling), but then, leave Canada after I get my PR status (and card), but by doing so, slip under the 730 rolling period, what happens?

Am I no longer a PR?

Will I be reported, and if so, by who, and how?

Will this impact me coming back into Canada?

If I were to stay outside of Canada (let's assume the RO drops to 500, for example, in a five year rolling period), am I legally allowed to return to Canada and work/live, etc.?

Can I come back to Canada with an RO of 500, for example, and work up more days to make over 730 again?

These are all hypothetical questions aimed to help me understand my future plans. Thanks.

 

[Bs65]

First when you renew your PR card general advice to always have a buffer in the application so not exactly 730 days maybe a couple months extra.

PR status can only be renounced or revoked intentionally so there is no automatic process that suddenly revokes someones PR status when they are outside of the country or when their PR card expires.

Having an expired PR card does not mean someones PR status has expired , just the card which means that if they need to travel outside of the country they cannot fly back without a valid card or a PRTD..

As a PR you are generally always entitled to enter Canada however if at the time of entry CBSA at the border discover you have failed the RO there is always the chance that even though they will let you in they may report your RO failure leading to PR status being revoked subject to appeal.

If you have failed the RO and are not reported for that failure by CBSA then sure you can stay put in the country to reset the RO. Not only should you plan not to leave the country during this time but also not have any unecessary interaction with IRCC such as renewing a PR card or sponsoring anyone.

Of course nobody here can ever predict anything with the odds of anyone getting reported at the border for failing the RO so is a personal decision to take the risk or not. You could speculate the greater the failure in the RO the greater the odds of being reported but thats pure speculation.

 

[canuck78]

If I successfully renew my PR status (by having >= 730 days in the last five year period - rolling), but then, leave Canada after I get my PR status (and card), but by doing so, slip under the 730 rolling period, what happens?

Am I no longer a PR?

Will I be reported, and if so, by who, and how?

Will this impact me coming back into Canada?

If I were to stay outside of Canada (let's assume the RO drops to 500, for example, in a five year rolling period), am I legally allowed to return to Canada and work/live, etc.?

Can I come back to Canada with an RO of 500, for example, and work up more days to make over 730 again?

These are all hypothetical questions aimed to help me understand my future plans. Thanks.

you must maintain your RO and be in Canada for 730 days in the past 5 years on any day. If you have a valid PR card you can enter Canada but you can be reported if you don’t meet your RO which can lead to loss of PR. If you don’t have a valid PR card you can enter Canada by land but there is a much higher chances of being reported for not meeting your RO which can lead to loss of PR. Best idea is to maintain RO.

 

[JJN]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

I've not heard of cases where the CBSA, at time of entry, have alerted/reported a lack of RO here on these forums yet. I know that doesn't mean it's not possible, but do you know of any others who have gone through this process?

If one has a valid PR card at the time of crossing (land or air), I'm guessing that there would not really be a strong reason for the CBSA to raise an alarm/report you, seeing as, at least on paper (on the card), you are a valid PR, especially if you have 2-5 years remaining before the expiry date.

To my knowledge also, we have to prove where we have been and for how long (in other words, how long we have been in Canada in order to meet the RO), and maybe I'm wrong to ask this, but do the CBSA know (or have at the hand/easy access to a DB) a list of all entries/exists, and a count of all days in order to assess the PR RO eligibility at time of crossing into Canada per person?

Thanks again.

 

[canuck78]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

I've not heard of cases where the CBSA, at time of entry, have alerted/reported a lack of RO here on these forums yet. I know that doesn't mean it's not possible, but do you know of any others who have gone through this process?

If one has a valid PR card at the time of crossing (land or air), I'm guessing that there would not really be a strong reason for the CBSA to raise an alarm/report you, seeing as, at least on paper (on the card), you are a valid PR, especially if you have 2-5 years remaining before the expiry date.

To my knowledge also, we have to prove where we have been and for how long (in other words, how long we have been in Canada in order to meet the RO), and maybe I'm wrong to ask this, but do the CBSA know (or have at the hand/easy access to a DB) a list of all entries/exists, and a count of all days in order to assess the PR RO eligibility at time of crossing into Canada per person?

Thanks again.

People have certainly been reported with a valid PR card. If you don’t meet your RO you can be reported. PR card is really more of a travel document and it is independent from your PR status. At this point CBSA doesn’t have access to all entry/exit date but it is coming.

 

[JJN]

People have certainly been reported with a valid PR card. If you don’t meet your RO you can be reported. PR card is really more of a travel document and it is independent from your PR status. At this point CBSA doesn’t have access to all entry/exit date but it is coming.

Thanks for the info.

If people have been reported with valid PR cards, and the CBSA don't yet have access to all entry/exist data, how are people getting reported? I'm simply wondering if the reporting is done by a government official (and if so, who?), or an employer, or someone else, etc.?

 

[canuck78]

Thanks for the info.

If people have been reported with valid PR cards, and the CBSA don't yet have access to all entry/exist data, how are people getting reported? I'm simply wondering if the reporting is done by a government official (and if so, who?), or an employer, or someone else, etc.?

CBSA does have some information like entry records, they can look at your passport and people are also asked when they last entered Canada and how long they have been in Canada in the past 5 years. Reporting means that they have been flagged by CBSA when they enter Canada for not meeting their RO. The entry/exit capabilities are coming sometime soon so you can’t count on that not being available. It sounds like you may not be compliant sometime in the next few years.

 

[JJN]

CBSA does have some information like entry records, they can look at your passport and people are also asked when they last entered Canada and how long they have been in Canada in the past 5 years. Reporting means that they have been flagged by CBSA when they enter Canada for not meeting their RO. The entry/exit capabilities are coming sometime soon so you can’t count on that not being available. It sounds like you may not be compliant sometime in the next few years.

Right. That makes sense.

It's not that I will not be compliant. It's more like I need to make a big life decision whether or not to stay in Canada. I have been away for a long time, and I need to go back soon to work up enough days to meet (and exceed, as previously recommended for buffering) the RO requirements.

Assuming that all of this goes well, I should have enough days (aiming for 800+) in order to reapply/renew my PR status (and card), but I'm simply not sure if I want to stay in Canada right away after this, which means I could soon after become a non-PR (or, more rightfully said, I guess, a PR not meeting his/her RO, and thus, being eligible for reporting/dismissal/removal).

I have my mind to make up.

 

[Besram]

Right. That makes sense.

It's not that I will not be compliant. It's more like I need to make a big life decision whether or not to stay in Canada. I have been away for a long time, and I need to go back soon to work up enough days to meet (and exceed, as previously recommended for buffering) the RO requirements.

Assuming that all of this goes well, I should have enough days (aiming for 800+) in order to reapply/renew my PR status (and card), but I'm simply not sure if I want to stay in Canada right away after this, which means I could soon after become a non-PR (or, more rightfully said, I guess, a PR not meeting his/her RO, and thus, being eligible for reporting/dismissal/removal).

I have my mind to make up.

One other thing to consider:

If your country of origin allows dual citizenship, you'd only have to accumulate 3 years of residency (out of 5) until you can apply for Canadian citizenship. That seems like a much smaller commitment than deciding to live in Canada for the rest of your life. Once you are a citizen, the residency obligation no longer applies to you, and you are once again free to live wherever you please - but you will always have the option to return if you so choose.

Since you already have some time in Canada, your commitment would likely be less than these 3 years. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Conversely, if you go into RO non-compliance down the track and lose your PR as a result of it, you may then no longer qualify to re-apply as older applicants lose a lot of points both in terms of CRS points as well as in the FSW grid.

 

[dpenabill]

I've not heard of cases where the CBSA, at time of entry, have alerted/reported a lack of RO here on these forums yet. I know that doesn't mean it's not possible, but do you know of any others who have gone through this process?

If one has a valid PR card at the time of crossing (land or air), I'm guessing that there would not really be a strong reason for the CBSA to raise an alarm/report you, seeing as, at least on paper (on the card), you are a valid PR, especially if you have 2-5 years remaining before the expiry date.

If people have been reported with valid PR cards, and the CBSA don't yet have access to all entry/exist data, how are people getting reported? I'm simply wondering if the reporting is done by a government official (and if so, who?), or an employer, or someone else, etc.?

Responses by @canuck78 mostly cover it, including:

People have certainly been reported with a valid PR card. If you don’t meet your RO you can be reported.

Further Observations Re PoE Examinations and Risks Related to Being Reported for Breach of RO:

Much of the discussion in forums focuses on the Risk of being Reported, without distinguishing a key tipping point, perhaps THE key tipping point: the Risk of being Examined closely about RO compliance.

There is little or no risk of being Reported if the returning PR is not even questioned much about Residency Obligation compliance. Getting waived through at the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) means no detailed questions about RO compliance and consequently virtually no risk of being Reported.

Many of the same factors will influence both the risk of Secondary questions about RO compliance (essentially the risk the PIL officer will refer the returning PR to Secondary for immigration questions) and the risk of being Reported when examined as to RO compliance. There is a huge difference, however, in the amount and kind of information the respective officials consider in making their respective decisions.

Thus, while the same risk factors loom for both, the nature, measure, and impact of those risks, the influence they might have, is far from equal. In general, they have similar impact, at least once they are in consideration. But there is a big difference between what the PIL officer considers and the level of information a Secondary official asks the PR for, and the official's access to database information to help assess the PR and compare with the PR's answers.

The PIL officer has limited information. The PIL officer's job is to QUICKLY check the travelers identity and status, and otherwise screen just enough to determine whether the traveler should be examined more extensively for either customs or immigration matters. If the limited information the PIL officer has does not trigger RO compliance issues for a returning PR, the odds are good there is no referral to Secondary for immigration questions. If the PR is thus waived into Canada, whatever the risk was up to that moment, it suddenly drops to ZERO (unless and until there is another transaction or interaction triggering RO compliance questions, like applying for a PR card or when arriving at a PoE from abroad again).


Example; How Long Since Last in Canada:

Among factors which can influence both is how long it has been since the last time the PR was in Canada. In particular, for those returning after a very long absence, this tends to be a big factor. So much so it appears some PRs in breach are tempted to fudge answers or be evasive about how long they have been abroad.

That invites a whole other tangent, the risks attendant making misrepresentations during a PoE examination. For now, suffice it to say those risks have gone up dramatically in recent years. And believe it or not, CBSA has a lot of tools for identifying less than honest travelers. No need to go into their methods and means (which are largely not public information anyway, though it is not difficult to figure some of it out). For the PR in breach of the RO the chance of getting found-out making misrepresentations are high enough to make this a bad bet, even if many are still getting away fudging some. For those who doubt CBSA screening is better and more sophisticated now than many realize, try doing a bit of research into the physiological screening technology already at use in some airport Ports-of-Entry, which includes facial screening and measuring body movement, from facial expression to toe and eye-movements (yes, you are on camera and the floor in front of some kiosks are sensory data sensitive), with sophisticated logarithms for identifying travelers to be questioned more skeptically. Overall, again for the PR in breach of the RO who is fudging his or her answers, such as about how long it has been since they were last in Canada, there is a high risk of at least being suspected of deception, or being evasive, enough so to trigger a referral to Secondary for immigration questions WITH at least a patina of compromised credibility which can seriously damage any chances of leniency for a RO breach. (While there has been a virtual explosion in the number of cases where PRs are losing status for misrepresentations, a large percentage of whom were "Sunny" Wang clients, most suspected misrepresentation merely triggers elevated skepticism and more strict if not harsh decision-making. A PR might not even realize if and when an official goes from just doing-the-job questions, and due to compromised credibility, getting more skeptical and less likely to give the PR a benefit of the doubt let alone a break.)

In any event, getting back to the how-long-abroad risk factor, and the observation that the longer the absence the bigger both risks, that is the bigger the risk the PIL officer will make a referral to Secondary for immigration questions so that the returning PR is questioned more extensively about RO compliance, and the bigger the risk the PR in breach will be Reported for the breach. In particular, if it has been more than three years since last time in Canada, that is a big flashing red alert. Easy to forecast this is likely to be problematic.

With exceptions. For example, if it has been more than three years since last time in Canada, that is a big flashing red alert unless the returning PR is presenting a visa-exempt passport and the PIL official is unaware the traveler is a PR, and thus waives the traveler through as if the traveler is a Foreign National visitor. In the latter instance, the risk of being Reported suddenly drops to zero. (Historically this is perhaps the most common way big breach PRs have managed to get into Canada without being reported, but here too data-gathering, and data-access technologies and practices have been shrinking this loophole. Indeed, this was a huge loophole used by visa-exempt PRs until eTA was implemented, and the goal of significantly shrinking this pathway was among reasons for implementing eTA. Appears some PRs are still sliding by this way, getting to a land-crossing PoE from the U.S., but increasingly just scanning the traveler's passport is enough for the PIL officer's monitor to show the traveler is a PR.)

In any event, if the PIL officer recognizes this traveler is a PR who is returning to Canada after an absence of more than three years, again that is a big flashing red alert. And it would be nonsense to suggest it is mere speculation to say there is a far greater risk of being Reported for this returning PR than for the returning PR who is just a week or month short of being in compliance. The difference in risks is clear and substantial. (Subject to other considerations, like H&C factors for an 18 year old PR who was a minor removed from Canada, or the PR entitled to credit for time abroad.)

 

[dpenabill]

More Re Risk of Being Referred to Secondary and Asked RO Compliance Related Questions:

For a PR who is in breach of the Residency Obligation, there is always a RISK of being asked detailed questions about RO compliance at a PoE. Many factors can influence how that goes. As just discussed, been more than three years since last time in Canada? Big flashing red alert. File already flagged for RO compliance concerns? Big flashing red alert. Other factors can and will influence how this goes. Quantifying these risk factors is near impossible. But NO speculation necessary to identify some which clearly tip the needle in the yellow caution or red flag direction.

If the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) official does not see reason to refer the returning PR to Secondary for immigration, at that point the odds of being asked detailed questions about RO compliance are very low. If there is no referral to Secondary, and thus there are no detailed questions about RO compliance, odds of being Reported are very low. No matter how much in breach of the RO the returning PR is.

This is when and how the vast majority of big breach PRs manage to return to Canada without being Reported. The PIL officer simply waives them through. Some say this is luck. Some suggest it is incompetence or sloth. Probably some of that but the individual PR's history, circumstances, demeanor, and simply the facts, are what mostly influence how this goes. Judging by the numbers, the trend is toward more PRs getting "caught" (although, to be clear, there is NO wrong-doing involved in failing to comply with the RO; it is simply a matter of eligibility to keep PR status; using less judgmental terminology, the trend is more PRs are facing stricter RO enforcment).

This is where a valid PR card can have influence. Much bigger risk of a referral to Secondary for immigration questions if the returning PR does not present a valid PR card.

But, to be clear, yes PRs with a valid PR card can be and when in breach rather often are referred to Secondary, and there are plenty of IAD cases involving PRs who had valid PR cards when they were Reported for a breach of the RO and issued a Departure Order at a PoE.

In any event, this is a key tipping point, if NOT the BIG KEY tipping point in the PoE examination: Does the PIL officer waive the PR through or make a referral to Secondary for immigration questions?

-- Waived through: risk of being reported drops to ZERO

-- Referred to Secondary for immigration questions, for the PR who is in breach, the RISK of being Reported goes up a lot, but how much depends on a lot of factors, and contrary to the views of many in the forum, this is NOT a matter of luck, and there is no need to speculate to recognize that certain factors, like how big the breach, have a big impact​

How it goes in Secondary is a big topic of its own. And how it goes in Secondary has even less to do with luck. And in Secondary, if examined about RO compliance, there is NO DOUBT that certain factors, such as a bigger breach of the RO, mean a bigger risk of being Reported.


SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS About RO-Related Questioning In Secondary:

If and when a PR in breach is being questioned in Secondary about RO compliance, that is where the RISK of being issued a 44(1) Report and Departure Order goes WAY UP. Most returning PRs are waived through. In the five years I was a PR I was NEVER referred to Secondary except for specific customs matters (had to pay taxes and duties on imported goods on occasion), NEVER asked about RO compliance. I have had friends with PR who were spending more time in the U.S. than here, but they were regularly going back and forth, and none ever hinted about being questioned as to their RO compliance.

But many PRs are referred to Secondary and questioned about RO compliance; last data I've seen suggested approximately an average, over the last decade, of 1400 PRs are Reported and issued Departure Orders at Ports-of-Entry every year (interesting statistic: for the time period around 2010 through 2014, more than twice as many Departure Orders for RO breaches were issued at the Pierre Trudeau airport in Montreal, than Vancouver and Toronto combined).

Most indications suggest PoE cases are NOT close call cases. Which leads to . . .

One might ask "how do they know who to question?" and, when questioned "how do they know who has breached the RO?"

In most cases there are probably a lot of clues. When a PR is spending more than 60% of the time abroad over the course of five years, it is probably fairly obvious . . . kind of like a teenager believing his parents don't know he is smoking. They can smell in on your clothes dude, one might nudge him.

If people have been reported with valid PR cards, and the CBSA don't yet have access to all entry/exist data, how are people getting reported? I'm simply wondering if the reporting is done by a government official (and if so, who?), or an employer, or someone else, etc.?

To a large extent the "how do they know?" and related questions are academic, of little or no practical import. Does not matter how. And they do not always know. But they know a lot more than many seem to realize. And they tend to know how to ask questions which will help them figure it out. It's kinda their job, so to say.

They know enough we know that a PR in breach of the RO is at real RISK for being questioned about RO compliance, and if substantially in breach (CBSA is NOT usually engaging in gotcha games and trying to catch someone who falls a day or week short), a real RISK of being Reported and Issued a Departure Order (absent good H&C reasons). Just ask the 1400 or so PRs who it happens to every year.

But sometimes answering academic questions improves our understanding about how things work.

To be continued . . .

 

[dpenabill]

. . . continued . . .

As noted above, questions about how PoE officials know this or that, and RO compliance related information in particular, are to a large extent academic, of little or no practical import. Does not matter how. And they do not always know. But they know a lot more than many seem to realize. And they tend to know how to ask questions which will help them figure it out. It's kinda their job, so to say.

We know they know enough that we also know the PR in breach of the RO is at real RISK for being questioned about RO compliance, and if substantially in breach (again, CBSA is NOT usually engaging in gotcha games and trying to catch someone who falls a day or week short), a real RISK of being Reported and Issued a Departure Order (absent good H&C reasons).

But sometimes answering academic questions improves our understanding about how things work.

If people have been reported with valid PR cards, and the CBSA don't yet have access to all entry/exist data, how are people getting reported? I'm simply wondering if the reporting is done by a government official (and if so, who?), or an employer, or someone else, etc.?

"If people have been reported with valid PR cards, and the CBSA don't yet have access to all entry/exist data, how are people getting reported?"​

In my previous post I addressed the key tipping point, whether a PIL officer apprehends cause to refer the PR to Secondary. Forecasting this phase is really difficult. But it is not the decision-making stage. Same factors that influence the decision-making stage can have influence in this PIL stage, but the PIL officer typically has a lot less of that information.

That said, some factors are obvious: the longer the most recent absence the greater the risk . . . and approaching, and especially exceeding the three years abroad threshold is, again, a big RED flashing flag. Since, obviously, if a PR has been abroad for three years, unless the PR is entitled to one of the exceptions for credit while abroad, three years is, on its face, a breach of the RO. Not much arithmetic needed.

Other factors are not so obvious but their influence is. An "info-alert" in the client's records, for example, and especially if that info-alert specifically flags RO compliance concerns. The PR may not know there is such a flag in their records. Many should have a clue because many times the PR already has had a RO compliance discussion in a PoE, and that almost always means their record is then flagged. Other times the PR may be quite unaware that there is any such alert or flag in their record. (PoE officers sometimes tell a PR a "note" is being made, as part of informing or cautioning the PR about the RO, but many times PoE officials flag a client without even hinting they are doing that . . . but if a PR is asked RO compliance questions, almost always a flag was added to the client's record.)

(I wonder how many soft-landing PRs realize that there is a policy to flag their client record with "an info-alert indicating that the client is outside Canada" if the official doing the PRs landing sees "clear indications that the initial entry into Canada is only of short duration and the client provided a third party address for the purpose of forwarding the PR card outside of Canada." Which the operation policy guidelines provide in ENF 27 Section 7.4)

What can cause PoE officials to have concerns enough to flag the PR? Probably a lot more than we know. But here too we know some. The obvious one is the PR who is perceived to be very close or who quite likely has already breached the RO, who is given the benefit of the doubt and waived through without in-depth RO compliance questioning. Probably flagged. The IAD cases are rife with PRs obviously waived through multiple times but probably flagged, and then the next time Reported.

Some of the IAD decisions reflect cases where PoE officials discern a pattern in the PR's dates of entry that suggests the PR may be coming to Canada to visit and then returning to a home abroad. Nothing definitive about that. But it is a clue. First time or three, PoE officials say little to the PR but note their concerns in the record. Eventually the PR is subject to a more extensive examination about RO compliance.

Leading to questions about CBSA not having the PR's full record of exits, just a record of dates the PR entered Canada. Well, the CBSA officer conducting the PoE Secondary examination has direct, personal access to the ONE BEST SOURCE, the ONLY FOR-SURE SOURCE actually, for information about the PR's dates of entry and date of exit. THE PR. The PR himself or herself. The one and only person in the whole world who was there each and every time the PR left Canada, each and every time the PR entered Canada.

And so they will ask. Same person who has the burden of proof when examined about RO compliance. The PR himself or herself. So it is a big deal, makes a big difference, if the PoE officials can rely on that one best source to accurately and completely report the facts. Real hard to meet the burden of proof if the one best source of the information is suspected of not being a complete and accurate reporter of the facts. "Don't remember" hurts a lot more than it helps.

Many if not most PRs in this situation tend to be evasive, can't remember. Many others give vague, evasive answers. Sometimes this works. Many times it doesn't. Again, CBSA is NOT interested in gotcha games. But the burden of proof is still on the PR. And the PR is still the one best for-sure source of the relevant information. Depending on how evasive, let alone deceptive the PR appears to be, this approach tends to burn the bridge to leniency and a caution; that is, it hurts one's chance to get a pass without being Reported.

The best approach at that stage is to be open and honest, and prepared to simply explain one's real reasons for being abroad so long, and in effect promising to be a good boy or good girl and get things in order, and otherwise plead you deserve a chance to keep PR status and settle down IN Canada. Many reports suggest this works so long as it is reasonable and the breach was not too big or it otherwise appears the PR is gaming the system.

Nonetheless, make no mistake, this is NOT a lottery. No speculation at all is necessary to recognize that the bigger the breach the greater the risk of being Reported once the PR is subject to focused questioning about RO compliance.


What does being "REPORTED" mean?

"I'm simply wondering if the reporting is done by a government official (and if so, who?), or an employer, or someone else, etc.?"​

The term "Reported" in the context of being Reported for failing to comply with the RO is very specific. It is not like being reported to the police. Here "Reported" is about either a CBSA PoE official with immigration duties, or an Immigration Division officer in a local IRCC office, preparing and issuing the Section 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility Due to a Breach of the Residency Obligation. It is a very specific document. It has very specific legal consequences. For example, days the PR is in Canada AFTER this report is issued will NOT count toward RO compliance in future examinations or proceedings UNLESS subsequent proceedings in effect set aside the Report.

So this is NOT something that starts an investigation. This is actually the decision made after an examination. It is usually (with unusual exceptions) followed by another interview with another officer, an officer who has authorization to act as the "Minister's Delegate." (The first officer probably has this authorization as well but the same officer who issues the 44(1) Report cannot act as the MD, so it is another officer; sometimes this is done by telephone with an officer at another PoE.) The MD will decide whether (1) the Report is valid in law (did the PR fail to meet the RO), and if so, (2) whether there are H&C reasons for allowing the PR to keep status despite the breach. If there are not sufficient H&C reasons, the MD issues a Departure Order. The PR is then allowed to enter Canada. The Departure Order is not enforceable for thirty days and if the PR appeals within those 30 days, the Departure Order is NOT enforceable for at least as long as the appeal is pending. If the Departure Order, also called a "Removal Order," becomes enforceable, the PR is NO longer a PR but a Foreign National.

 

[Besram]

Just to add to @dpenabill's explanations on risk of being sent to secondary / being reported:

I have read quite a few appeal cases where it became obvious to the officers that the PR was merely visiting Canada, rather than returning home. Two factors are mentioned with some frequency:

1) Officer asks "Why are you coming to Canada today?". When people answer, "to visit my relatives / friends" or something along these lines, this may create a red flag for further investigation. It is unclear from the case notes when this question is being asked (PIL vs. secondary), but it could very well be a screening question in the PIL (although I have never been asked myself).

2) Related to the above, it was often mentioned that a PR who was subsequently discovered to be in breach had a return ticket to the airport from where they arrived (rather than a one-way ticket or the final leg of a return ticket to Canada). From the case notes of certain appeals, it is obvious that some of these were only discovered in secondary (e.g. due to luggage searches). However, it is conceivable that this may also be a trigger for being sent to secondary in the first place. This obviously would necessitate that officers in the PIL have direct access to a passenger's ticket data, and that this data includes information on whether or not it is an open return ticket. Do we know more about this (@dpenabill)?

In any case, and needless to say, the above indications were not seen favorably at either the POE or later in the appeal process, especially if the PR tried to convince officers or the IAD that they had actually intended to really, this time, finally, settle in Canada for good. Some tried to argue they had bought a return ticket because it was cheaper (which can actually be true in certain cases), but that argument was rejected by IAD.

 

[armoured]

Well, the CBSA officer conducting the PoE Secondary examination has direct, personal access to the ONE BEST SOURCE, the ONLY FOR-SURE SOURCE actually, for information about the PR's dates of entry and date of exit. THE PR. The PR himself or herself. The one and only person in the whole world who was there each and every time the PR left Canada, each and every time the PR entered Canada.

And so they will ask. Same person who has the burden of proof when examined about RO compliance. The PR himself or herself. So it is a big deal, makes a big difference, if the PoE officials can rely on that one best source to accurately and completely report the facts. Real hard to meet the burden of proof if the one best source of the information is suspected of not being a complete and accurate reporter of the facts.

To make this explicit, I presume what you're suggesting here is that often the CBSA officer has a 'live' list on their screen and ask simple questions (e.g. when was the last time you entered), and if the answer is simple and direct and accurate (within normal memory fallibility), then after that they are mostly going to assume the person in front of them is answering truthfully. (And conversely if discrepancies or evasiveness, follow-ups more likley). Is that what you mean as one type of approach?

(I'm not excluding other approaches may also be used, like they ask the same types of questions without having the information in front of them and just go by body language or other indications...)

 

[dpenabill]

To make this explicit, I presume what you're suggesting here is that often the CBSA officer has a 'live' list on their screen and ask simple questions (e.g. when was the last time you entered), and if the answer is simple and direct and accurate (within normal memory fallibility), then after that they are mostly going to assume the person in front of them is answering truthfully. (And conversely if discrepancies or evasiveness, follow-ups more likley). Is that what you mean as one type of approach?

Taking into consideration a wide range of variables, something like that.

The PoE examination tends to be a lot more variable than many in this forum seem to portray it. There are fifteen or fifty ways to ask what are very simple questions about where the traveler lives, or where the traveler works, about where the traveler is coming from, where the traveler is going. The traveler generally never knows which, if any such questions, will be asked. There are dozens of subtle clues an officer can be grazing for in what seems like a bit of chit chat, even questions about the weather.

How they know really is NOT important. They know enough, enough of the time, there is always a risk of getting reported if and when a PR arrives at a PoE in breach of the RO.

A comment about that "normal memory fallibility" thing: I shake my head when people complain about having difficulty remembering all the places they lived and worked for the last five years. No, it is not normal to forget these things. I realize I made my PR application at a much older age than most others, but when I applied for PR a dozen years ago I was still required to list ALL addresses and ALL employment going back to when I turned 18 in the 1960s (and I had lived and worked in many very different places over the decades, places thousands of miles distant from one another). I'm guessing I might have been given a bit of leeway if needed, but I'm also guessing if I tried to fly "do not recall" for much of the decade or two before my application, things might not have gone so smoothly.

2) Related to the above, it was often mentioned that a PR who was subsequently discovered to be in breach had a return ticket to the airport from where they arrived (rather than a one-way ticket or the final leg of a return ticket to Canada). From the case notes of certain appeals, it is obvious that some of these were only discovered in secondary (e.g. due to luggage searches). However, it is conceivable that this may also be a trigger for being sent to secondary in the first place. This obviously would necessitate that officers in the PIL have direct access to a passenger's ticket data, and that this data includes information on whether or not it is an open return ticket. Do we know more about this?

I barely scratched the veneer in discussing the vast array of particular details which might lead an officer to ask more questions, and in what sort of responses to those questions might in turn lead to even more questions. Way, way, way too many variables and contingencies and triage-tree-decision criteria to go chasing even a superficial enumeration in the most general terms. That is why I said, and it warrants some emphasis, repeating it for a third time:

". . . questions about how PoE officials know this or that, and RO compliance related information in particular, are to a large extent academic, of little or no practical import. Does not matter how. And they do not always know. But they know a lot more than many seem to realize. And they tend to know how to ask questions which will help them figure it out. It's kinda their job, so to say."​

I, and others here, often note the highlights, the more common factors which are known to elevate risks. This is more often done to explain something that has happened, or what may have happened when addressing a particular scenario. Efforts to enumerate what can trip someone up tend to wander far and end up a spinning-wheels exercise.

In contrast, for example, I make a concerted effort to make it clear, for those with questions and concerns, the only prudent course of action for anyone whose priority is to keep PR status, is to be sure to meet the PR Residency Obligation. Forget risks of being Reported if in breach. Forget the odds of getting H&C relief from a breach. Get to Canada to stay in time.

Or, in particular, once a PR has breached the RO, the prudent course (for those whose priority is keeping Canadian PR status) is to pursue getting back to Canada as soon as reasonably possible. Contrary to some skepticism expressed here about the extent to which the breach might influence the odds of being reported, the bigger the breach is one of the most certain risk factors and typically among the most influential factors if not the most influential factor. The bigger the breach, the bigger the risk of being Reported and losing status.

Border officials may not always see through things and figure it out. But they do it better and more often than many give them credit.

To be more directly responsive, regarding the scenarios you reference, sure, there are many cases where this or that circumstance in the course of the PoE examination triggered questions leading to more focused RO compliance related questions, including aspects of the traveler's itinerary in addition to answers to questions like "where are you going today," among a vast array of ways PoE officials ask questions. But I doubt examining officers ordinarily attempt to review returning PR's tickets (though they can fairly often ask for this from FNs who say they are visiting). If things get to that stage, suspicion is probably already high, and they probably already suspect some deception.

Most of us have had enough border crossing experience to have a good idea of the terrain, which experiences, however, tend to be in the more perfunctory smooth sailing category because we aren't playing games or trying slip anything by anyone. Questions are easy and few. Like most things Canadian, the waiting in queue is what takes so much time. The questions are done in a flash.

. . . Except when that is not how it goes. . . .

And that is not how it tends to go when clues start falling out of the corners of one's responses. For a PR living abroad, for example, the way the PR answers the question "where do you live?" can reveal more to the trained officer than the content of the answer. (Other than straight-forward customs questions, like what are you bringing into Canada or wherever, "where do you live?" this is the most common question I have been asked at Ports-of-Entry, second only to how long were you in xxxx or outside Canada, for at least the last half century of my experience (yeah, I'm old), the decade plus before that a bit fuzzy in my memory, that "normal memory fallibility" thing, especially since that is going back to the 60s.)

Except for those relatively new to the job, border officials have pretty much seen it all, seen every angle. Sure, a lot gets put by them. And a lot of shoplifters walk out the door of stores with impunity. But only fools suggest that is a prudent gamble.

And if and when the border officers perceive a returning PR is genuinely making the effort to settle and stay in Canada, there are still a lot of indications the officials can be rather lenient if not outright generous. That's not an example of laziness or incompetence. Its an exercise of discretion within the Canadian immigration scheme. Still, not something to go to the bank with.