. . . 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.