Interview with IRCC (RO not met, H&C reasons thin) - possible lines of argument?

[Wilton]

Hi everybody,

is there any feedback / any experiences from previous IRCC interviews regarding how to persuade and convince the IRCC officers in an interview, when RO are not met and H&C reasons are rather weak too?

Do other outside factors matter in the decision, like:
- the original Citizenship
- the length of having been a PR so far (ie. not the first renewal)
- the fact that there has never been any legal issues, unlawful conduct or anything else negative with regards to Canadian Authorities

Are there any no-go arguments?
Anything one should NOT say as it would likely backfire?


What are opinions/feedback on the effectiveness (or stupidity) of making the below different types of arguments:

Economic argument:
Is there any point in making arguments along the lines of: Canada has little to lose, there is no downside for Canada to retain the PR status of the applicant, that the applicant has, as PR in the last decade only ever economically contributed in form of taxes and economic activity and never used social services in any meaningful way...

Future Plans:
Are there specific ways one should frame the statements about plans for the future in Canada, of planning/wanting to fully re-establish again and that one is only waiting right now on having the certainty of a new 5year timeframe rather than the insecurity of the possibility of the PR status being revoked?

Hint at possibility for re-applying for PR:
Is it worth to mention the fact that, after the PR would be revoked by IRCC, one could simply re-apply from scratch again and would likely satisfy the requirements again and that this would clearly overall be more bureaucratic and expensive for IRCC?

Point out upfront honesty in the application:
Does it help to point out that one was honest about RO, didn't try to hide anything, didn't try the land border loop whole, was upfront about everything at the initial PR renewal application?

 

[k.h.p.]

"Canada has little to lose" is not a valid reason for not meeting the RO. That may actually counter your intention, as Canada has a lot to lose if the integrity of the immigration system is threatened by PRs who think that they're better than the very generous residency obligation.

Establishment, family ties, efforts to return to Canada as soon as possible to minimize the breach of the RO, intention to settle, etc. may help. As will true humanitarian and compassionate reasons why you were not able to meet your RO.

You haven't given any details of your case so it's hard to say.

 

[Besram]

Here are three appeal cases of people who had applied for PR card renewal and were subsequently issued a removal order for failure to meet their RO.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2019/2019canlii54160/2019canlii54160.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2018/2018canlii131219/2018canlii131219.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2019/2019canlii64234/2019canlii64234.html

While the situations described may not match yours, it will give you a good idea what is being considered in making a decision.

Obviously this is for an appeal and you are at an earlier stage in the process, but immigration officers are supposed to follow the same lines of inquiries when assessing H&C reasons.

See also:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/card/permanent-resident-determination.html

Factors to consider for humanitarian and compassionate grounds

Designated officers with the authority to assess H&C considerations should consider the kinds and combination of factors when determining whether H&C grounds justify the retention of status. Designated officers with the authority to assess H&C should remember that they are not assessing intent. Rather they are assessing the circumstances and events that occurred in the 5 year period that led to the breach of residency requirements.


The designated officer with the authority to assess H&C should also take into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination, and the degree of hardship that may be caused by a determination that an individual or family has lost permanent resident status.

The extent and circumstances of the non-compliance

• How long beyond 3 years in the last 5-year period was the person outside of Canada?
• Was the person outside of Canada for more than 3 years in the last 5-year period because of a medical condition or the medical condition of a close family member?
• Could alternative arrangements have been made? Was it the applicant’s choice to remain outside of Canada?

Circumstances beyond the person’s control

• Are the circumstances that led to the person remaining outside of Canada compelling and/or beyond their control?
• Was the person prevented from returning to Canada?
  • Why?
  • By whom or by what event?
• Did the person leave Canada as a child accompanying a parent?
• If they left as a child, are they now returning to Canada at the earliest possible opportunity?
• Are they now over 22 years of age and returning at the earliest opportunity since becoming 22 years of age?
• Does the person who is over 22 years of age meet the requirements to be considered a dependent child due to mental or physical condition and are or were they accompanying their parent when they left Canada?

 

[armoured]

You do not mention ties to Canada. You also don't mention marital status, but family in Canada may be taken into consideration (i.e. the impacts on them). I'm not saying this will qualify under H&C but that is a stronger argument.
It's unclear here and in the other thread where you commented but this interview in Hamilton does not sound like a formal hearing.
So it is also unclear what standard they will apply but there is a chance that for whatever reason they will listen. Ties to Canada - where length of ties are also a part - may be considered.
As others noted, 'Canada has little to lose' may not be a winning argument, but commitment to settle/remain and economic contributions might (repeat might) be considered as positives, even if only as secondary factors.

 

[Besram]

Economic argument:
Is there any point in making arguments along the lines of: Canada has little to lose, there is no downside for Canada to retain the PR status of the applicant, that the applicant has, as PR in the last decade only ever economically contributed in form of taxes and economic activity and never used social services in any meaningful way...

Future Plans:
Are there specific ways one should frame the statements about plans for the future in Canada, of planning/wanting to fully re-establish again and that one is only waiting right now on having the certainty of a new 5year timeframe rather than the insecurity of the possibility of the PR status being revoked?

Hint at possibility for re-applying for PR:
Is it worth to mention the fact that, after the PR would be revoked by IRCC, one could simply re-apply from scratch again and would likely satisfy the requirements again and that this would clearly overall be more bureaucratic and expensive for IRCC?

Point out upfront honesty in the application:
Does it help to point out that one was honest about RO, didn't try to hide anything, didn't try the land border loop whole, was upfront about everything at the initial PR renewal application?

More specifically to your questions above:

1) In general, this is not a strong argument. However, the fact that you paid taxes but didn't try to obtain any social benefits may be worthwhile pointing out. There are appeal cases where officials (obviously) took a particularly negative view when an applicant was trying to retain status for current or future benefits (e.g. when they retire, when their kids are old enough to go to a school in Canada, etc.). If you can demonstrate that this is not you, it may help you a little or at least not make your case more negative than it already is.

2) Are you in Canada already? In general, officials cannot consider intent but there are appeal cases where people had fully established themselves between receiving a removal order and the appeal decision and this was considered somewhat favorably. In other words, if you are actually already making attempts to reestablish yourself, this may be a (somewhat) positive factor, but if you point out you just want certainty before establishing yourself, I would expect this to be either neutral or maybe even negative.

3) This argument could potentially work against you. While you are 100% correct in terms of the economic argument, it's important to remember that officials are making a legal determination, not an economic one. One of the H&C arguments under consideration will be hardship to you our to your family. There are appeal cases where it was specifically pointed out that the appellant could reapply for PR with a high chance of success, and hence there would be no hardship.

Example:

In my opinion, the appellant could probably re-apply for permanent residence when she is prepared to work and live her, and on balance, she would most probably be successful.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2017/2017canlii22991/2017canlii22991.html

4) Very similar to (1). It is expected that you don't lie to officials. Having said that, there are again appeal cases where this was mentioned favorably (possibly because there are so many shenanigans going on with people trying to cheat). Overall it comes down to your credibility, so I think there is some benefit in pointing out that you have always been transparent and open. I don't think this will get your case across the line, but similar to (1) it may prevent the official from viewing your case to be even more negative than it actually is.

In general, officials must consider any argument you put forward and you must be allowed to fully make your case. But remember anything you say during the interview or any documents you submit may be used against you in an appeal hearing.

 

[canuck78]

It is still unclear if you want to return to Canada and establish yourself to try and save your PR.

 

[Wilton]

thank you all for your replies.

I would like to fully return to Canada and establish myself there again. I understand that many people go through enormous hardship to get and retain their PR status, and I know that fully moving back would increase my chances. However, by the sounds of it, in my case, current chances are slim, and even with moving back, as I would still not fulfil the RO and also not have a lot of H&C grounds, chances would still be small.

And so moving back, only to then be told to give up everything again after an appeals process some months later just seems a path that will only result in a lot of hassle and disappointment. I am in a lucky position in the way that, as a European with an EU passport, I face little real life hardship in Europe if my PR was to be revoked. I know this and therefore I am not comparing my case to other people that actually do face real hardship and put a lot more on the line to be and remain in Canada.
I have no family in Canada, just a lot of friends, and I really enjoy living in Canada. If the country of my original citizenship would allow dual citizenship, I would have applied and most likely gotten Canadian citizenship sometime in like 2013 or 14 and none of this would matter.

If Canada gave me a new 5yr period, I would re-establish myself, make it all work and never miss my RO again (though, because of Family and the type of work I do, I would still be spending some portion of my life in Europe as well).
I understand that the law and the rules don't allow for 'intend' and promises to be taken into consideration, and that ultimately seems to close the door for me (though I'm not giving up hope and I'll try to make my case with IRCC and the IAD).

Other people, like the first reply above suggests, might not think this is a genuine or valid argument, but the way I see it (I understand that laws and bureaucracy doesn't work that way) Canada has little to lose:
If I do get a new 5yrs, I will establish myself in Canada again, I will most likely be able to pay significant amounts of taxes again (including excess taxes on European income), and I will likely not use a lot of free social services or generate any other major cost for provincial or federal facilities and services.... and if I get the 5yrs but don't establish myself, and don't fully move back, then my PR status would be revoked the next time, I would have in the meantime still paid excess taxes on European income, but Canada as such wouldn't have lost anything along the way....
People might argue that I'd take some other immigrants place, someone who might deserve it more, have gone through more to get there and all, but I don't see that it has to be an either or and I think that Canada continuously needs additional immigrants anyways and is a better place if and because the background of immigrants is so diverse (including some like me that have had it relatively easy and face little hardship outside of Canada)

In any case, thank you all for reading my monologue and thank you for your previous explanations and points of view.

 

[Copingwithlife]

It is still unclear if you want to return to Canada and establish yourself to try and save your PR.

In about shell, and cutting to the chase
He wants his cake, and to eat it as well