SUMMARY: For those potentially affected, in regards to PNP applicants and PNP PRs, the main thing to understand is that the SAFE approach is
(1) only apply for PNP participation if you actually qualify, including having the requisite intent,
(2) make NO misrepresentation in the application process (including as to intentions),
(3) make NO effort to find employment or a place to live in a different province BEFORE landing
(4) make a real, sincere effort to settle in the nominating province AFTER landing, and
(5) before even seeking out-of-province employment, let alone actually moving, be cognizant of the optics, how appearances can influence decision-makers, and make prudent choices accordingly, taking into consideration what authorities might perceive and how that can influence things
Many will nonetheless otherwise pursue the PNP path to obtain PR status in Canada. Anecdotal reports and rumours of successfully gaming the system abound. The risks of something going awry depend on the details in their particular situation, their facts, including the nature and extent to which they deviate from what I just outlined.
The prudent PNP applicant will recognize and understand that the odds of
getting-away-with-something always involve some odds of
getting-caught, that there is a downside risk no matter how good the odds of succeeding are. And not be confused or distracted by messaging mischaracterizing what the rules are, how they work, or how the system works.
It is especially important to understand that misrepresentation is serious. There is NO statute of limitations. The consequences can be severe. And even the suspicion of misrepresentation can affect how things go later, including in processing a citizenship application, which might not change the outcome (noting, though, if authorities conclude there was misrepresentation, that could change the outcome) but which can affect things like causing processing delays.
As much as several here attempt to focus on the lawfulness, the right to move to a province other than the nominating process, that is a distraction, it is largely if not entirely irrelevant. The key is whether or not there has been misrepresentation, and whether the PNP PR's actions otherwise indicate the probability of misrepresentation.
. . . but the truth of the matter is that those who relocated outside of SK, rightfully and legally did so.
Not sure how you know that based on a barebones sketch of general information regarding multiple individuals, but that is of no import.
Assuming all those individuals did indeed rightfully and legally move out of the nominating province, that is NOT relevant, at least NOT under the current law and rules (with the possible exception of the News Brunswick program).
With the possible exception of the News Brunswick program (subject to the precise terms governing participation in that program, which I am not familiar with), there's plenty of information supporting the conclusion that
PNP participants, PNP nominees, are NOT bound to stay in the nominating province AFTER they have landed and are Canadians, having the status of a Permanent Resident.
That is, PNP PRs can indeed rightfully and legally move out of the nominating province. But so what? That is no defense to an allegation of misrepresentation. That does not guarantee IRCC or CBSA officials will not perceive the move to indicate possible or even probable misrepresentation. That does not preclude authorities from using the circumstances as evidence to support an inference there was misrepresentation.
The important thing to understand is that for the PNP participant the circumstances attendant a move out of province (depending on the particular details)
can:
-- trigger suspicion of misrepresentation, and
-- constitute evidence corroborating an allegation of misrepresentation
Understanding this, including understanding that even if it is not likely the government will pursue a misrepresentation case, there is no statute of limitations and the potential consequences are severe, are important considerations for any prospective PNP applicant, and important considerations for a landed PNP PR considering if, when, and how to seek and obtain employment or a place to live outside the nominating province.
This is about navigating the system. This is about navigating the system understanding what the rules are, how the system works, what pitfalls there are and where, what the RISKS are, all in due consideration of not just what might be the most serious impact but what other collateral consequences there might be. This is about making prudent decisions that can have a significant impact on one's life, and the information needed to make prudent decisions.
This is a discussion that most PNP applicants don't want to have or avoid to have mainly because a large percentage of PNP applicants end up leaving the province within the first few months.
I do not know that this is true. I do understand that
burying one's head in the sand tends to undermine prudent decision-making. You mention a couple salient examples of particularly poor decision-making increasing the risk of negative consequences related to PNP PRs:
-- PNP nominees that did not go to the nominating province at all
-- prospective PNP nominees who engage in job searches in other provinces BEFORE they have landed and are a Canadian (a PR)
The first of these leaves a very plain, easy to follow trail tending to demand IRCC or CBSA at least make some inquiry into whether they made misrepresentations in the PNP application process. Later if not sooner. Where that might lead will, of course, depend on the particular circumstances and what else the authorities uncover.
The second is creating direct evidence of intention contrary to what most PNP applications require. If, when, or how such evidence will be discovered by government authorities, and what they do with it if, say, a PNP PR's disgruntled or jealous colleague or former lover informs authorities about it using a fraud tip line, is very, very difficult to forecast. This gets into the realm of
what-are-the-chances-of-getting-caught.
In the meantime, the prudent PNP applicant and PR should be very wary of messaging here suggesting that just because they can legally move out of province that is any assurance they are not at risk if
(1) they misrepresented their intentions in the process,
(2) they misrepresented any factual details in the process (including landing interviews), or
(3) their actions upon becoming a PR invite suspicions about whether they misrepresented their intentions or any other facts
In regard to risks, and calculating them in the course of making prudent decisions, it is not just about the odds of getting-caught, but also the nature and probabilities of consequences. I doubt anyone is confused about the risk of being prosecuted for misrepresentation in these situations; it's low. Absent significant evidence corroborating the allegation of misrepresentation, significantly more than just the fact of a move out of province after a short stay, sure, the odds are quite good that IRCC will not initiate inadmissibility proceedings against the PR on the grounds of misrepresentation.
Which brings up
. . . but the misrepresentation you referred for PNPs were different either it was from the employer, spouse or didn't disclose correct information,
I'm not sure how you can justify misrepresentation for the person on his intentions who landed in the nominated province and become PR, everybody has the intentions if people started being punished/misrepresented on their intentions so the whole world is gonna be in jail
Yes, every case is different. NO, not every PNP nominee has misrepresented their intentions (so no, enforcement is not going to send the "
whole world" to jail). But yes, make no mistake, misrepresentation of intention is a misrepresentation of fact (as it was found to be in the Dhanoa case here
https://canlii.ca/t/jcm9c and considered be an egregious misrepresentation). And, IF and WHEN caught, and it is proven, that is grounds for all the negative consequences I previously outlined. Of course the odds of getting caught depend on whether or not, and to what extent, the person engaging in fraud has left other clues, other evidence. Those who perfectly
cover-their-tracks, so to say, will almost certainly succeed,
get-away-with-it. The problem with fraud, however, is there are so many ways to slip and leave a clue here, some evidence there . . . which warrants some further attention.