Honestly if something like that ever happened in future, I wouldn’t bother to live in Canada. I refuse to be a second class citizen in such situations. I mean, if they ever want to differentiate citizenships based on birth and naturalization, I would be more than happy to spend decades in US on visa rather then “revocable citizenship” based on country of birth.
When is a removal order issued?
- Thread starter hungtington
- Start date
I think that's why they cancelled the requirement. They divided citizens into classes. But the point is, under all this current equality and freedom for new citizens, there are voices that want immigrants to only stay in Canada at all costs.
I see. I thought you were replying to SecularFirst as SecularFirst mentioned "can't wait to apply and move out"...
Thank you. I personally think it is also reasonable to take the opportunity to get very good education and accept the potential risk, but it depends on what one values most
Definitely. If one is willing to take the risk of losing their PR and potentially their citizenship eligibility because of one-in-a-life-time opportunity, that's totally understandable, and even encouraged if your situation is not that good in Canada as you have hoped it would be.I see. I thought you were replying to SecularFirst as SecularFirst mentioned "can't wait to apply and move out"...
Thank you. I personally think it is also reasonable to take the opportunity to get very good education and accept the potential risk, but it depends on what one values most
Being able to leave Canada while applying for citizenship is a fairly new phenomenon. It was not possible before and before that was fairly uncommon. Many who left hadn’t taken into account the fact that due to delays they may no longer meet ROs for their PR. There is always a risk when you leave Canada while applying for citizenship. Most Canadians would be shocked that Canada grants citizenship to people who have already left Canada with no plans to return soon.
There are huge financial liabilities that come with citizenship so it is not a crazy concept to require people to remain longer than 3 years to get citizenship. With more remote work, more expensive medical care and an ageing population it makes sense to require that people remain in Canada while hopefully being Canadian taxpayers. The ability to return to retire in Canada or return to Canada to study and pay domestic fees while not spending much time in Canada working is not sustainable. When it comes to studying abroad if doesn’t make sense to guarantee citizenship or return. The majority of people pursuing education abroad don’t plan on returning to Canada. When it comes to residencies people are able to get a residency in a border areas and commute to the US on a daily basis or on days off if it is a bit further.
For clarification: Not really. There was only a very brief period of time, less than a year, during which the SCCA provision (the Harper changes to the Citizenship Act, adopted June 2014, but this provision did not take effect until June 2015 and following the Liberal win in the 2015 election the government ceased to enforce it until it was officially repealed by Bill C-6) known as the "intent to reside" clause, which really was an "intent to continue to reside" clause, effectively meant that an applicant living abroad after applying was not eligible for a grant of citizenship (it is impossible to intend to "continue" residing in Canada, which is what that clause specified, unless one is actually living in Canada, so this provision gave CIC grounds to deny citizenship to any applicant determined to be residing abroad after applying), which was badly misinterpreted by many (and appears to be similarly abused in a reference to it in a post above here). That provision was specifically motivated by and adopted by the Harper government to address what it considered to be a major problem, a wide-spread problem, PRs perceived to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport.
And, which I will get to, the scenario posed by @hungtington's hypothetical happened in a number of cases; more than a few of the RQ-related discussions back then included tales-of-woe told by this or that applicant whose citizenship application crashed and whose PR status itself was at risk, some losing PR, precisely in a similar situation: they had remained outside Canada so long after applying for citizenship they breached their RO.
The initial hypothetical you posed in this topic is actually similar to a number of actual cases reported in official Federal Court decisions and in anecdotal reports here, albeit more in the Citizenship part of the forum. These scenarios, where a PR fails to comply with the Residency Obligation while a citizenship application is pending, are not common, but they occur. (There were more of them back during the Harper era when a system-wide slow down in conjunction with RQ processing for a large number of applicants resulted in processing delays so long that many of those who moved abroad after applying ran into RO compliance issues. )hungtington said:
If a PR-citizenship-applicant is abroad for a period of time that results in their failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation, they are at RISK of being denied citizenship and losing PR status. This is not common but it happens. Obviously, it is about PRs living abroad after applying for citizenship.
To be granted citizenship the PR-citizenship-applicant must remain eligible for a grant of citizenship right up to taking the oath. This includes not being subject to any prohibitions. One of the prohibitions is being "under a Removal Order."
The particular procedures involved leading up to a PR being issued a Removal Order (or Departure Order; different name for the same thing) vary depending a number of things. But your queries seem to primarily revolve around the scenario in which the PR-citizenship-applicant is abroad and is abroad so long as to fail to stay in compliance with the RO and then faces the prospect of being "Reported" when they next arrive in Canada, such as to attend an oath ceremony they have been scheduled for.
Here too what actually happens can vary. One of the less common ways it can go is illustrated in a thread here (but in the Citizenship part of the forum) discussing the status of a citizenship application for a PR who was "Reported" before he applied for citizenship. See here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/application-for-citizenship-after-report-u-s-44.747496/#post-9801167 What actually happened in the 44(1) Report process for that individual is not entirely clear. But it was NOT the typical process. I mention it to illustrate that how things go can indeed vary.
The Typical 44(1) Report Process: I have described this often, in-depth, taking into account extensive research, and cross-referencing the various sources. That said, the basics in the typical process are largely outlined in Operational Manuals ENF 4 "Port of Entry Examinations" and ENF 5 "Writing 44(1) Reports" and ENF 6 "Review of Reports Under Subsection 44(2)" The latter specifically includes the review process which typically takes place while the PR is still in the Port-of-Entry. These manuals are pdf documents which can be found at the IRCC website here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html
Of course the content of these manuals is not official, and can tend to be out-of-date, even though they are specifically guidelines for use by CBSA and IRCC. So cross-referencing with official sources, that is the statutes, regulations, and rulings by the IAD and Federal Court, is necessary. Consulting other Operational Manuals, especially ENF 23 "Loss of Permanent Resident Status," is important as well. Anecdotal reports help provide context and perspective.
Generally, the typical, the most frequent procedure in the process of issuing 44(1) Reports to PRs in breach of the RO, goes as follows:
-- arriving PR is referred to Secondary at the Port-of-Entry by the PIL (Primary Inspection Line) officer
-- if the examining officer in Secondary determines the PR is in breach of the RO, a 44(1) Inadmissibility Report is prepared, then
-- that Report is reviewed by another officer while the PR is still there in the PoE, and it involves an interview/hearing with the PR
-- -- this interview and review is ordinarily done by another officer there at the PoE, but
-- -- this interview can be done telephonically with another officer at another location
-- -- sometimes this interview is postponed, the PR enters Canada, and contact is made later to complete the review (this is NOT the usual practice)
-- the officer Reviewing the 44(1) Inadmissibility Report makes a determination to set aside or uphold the Report:
-- -- the officer Reviewing the Report first determines whether it is valid in law (facts show PR is in breach of RO)
-- -- if the Report is determined to be valid in law, that officer then determines whether there are H&C reasons why the PR should be allowed to retain PR status despite the breach
-- -- if the reviewing officer determines BOTH that the Report is valid in law, AND that there are NOT sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep status, THEN and THERE the officer issues the PR a Departure Order (which is equivalent to and has same effect as a Removal Order)
-- examination concludes with the PR then being allowed to continue into Canada
-- PR issued a Departure Order must either leave Canada within 30 days OR make an appeal within that time period . . . the Departure Order is NOT enforceable for the first 30 days (hence the PR being allowed to continue into Canada), and if the PR appeals, the Departure Order remains unenforceable for as long as the appeal is pending
That PR is then "under a Removal Order" as prescribed in the Citizenship Act, and is thus prohibited from being granted citizenship (unless the Removal Order is set aside or withdrawn). Thus, for example, yes, a PR-citizenship-applicant who has been issued a Departure Order based on a 44(1) Report for a RO breach is prohibited from taking the oath or being granted citizenship. This has happened to PRs returning to Canada expecting to attend a scheduled oath ceremony . . . in one case I recall the individual was approached by officials at the ceremony and withdrawn from it just minutes before taking the oath.
HOWEVER, actual outcomes vary. Some report their application processing suspended, and if they manage to get the Removal Order set aside, they are allowed to proceed to take the oath (such as after winning the appeal). Others have their application rejected and will need to apply again (assuming they win the appeal, keep PR status, and are again eligible for citizenship).
Some Further Observations; Particular Matters:
"Decision Made" means a Citizenship Officer has "approved" the grant of citizenship. This means the "applicant" becomes a "citizenship candidate." The candidate must continue to meet the eligibility requirements for citizenship right up to taking the oath. Thus, for example, if the applicant/candidate gets into a shoving match just outside the doors to the oath venue, just before the ceremony, and is arrested and charged with assault, boom, a prohibition is in effect and the candidate should not (per the rules) be allowed to proceed to take the oath.
What about 44(1) Report Prepared but not yet Reviewed (no Removal Order issued)? This happens. I linked discussion in Citizenship forum where this happened to a forum participant. It is not the typical process. Without wandering into the weeds, there are a couple provisions in the Citizenship Act which allows IRCC to suspend processing the application pending a determination on the validity of the Report. It does not appear to constitute a prohibition itself. Reminder: IRPA and IRPR prescribe that days in Canada after a Report is prepared will not count toward meeting the RO (unless the Report is set aside).
What about being in breach of RO but not Reported? The RO is NOT self-enforcing. Thus, for example, if a PR-citizenship-applicant is abroad, fails to comply with the RO, returns to Canada to take the oath, and is not Reported at the PoE upon arrival, but rather is waived through: NO PROBLEM. (CBSA could make a referral to IRCC, and IRCC decline to proceed with the oath pending investigation, but this is one of those *it is possible* but not something you see happening.)
Note Regarding "Minister's Delegate:" Technically the officer who reviews the 44(1) Report must be a "Minister's Delegate." Fancy title, but in practice just another immigration officer, not so fancy at all.
Just read what you wrote. By this logic they should never grant PR or citizenship or medical care to parents coming in 60s on PR sponsorship. What makes you think people who are studying abroad dont plan to return to Canada. I did. Infact Canadian government gave me federal student loan for my study abroad. May be they should stop that as well.
Also by this logic, why give citizenship or medical care benefits to someone paying minimum taxes while living in Canada. You can pay zero tax if you are below poverty level while living in Canada, are you suggesting they should not be given citizenship because they didn’t pay enough taxes? Or wait, they are living in Canada and filed a tax return (even though zero) so they are okay to get citizenship.
Medical residencies are so hard to get that you can’t really have choice where you do your training. If you end up in Texas or California then you want people to visit Canada every weekend? People are on call during weekend plus people have families and kids.
I suggest you an easy way out. Canada should just start taxing all world income for resident or non resident citizens and PRs. But they wont do that as this will generate a lot of pushback from Canadian citizens.
This provision may also make some PRs to abandon PR and citizenship, who want to go out due to better opportunities. Canada can keep whoever wants to live in Canada with whatever career opportunity they have got. I know inept politicians would not do that as lot of politicians and big celebs would be in difficult situations. A lot of long term snowbirds and dual citizens will be in trouble.
Last edited:
You nailed it. The "liberals" , just as "conservatives" before them, enjoy rubbing elbows in elite clubs and passing self-serving laws and regulations, while coming hard on second class citizens and residents, which PRs and foreign born citizens certainly belong to. Some uncomfortable truth there that corrupt crooks hate to hear.
Last edited:
If most Canadians indeed feel that way, they feel it because of unawareness of unpredictable and long processing times. The feeling is not a well informed belief.
Thank you very much. Your reply answers all my questions! The cases are also very helpful.
You are reading things from one side. You want to force people to stay in Canada because this what benefits Canada. But life happens. People can struggle in Canada. Work minimum wage jobs in Canada because of the scarcity and requirements of jobs ("Canadian experience") while they can have better opportunities elsewhere. They can gain more experience and capital to bring to Canada with them when they return. As suggested, tax people who work outside Canada as well. This would solve the problem you are pointing out. Otherwise, address why people leave Canada. Make survey and studies about immigrants and their lives in Canada. See if something can be done to reduce the number of people who leave Canada. But in any case, I don't think it's true people leave Canada and return for retirement, or for their children to study with domestic fees only. I know people who are working outside Canada, but have real estate in Canada, and rent apartments, or other family members who are working here and/or supported by those who left.
Last edited:
I believe some posters here believe PRs want to take the advantage of the ”free medical benefits” and government programs without contributing taxes. Hey, I have got news for you, Canada bring hundreds of thousands of highly educated skilled professionals (FSWs) from all over the world without contributing anything toward their education, investing single $ into their education and skill development and reap benefits of their intelectual and monetary capital.
Some here consider If a PR is outside Canada for some time over 3 years, they are bad, have ill intentions and should not be allowed in but hey if they spend 3 years here, get citizenship approved within 12 months, now they are all good. Like what have changed? They were bad 3 years ago and suddenly after taking oath they are all good??
Also, lets say if someone have spent 3-4 years in Canada and is eligible for citizenship, if someone ask them at the oath ceremony “would you be staying in Canada?” If they say no, do you think government will not grant them citizenship? That is against natural justice. They have already fulfilled the requirements. Intentionally not processing the citizenship application in a timely manner just to put PR out of compliance is immoral in my opinion. They took the application fee and have obligations to adjudicate in a fair timely manner.