Case of Unintentional Misrepresentation in H& C Ground case for PR RO

[bmw2257]

Hi

I am PR who is short of PR RO due an illness .Till the time I fully recover from this illness i may not able to go to Canada .I landed for 15 days in 2018 on 20th Jan 2018 (start of PR ) and then went back to home country India .I returned to Canada on 5th Jan 2021 ( with 760 days in hand to the expiry of my PR from the date of landing in 2018 ) and stayed till 12th April this year .I had to rush back to my country India because India was under 2nd wave and my wife and son were alone in India .My wife is also a PR and son was born in India in 2019 in India .My plans of going to Canada in 2020 were delayed due to covid out break .Wife and me became PR on same date .So we decided that I will go first and then apply for my sons sponsorship from Canada in 2021 .Also once vaccines started rolling out I assumed that Covid too would reach its end in 2021 .But as luck would have it India was hit hard .Life was in lockdowns again and I thought it would be better if I could be with my infant son and wife who were finding it really difficult to manage my wife being an essential worker who would have to leave my son alone or with someone else to go to her workplace. Even day care were not working for infants due to the seriousness of 2nd covid wave in India.So I came back on 13th April to see through the 2nd wave .But after few days of my landing Canada banned direct flights which continued till Sep 21st .I used the time to take a certification to secure a job in Canada on my return .Meanwhile all this was happening I started feeling the mild symptoms of a neurological disorder which I was suffering from in my teenage.I got this treated at least 15 years back and did not feel anything all these years .As all walk in hospitals Out patient ward OPD were closed those days and symptoms were mild I did not pay much attention but symptoms started getting stronger with time and I was struggling a lot due to which I decided to pay attention to my health first and started my treatment in Nov 2021 and I have been put on medications .The illness is not life threatning but it does impact my day to day working .With medication I have told i will be normal .I expect myself to be fully fit in another 12 months .Till then I wont be able to go to Canada .But by end of 2022 I would already be short of 620 days approx and would be left with only 1 months in hand to expiry of my first 5 years of PR .so far I have compIeted only approx 110 days in Canada .I have the following questions .I would highly appreciate if experienced observers of this forum could give me an idea about these questions.

1.I understand to claim H & C Grounds I will have to be ready at POE with my medical certificates that I was going through an illness after May 2021 but I am scared that the officer might ask me why I did not disclose the illness while the medical was being done for PR .From my side I was perfectly fine for last 15 years and had even forgotten about an illness that occured in my teenage ,Therefore I was not even having even a fraction of the remembrance of this disease when the doctor asks about any illness you have in medicals.So i responded with no to all questions he asked .So I was not hiding anything.But in my existing medical records of 2021 I have informed my docs about the fact that I did suffer from the illness in my teenage upon being asked by them in case history which they have noted on their papers which I am going to present to the officer at POE .So my first worry is that I might be accused of misrepresentation that I hide information at the time of my medicals which was not the case .So will this lead to any kind of misrepresentation on my part and if yes what could be consequences for me as I plan to go back in end of 2022.My PR card is valid till April 2023.


2. I have read that when a H & C Case is being examined the impact of cancellation of a PR on the future of the child of the PR is also taken into consideration .So present scenario impacts my child future a lot as before moving to Canada I was earning good enough in India but now that I am in a jobless state due to my illness I see my child s future impacted very negatively due to myself not earning to my potential .My wife is working though but her earnings are good for survival only .I had my plans to settle in Canada for my childs future only .I and wife together earned good amount but her sole earning are not good enough for our future and our sons future .So as I said my illness is not life threatening but it did force me to stay with my family at my home rather being struggling for job in Canada with the illness and leaving my family behind alone .Would Canada consider the implications of my PRs cancellation on my childs future .I sometimes feel I was better off in India and taking a big decision like this when Covid was making everything uncertain was a mistake.God forbids if my PR is cancelled what answer I am going to give to my child for loss of my PR ,a good paying job and most importantly compromising his future.For Canada I took such a big risk that has not only impacted my own present but will certainly impact my 3 year old sons future if things go wrong from here on .I know all these are emotional talks but reality is that I could have easily secured sick leaves had i been with my previous employer in India upon being ill .That atleast would have left me with a job .But in Canada i was still on a job hunt when i came back and got caught with my illness again .There could not have been a time more bad than this to be in such a situation .




Pls do not troll me for not going earlier in 2018 .I do understand that its better 730 days are completed in first 5 years of PR but now that I cant do that I would need honest opinions on this issue .Thanks in advance .

 

[armoured]

Please be more brief in writing, it makes it harder to understand your question.

As far as I can understand (with, I'm sorry, limited patience for extremely long paragraphs with a lot of extraneous information):

1. If you return while your PR card is still valid, you will be let in to Canada. Prepare by bringing at least some of your medical records and the chronology (along with covid).

But focus on providing and being able to explain BRIEFLY AND COHERENTLY the main issues and dates. Not all issues, not all dates, not everything unless asked specifically.

I.E.: your interaction at border might be as brief as "why are you returning so late?" with answer "Family responsibilities in India and then covid happened - including the travel bans - and I had some medical issues" and then waved through.

I am NOT promising this. Perhaps a few follow up questions. Perhaps a request to see if you have some paper documentation and a glance at that info. Maybe there will be more detail requested.

BUT: if you answer with a twelve-minute monologue to every question, it will NOT go more quickly. Brief, simple, coherent answers to questions.

If you are let through with no formal proceedigns started, remain in Canada unitl you are in compliance with RO and then you can sponsor your child. If they start process to say you are unadmissible, you will have opportunity to appeal and to remain in Canada while the appeal is pending.

2. Your child: one of you will have to be in compliance with RO to sponsor the child. The best you can hope for is to apply for visitor status for child until one of you is in compliance. Note that health care for the child may not be covered for some time in this scenario (and possibly not immediately for you or spouse either, depending on province).

3. Medical issue: I do not know about the likelihood of this type of matter being considered misrepresentation. My guess is it would be relatively low likelihood but specifics would matter a lot; I believe the framework used for medical clearance (for economic PR applicants, not family sponsorship) is more about foreseeable costs and the timeframe for those costs medium term, and therefore might not have applied to your case. I don't want to speculate more than that.

Important to consider: if it will interfere with your ability to work in long term, it will affect your ability to support yourself and family in Canada.

 

[jakklondon]

If you now remember that you had certain disease as a teenager, how can you explain that you forgot all about it when asked few years ago (when your memory of disease must have been so much fresher)?

Whenever you ask such questions, always put yourself in the position of the examining officer. And never assume that he is stupid and you are smarter. Always assume the opposite. Then, answer yourself: would you believe someone if they said they conveniently forgot about disease when it was being evaluated for admissibility, but recalled it as soon as asked by the doctor? It looks (even though it may not be so) that you told your doctor about your teenage condition not imagining that it would be part of the medical notes, which you now may have to produce for H&C considerations (particularly, if you are reported at POE and must appeal your case). And, you have deliberately hid the fact when you submitted your application. I am not saying this is what happened. I am wise and mature enough to know that things happen in life that may befuddle or appear not credible to others, who haven't experienced or been through the same. I am just saying: this is how it may appear to an impartial party. Let alone an officer whom you want to convince of grounds to admit you. Some of them are notorious for being rude and hostile, sending to secondary inspection and bullying even those immigrants who are in total compliance with law. Be very concerned if you are sent to secondary, you will be grilled and examined at length and they will try to find any reason to get you deported.

P.S. I don't know what your disease is. I think another important question is whether it would render you inadmissible, if you disclosed it, or not. In other words, how material was misrepresentation? You may need to discuss your case with a good immigration attorney.

 

[canuck78]

Canada also doesn’t have a national pharmacare program so you’ll need to look up the cost of medication if you don’t have a job when you return to Canada. As indicated you can’t sponsor a child until you are back into compliance with your RO so that creates difficulties for you.

 

[steaky]

You are overthinking.

You start worrying about H&C when you need to appeal. But until then, wait for your interactions with CBSA when you returned to Canada.

 

[jakklondon]

Canadian border officers were sending me to secondary and bullying me while I was 100% in compliance with RO (you can't violate it in theory the first 3 years). This guy, on the other hand, is in violation of his RO. What makes you sure that he will not be roasted like a Peruvian chicken the moment he shows up at the POE?

 

[bmw2257]

Canadian border officers were sending me to secondary and bullying me while I was 100% in compliance with RO (you can't violate it in theory the first 3 years). This guy, on the other hand, is in violation of his RO. What makes you sure that he will not be roasted like a Peruvian chicken the moment he shows up at the POE?

Yes very much agreed that first 3 years are critical but again before 2020 covid like situation did not take place and 2020 was my 3rd as a matter of fact and I did go to Canada before the end of my 3rd year . As far as grilling is concerned I am ready for that as long as it is civilised and after my stay at Canada I can very well be sure it will be civilized interrogation for which I am ready . Thanks for your feedback.

 

[bmw2257]

Please be more brief in writing, it makes it harder to understand your question.

As far as I can understand (with, I'm sorry, limited patience for extremely long paragraphs with a lot of extraneous information):

1. If you return while your PR card is still valid, you will be let in to Canada. Prepare by bringing at least some of your medical records and the chronology (along with covid).

But focus on providing and being able to explain BRIEFLY AND COHERENTLY the main issues and dates. Not all issues, not all dates, not everything unless asked specifically.

I.E.: your interaction at border might be as brief as "why are you returning so late?" with answer "Family responsibilities in India and then covid happened - including the travel bans - and I had some medical issues" and then waved through.

I am NOT promising this. Perhaps a few follow up questions. Perhaps a request to see if you have some paper documentation and a glance at that info. Maybe there will be more detail requested.

BUT: if you answer with a twelve-minute monologue to every question, it will NOT go more quickly. Brief, simple, coherent answers to questions.

If you are let through with no formal proceedigns started, remain in Canada unitl you are in compliance with RO and then you can sponsor your child. If they start process to say you are unadmissible, you will have opportunity to appeal and to remain in Canada while the appeal is pending.

2. Your child: one of you will have to be in compliance with RO to sponsor the child. The best you can hope for is to apply for visitor status for child until one of you is in compliance. Note that health care for the child may not be covered for some time in this scenario (and possibly not immediately for you or spouse either, depending on province).

3. Medical issue: I do not know about the likelihood of this type of matter being considered misrepresentation. My guess is it would be relatively low likelihood but specifics would matter a lot; I believe the framework used for medical clearance (for economic PR applicants, not family sponsorship) is more about foreseeable costs and the timeframe for those costs medium term, and therefore might not have applied to your case. I don't want to speculate more than that.

Important to consider: if it will interfere with your ability to work in long term, it will affect your ability to support yourself and family in Canada.

thanks for your feeback

 

[armoured]

You start worrying about H&C when you need to appeal. But until then, wait for your interactions with CBSA when you returned to Canada.

While I get your point and partly agree - in that the examination at the border isn't exactly a formal H&C determination.*

But no mistake, even if it's just a verbal examination, the criteria for why a CBSA officer will let a PR who is not in compliance with the RO without a report are very much the H&C considerations. It's possible H&C are actually the only basis, under law and regs, that the CBSA officer makes the decision - but I am not attempting to make a legal point. (Also practically this particular task of CBSA will be balanced against other competing requirements on the time and resources of CBSA - customs and public safety/security matters for example)

And since H&C are very much on the agenda in that examination, it is also very much in the interests of the PR to have a presentable and simple, coherent, and brief case (with supporting documentation ready if requested) for H&C relief/leniency. Not in a formal sense, but to have answers at the ready that fit the H&C criteria.

Now, I'm not suggesting it has to be drawn up by a lawyer as a pleading, nor that it needs days of work. And of course, should also be proportional to the circumstances, and first among those circumstances is how much out of compliance - CBSA is rarely if ever going to spend much time on a PR who is one day out of compliance.

But a little bit of preparation on how to present basic facts, briefly, about what the H&C case is may help. Make the case an obvious one for the CBSA officer, and they're not going to want to spend the time and work writing up an H&C case that won't be upheld if appealed. So this - in the interests of being brief and concise - might mean just a bit of thinking about leaving out less relevant or compelling points, and emphasizing others. Make the case clear and simple so that the decision is an easy one for the CBSA officer.

[*All I mean by this is that it won't result in a formal H&C ruling or decision in the way a PRtD request with a visa issued with the right code can - and also not the level of formality that IAD would look at on appeal, with possibly written submissions and explanations.]

 

[bmw2257]

While I get your point and partly agree - in that the examination at the border isn't exactly a formal H&C determination.*

But no mistake, even if it's just a verbal examination, the criteria for why a CBSA officer will let a PR who is not in compliance with the RO without a report are very much the H&C considerations. It's possible H&C are actually the only basis, under law and regs, that the CBSA officer makes the decision - but I am not attempting to make a legal point. (Also practically this particular task of CBSA will be balanced against other competing requirements on the time and resources of CBSA - customs and public safety/security matters for example)

And since H&C are very much on the agenda in that examination, it is also very much in the interests of the PR to have a presentable and simple, coherent, and brief case (with supporting documentation ready if requested) for H&C relief/leniency. Not in a formal sense, but to have answers at the ready that fit the H&C criteria.

Now, I'm not suggesting it has to be drawn up by a lawyer as a pleading, nor that it needs days of work. And of course, should also be proportional to the circumstances, and first among those circumstances is how much out of compliance - CBSA is rarely if ever going to spend much time on a PR who is one day out of compliance.

But a little bit of preparation on how to present basic facts, briefly, about what the H&C case is may help. Make the case an obvious one for the CBSA officer, and they're not going to want to spend the time and work writing up an H&C case that won't be upheld if appealed. So this - in the interests of being brief and concise - might mean just a bit of thinking about leaving out less relevant or compelling points, and emphasizing others. Make the case clear and simple so that the decision is an easy one for the CBSA officer.

[*All I mean by this is that it won't result in a formal H&C ruling or decision in the way a PRtD request with a visa issued with the right code can - and also not the level of formality that IAD would look at on appeal, with possibly written submissions and explanations.]

Hi Sorry for coming back again .I have 1 question .If I am indeed reported is it mandatory to hire a lawyer to take up the case in the appeal .I have heard lawyers charge a lot for such cases .Cant the PR concerned take up his own case ?

Thanks

 

[armoured]

Hi Sorry for coming back again .I have 1 question .If I am indeed reported is it mandatory to hire a lawyer to take up the case in the appeal .I have heard lawyers charge a lot for such cases .Cant the PR concerned take up his own case ?

Thanks

No, it's not mandatory to hire a lawyer. If reported, filing the notice of appeal is fairly simple (does not really need a lawyer) but needs to be done within some limited period of time (30 or 60 days I think), the subsequent appeal steps (like hearing) are months later. In other words you would have time to consider and hire a lawyer if you thought necessary.

Obviously some cases are trickier legally than others - a judgment you'd have to make later.

 

[dpenabill]

Once again I go long, long . . . and the point of it is quite short: a PR abroad and in breach of the RO would be prudent to PREPARE to put forward their H&C case when they are arriving in Canada. Simply. Succinctly. Honestly. Mostly being prepared to briefly tell their story, to explain why they were abroad, why they did not come to Canada sooner.

Note, too, if they have supporting documents (like a doctor's statement if a medical reason is involved), to be carrying those IN hand (not in baggage), so they can be presented during a PoE examination.

Hi Sorry for coming back again .I have 1 question .If I am indeed reported is it mandatory to hire a lawyer to take up the case in the appeal .I have heard lawyers charge a lot for such cases .Cant the PR concerned take up his own case ?

As @armoured noted, filing the appeal itself is fairly simple, and straightforward, if NECESSARY, that is, if Reported AND issued a Departure Order upon returning to Canada (typically this happens at the Port-of-Entry at the time of entry, but if a second officer is unavailable to review the 44(1) Report, which must include an interview or hearing with the PR, the Departure Order may be issued following a later interview/hearing, typically by telephone). And, a lawyer is not necessary to follow through with the appeal process and, indeed, many who appeal are not represented by a lawyer and do not obtain the assistance of a lawyer.

That said, the assistance of a lawyer is a good idea. As @armoured also noted, some cases are trickier than others.

A PR who is Reported and, again, also issued a Departure Order upon their return to Canada, will generally have at least several months to prepare for the proceedings before the IAD (the Immigration Appellate Division), which hears and decides the appeal.

The PR who is Reported and issued a Departure Order upon their return to Canada has thirty (30) days to file the appeal. (The Departure Order is not enforceable during that time; thus the PR can enter and remain in Canada during that time. If the PR files an appeal, the Departure Order is not enforceable for as long as the appeal is pending, so the PR is still a PR and can remain in Canada, and can leave and return to Canada.)

Again, it will be at least several months before the appeal is actually heard by the IAD. That allows the PR time to do some serious homework to prepare for the appeal. (It can be, and historically has been longer in many cases.)

A key reason why the assistance of a lawyer is a good idea is that lawyers generally (and always should, even if some don't) have a good understanding about what matters and what does not, and thus they focus on presenting evidence and arguments that really matter, that will make a difference, and they avoid presenting evidence or making arguments that are not relevant. Focused advocacy is critical in litigation. Too much information, and especially irrelevant information, can and often will obscure the information that can make the difference. The pro se advocate is prone to weakening not strengthening the argument. It is no exaggeration to say that more than a few who represent themselves talk a judge or quasi-judge (administrative judge) out of ruling in their favour.

But the focused and diligent PR who can look at things from a more objective perspective, who does the homework, can effectively be their own advocate in an appeal before the IAD. Many do it and win. (Albeit, many more lose.


Formal and Official H&C Assessment Attendant the PoE Examination:

NOTE: what is referred to as "being Reported" in this forum is almost always a reference to BOTH being issued a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility AND issued a Departure Order. It is a two-step process. There is no need to make an appeal UNLESS the PR is issued BOTH a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility AND a Departure Order.

Leading to the reason why I am posting here . . . noting that there were some erroneous comments here last month:

@steaky stated: "You start worrying about H&C when you need to appeal." Wrong. A bad idea.

@armoured stated in response: "While I get your point and partly agree - in that the examination at the border isn't exactly a formal H&C determination.*" This is half wrong, or at least overlooks when the border officials do conduct "a formal H&C determination" attendant the PoE examination.

That this is *half* wrong is further illustrated by the footnote:

[*All I mean by this is that it won't result in a formal H&C ruling or decision in the way a PRtD request with a visa issued with the right code can - and also not the level of formality that IAD would look at on appeal, with possibly written submissions and explanations.]​

The first part of the footnote is essentially correct to the extent that it is describing the most common scenario resulting in a PR being waived through the PoE without being "Reported" despite it being apparent, attendant an interview in Secondary regarding RO compliance, the PR has not complied with the RO, an in-effect favourable but informal H&C decision allowing the PR to keep PR status. Indeed, this not only does not result in a formal, positive H&C decision, but it quite likely results in the PR's GCMS being flagged, alerting officials engaging with the PR in subsequent transactions that there is a potential admissibility (for RO breach) concern in regards to this PR. (It is nonetheless a much desired outcome, for the PR, since PR status is saved.)

But I must note I do not understand how "partly agree" fits in here. In fact, that common scenario (for PRs only a little in breach, typically still in possession of a valid PR card, their first PR card) illustrates how wrong the statement by @steaky is: contrary to "not" worrying about presenting H&C reasons, the PR who arrives at the PoE prepared to concisely and truthfully offer a reasonable, compelling explanation for why they are, in effect, late coming to Canada to stay, has a much better chance of getting waived through without being Reported at all. That is probably the PR's BEST and most likely to be successful chance to make the H&C case. Informal yes. Effectively saving PR status, big time yes (so long as the PR can then remain in Canada until getting into compliance with the RO). Is this important? You betcha!

But just how wrong it is to "not" worry about presenting H&C reasons upon arrival, during a PoE examination, looms larger, far more importantly, if the examining officer is not persuaded to waive the PR through. If the examining officer is not persuaded to waive the PR through that means the officer prepares a 44(1) Report. The PR "is Reported." BUT that is NOT the end of the PoE examination.

That is where the procedure evaluating the PR's RO compliance and weighing H&C considerations becomes formal and official. It is formal because a formal 44(1) Report has been prepared. It is official because that Report is then reviewed by an officer acting as the Minister's Delegate (in practice just another CBSA immigration officer) and a formal, official decision must be made. While the "hearing" the second officer conducts seems informal (it can be done by telephone, typically then and there in the PoE, but sometimes later, within days or weeks), proceeding as a more or less interview, it is a formal procedural step the outcome of which is formal and official.

The second, reviewing officer must first decide whether the 44(1) Report is valid. That is essentially (but not exclusively) looking at the facts and determining whether the PR met the RO or failed to meet the RO. It is basically about counting days.

If the second, reviewing officer determines the 44(1) Report is valid THEN the officer must evaluate ANY and ALL H&C considerations the PR presents. The second officer MUST formally, officially decide whether there are sufficient H&C considerations to allow the PR to keep PR status:

-- If the reviewing officer determines there are NOT sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep PR status, the 44(1) Report is upheld AND a DEPARTURE ORDER is issued. This is very much a formal, official decision. It is a decision that terminates the PR's PR status, subject to the PR's right of appeal.​

-- If there are sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep PR status, the reviewing officer must set aside the 44(1) Report; this too is a formal, official determination; if this happens, the PR can generally rely on this decision and proceed, for example, to make an application for a new PR card.​

ALL of which is to say and emphasize that the PR's best opportunity to make the H&C case and save PR status is AT THE PoE upon arrival from abroad.

That does not suggest or mean a PR should prepare to make a case like a lawyer going into court. But it does suggest, strongly suggest, that a PR in breach of the RO would be wise to gather and organize information (and in some situations, supporting documents, like a doctor's letter if a medical reason is involved) and be prepared to explain, in ordinary everyday terms, as briefly as possible, why the PR was abroad and why they did not come to Canada sooner . . . in effect, be prepared to tell their story, succinctly, clearly, honestly, without legalese.

 

[dpenabill]

This post is a clarifying caveat regarding the procedures described in the previous post . . .

CAVEAT:

There are almost always caveats, some exceptions. This is especially so in regards to the procedures I describe above, and in regards to whether the decision-making is formal and official. If the PR is "Reported" as we reference in this forum, meaning a Report AND Departure Order are BOTH issued, the procedure is for sure formal and official. Those procedures are dictated by the applicable statutes and regulations, described by operational manuals and PDIs, and recounted and described often in IAD decisions.

But if the outcome of the PoE examination does not result in BOTH a Report and Departure Order, there are no official accounts of the actual procedures that took place. Anecdotal reporting of these examinations are notoriously incomplete, vague, inconclusive, and quite often confused (in significant part because border officials often do not clearly disclose the procedure to the traveler being examined). Moreover, what can be seen in some of the IAD appeal decisions where the 44(1) Report is set aside as not valid in law based on procedural grounds, is that rather often PoE practices do not follow the policy, practice, and operational guidelines. That is another huge, deep-in-the-weeds tangent. But for purposes of this discussion, as best I can discern, it may be common for the primary examining officer to consult with the second officer (who often is a supervisor) before making the decision about whether to issue a 44(1) Report. Technically this should not happen (the second reviewing officer should be acting independently when conducting the review). But, for example, anyone who has personally gone through more challenging interviews in immigration Secondary (yeah, long story, long time ago now, been there) has likely seen the officer examining them conferring with other officers -- which is OK, good usually, UNLESS that is with the officer who will be conducting a review, what should be an independent review, of the decision made by the first officer.

My impression is that in many cases, and perhaps this is even a common and potentially even preferred approach, no formal 44(1) Report is prepared in scenarios where in conferring with the second officer, who will be the reviewing officer if a Report is issued, they more or less jointly conclude the PR should get a chance to keep PR status without being Reported. This has some obvious advantages: the PR gets waived into Canada, and gets an opportunity to keep PR status, informally, but whether the PR will keep status is dependent on the PR then actually settling in Canada . . . whereas if the formal Report is prepared, a decision allowing the PR an opportunity to keep status will require a formal, official H&C decision. In many respects a formal positive H&C decision is almost like giving the PR a chance to start over, which can be seen as too generous.

That is, my sense is that at times (and perhaps this is quite common) the officers jointly decide the PR should be given a kind of conditional H&C break, which is something that is not provided for by either the rules or operational guidelines. Indeed, since we see plenty of anecdotal reports from PRs in breach nonetheless waived through at the border, this at least appears to be a common decision by officers conducting the primary examination of PRs rather apparently in breach of the RO, but waived through. Which goes back to the first part of the footnote by @armoured, describing a fairly common scenario where the PR is waived through the PoE without being "Reported" despite it being apparent, attendant an interview in Secondary regarding RO compliance, the PR has not complied with the RO, an in-effect favourable but informal H&C decision allowing the PR to keep PR status . . . conditionally, if the PR stays in Canada and gets into compliance.

Speculating a bit, but reasonably I think, my sense is this sometimes, and perhaps is the more common scenario, extends to a more deliberate decision-making, the primary examining officer acting in concert with who would be the second reviewing officer, leading to this more or less conditional H&C relief, withholding the formal preparation of a 44(1) Report, waiving the in-RO-breach PR into Canada with a chance to settle and stay.

CAUTION . . . with emphasis . . . this is NOT to suggest that PRs in RO breach can expect such leniency. We see plenty of examples of it happening. But we also see it go the other way, documented by scores of actual cases reported in IAD decisions.

 

[singhno]

Okay. This is to bring to the attention of OP. My sister landed in canada in Jan 2022 from india. SHe was short of 6 months. CBSA asked her how long she plans to stay and she obviously replied for forever. No other questions were asked and she was let go.

 

[steaky]

@dpenabill stated "Wrong. A bad idea" and "This is half wrong" Like you said, you do not understand how "partly agree" fits in here.

As the other poster "singhno" shared his sister's experience despite didn't meet RO. Why would they must worry about things that haven't even yet happened?