For clarity: once the SINP applicant has landed, and is a PR, there is no nomination to revoke. The former applicant/candidate is a PR, governed by the Federal immigration law.
We typically refer to the landed PR as a PNP nominee, or here SINP nominee, because that is the path to their PR status. But once they are a PR, the nomination process is history (as noted before, perhaps with the exception of New Brunswick, which I say based only on some vague suggestions at a couple law firm websites).
Before or after landing makes a big difference. A province can withdraw (or revoke) its nomination any time up to when the SINP applicant goes through the landing process. Most of the cases recounted in official sources are about individuals identified as making misrepresentations in the process either BEFORE a PR visa is issued, or after the visa is issued but before the individual is effectively "landed," including a couple where the applicants were not allowed to land and then the province withdrew the nomination (thus, precluding any effective relief in an appeal; even if the border officials improperly denied landing, once the nomination is withdrawn the SINP applicant no longer qualifies for PR, so even if the IAD rules the border officials improperly denied landing, that does the SINP applicant no good).
After Landing: The prospect that a province might suspect a particular PNP applicant made misrepresentations about intent to locate in the province, and pursue recourse, such as conducting an investigation and providing the results of the investigation to CBSA/IRCC, appears to be uncommon or even unusual. Again, most of the misrepresentation allegations for PNP applicants appear to arise and be resolved BEFORE a PR visa is even issued, and otherwise most of the others are still BEFORE landing.
But again, to be clear, once the person has landed and is a PR, the province has no direct say in the person's status (there may be some very specific, limited programs that are different; this is about the typical PNP). Worst the province can do is submit information to CBSA or IRCC, like any informant or whistleblower, and request action be taken on that information. These matters are almost always investigated by CBSA, which turns over the results of their investigation to IRCC, and then a determination is made to prosecute a misrepresentation case or not. These are NOT common for any type of misrepresentation. Again, even in regards to other types of misrepresentation, CBSA and IRCC focus on interdiction in the process BEFORE landing. Misrepresentation prosecutions of landed immigrants happens
but is not common.
How common is it for a province to even investigate a PNP nominee after they have landed? I do not know. Guess is not all that often. Guess is that it is limited to (1) most egregious cases (no settlement in province at all in conjunction with evidence of pre-landing plans to settle in another province, such as pre-landing applications to employers in other provinces), or (2) tip line informants providing concrete information with details likely to indicate there is hard evidence of misrepresentation . . . again, such as pre-landing job applications in other provinces. (Inviting some abuse of a quote of a quote in a movie about Afghanistan, "
there are no enemies, only future allies," but in the context here, one might caution, cynically, "
there are no loving partners, only future vengeful informants.") But even if a province decides to investigate, the odds are it goes nowhere.
Bottom-line: odds are probably remote a PR will be prosecuted for misrepresentation, any misrepresentation. No likely misrepresentation claims except in the most egregious cases, and even then only when the evidence is rather strong.
Impact on Citizenship Application?
Is the question about the final outcome? Will a citizenship application trigger a misrepresentation prosecution? Could it be denied on the basis of misrepresentation resulting in a five year prohibition from applying again?
NOT LIKELY any of that. Could but not likely.
But no particular amount of proof is necessary for a suspicion of misrepresentation to have an impact on a processing agent's perception about an applicant's credibility, and while this alone is not likely to determine the outcome, it can have an impact on how it goes, ranging from the level of scrutiny the applicant is given to whether non-routine processing is triggered. The importance of the applicant's credibility can not be overstated. It matters.
And otherwise the details matter. But foremost, moving out of the nominating province is NOT misrepresentation. So moving out of the province is not what matters all that much.
The question is whether the government has other information which indicates there was misrepresentation in the process of becoming a PR or in the citizenship application. We all know that misrepresentation of intention alone is very difficult to prove. Many of us rely on trusting that what is secret in our heads really is secret. (Reminds me of the Bob Dylan song: "
If my thought dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine . . . ")
But spoiler alert: It makes a big difference whether the PR did make misrepresentations of intention. Many will scoff at this. How would IRCC agents know? Most here tend to focus on what proves or at least indicates there was misrepresentation. And of course the latter is important (as noted, if someone sends the province or IRCC copies of documents showing job applications in other provinces made prior to landing, that's like giving them the
smoking gun). But here I am talking about what the individual actually intended. Subjectively. In their mind:
-- Odds tend to be really, really good if the PNP-nominee PR did not make any misrepresentation about intentions.
-- Odds tend to go in the other direction if the PNP-nominee PR did make misrepresentations about intentions during the application and landing process.
How and why this is so gets complicated. Lots of tangents and long stories. I will offer just one of the more obvious highlights: we tend to give ourselves away in the details when we fabricate. And that is a big part of why IRCC asks for so much information well beyond the scope of what is directly relevant to the requirements for a grant of citizenship. Job history, for example, when there is no requirement to be employed to qualify for citizenship. Reason for absences in the presence calculation when the reason for an absence is not relevant to any requirement for citizenship.
Overall:
For PNP nominees who did NOT misrepresent their intentions, the odds are overwhelmingly good a move out of the nominating province will have little or no negative influence in how IRCC processes the citizenship application.
For PNP nominees who misrepresented their intentions, the odds are also fairly good a move out of the nominating province will have little or no negative influence, but the risk is they'll show their hand some in the details and that could invite suspicions and compromise their credibility, resulting in some bumps along the way . . . but things will probably turn out OK unless some additional, particular discrepancies in their story show up in the details.
