any reports regarding the new rules - eta

[dpenabill]

Nobody from the airline either at check-in or at the gate asked me even once about eTA. Nobody asked a relative I was travelling with who is a non-PR either. Nobody at security at the gate asked about eTA . . . .

I listened out carefully for any questions about eTA, or to see a copy or print out of eTA, to other people in the gate queue/line but nobody was asked from the people around me.

Toward a further attempt to clarify the eTA process: There is no reason, none at all, for anyone at an airport to ask about or look for eTA.

Again, eTA is not now and will NOT be something the airline will ask for or look for. There is no printout of eTA to show. eTA is entirely ELECTRONIC. The IAPI system itself is what checks for eTA, electronically, by cross-checking the passport and client number against the database of passports granted eTA.

The individual who obtains eTA may have or be able to print something which shows they obtained eTA, but that is of no effect. That is not something to show to anyone for the purpose of boarding a flight.

How much before the flight the information is submitted into the system is not much relevant either (unless there is a staleness feature, which if there is and that amount of time has passed, that would merely require the API be submitted again).

Except in unusual circumstances, NO EYES will be part of the screening: the traveler's name and passport number goes into the IAPI and the system gives clearance or does not, electronically, based entirely on the software matching the API to the eTA in the system's database (unless there is a glitch, which will sometimes happen of course, in which case the airline is supposed to have ready access to a CBSA resource for resolving problems or otherwise a script to follow in manually screening passengers if the system is not working).

Sure, as I noted before, we do not precisely know what the response from the IAPI system looks like, so sure there may a response which triggers further inquiry by the airline (as would be prescribed by a script from CBSA to the airline), based on a condition (roughly in the form: if . . . then . . . and then this or this, as is prescribed in the script based on which particular response from the system there is).

All the airlines do is submit the API into the system, electronically, and the system either clears the passenger for boarding or does not (again with the possible exception for certain conditional clearances). No discussion about eTA at the airport in the mix . . . well, again, except when things are not working, or after September 29, if a visa-exempt passenger does not get clearance the airline might ask about eTA (or know the reason), and if that is why there was no clearance, the passenger might be advised about how to get the eTA (should take just minutes for most travelers) and told to attempt to check in again after obtaining eTA.

Reminder: eTA really has NOTHING to do with PRs.

The only relationship between PRs and eTA may be the coincidental impact on how the leniency period is being employed, such that the procedure is simplified so that all visa-exempt passports are being processed the same. So, the more strict enforcement of the PR rule might not be actively applied to visa-exempt PRs until the leniency periods ends, much like IRCC specifically says will happen for Canadian citizens who also carry a visa-exempt passport (for dual citizens).

In the meantime, however, there is still no guarantee that a PR will in fact be allowed to board a flight based on presentation of a visa-exempt passport.



Regarding no discussion at airport about who has PR:

Contrary to what some describe, with some exceptions, and as explained before, the traveler's status as a PR is not relevant if the passenger otherwise provides a legitimate, proper Travel Document meeting the requirements the airline is obligated to enforce. That responsibility of the airport is met by simply making sure the passenger is carrying one of the prescribed Travel Documents. This is why before IAPI (which was a necessary part of implementing eTA, hence the coincidental correlation) it was so easy for visa-exempt travelers to board a flight using just a visa-exempt passport.

Discussions about PRs pretending to be visitors tend to really miss the mark, since the airline is usually not so much focused on whether a particular traveler is a PR rather than a Foreign National visitor, but on circumstances which the airline perceives might result in the passenger being denied actual entry into Canada despite having a Travel Document authorizing entry into Canada. A passenger with a one-way ticket, for example, might be perceived as at risk for being denied entry if, upon arrival at the PoE, CBSA concludes the traveler either is not a legitimate visitor or does not have the means of traveling to country of origin. Given the airlines very broad discretion to deny boarding, in this circumstance the airlines sometimes scrutinized prospective passengers more.

Again, how easy it has been to travel using just a visa-exempt passport does not guarantee the PR rule will not be enforced. Traveling without a PR card is something a PR should carefully consider, if there are options, before embarking. Obviously, for some there are few or no options, and for them the window is approaching 119 days.

 

[axelfoley]

@dpenabill

Thanks for your helpful clarification that nobody would ask anyway about PR, that it would be an entirely electronic process whereby the airline is notified whether or not to allow a person to board. So the fact nobody around me was asked at check-in or at the gate if they were a PR or had eTA was not relevant to demonstrate that the system is not yet in fact already up and running.

 

[dpenabill]

@dpenabill

Thanks for your helpful clarification that nobody would ask anyway about PR, that it would be an entirely electronic process whereby the airline is notified whether or not to allow a person to board. So the fact nobody around me was asked at check-in or at the gate if they were a PR or had eTA was not relevant to demonstrate that the system is not yet in fact already up and running.

As I understand things, the system is up and running. The system is more than just eTA. eTA is just the part to add an extra layer of screening for visa-exempt travelers before they actually arrive in Canada.

The actual mechanisms for administering the so-called "leniency period" I do not know.

Questions about PR might arise for some PR travelers presenting a visa-exempt passport, but when, or why, or what triggers that, is less about eTA and more about the airlines liability for transporting someone who might be found to be inadmissible, by CBSA, upon arrival in Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks - that is interesting. So basically that means boarding a flight without a PR card won't be possible and at the very least subjective. Because one being not visa exempt (hence had a TRV stamped on passport as a worker in the past) and IAPI system returning the status of person being a PR hence requiring proof of status.

As I noted, I am not sure how the system will respond when such a traveler checks in (or otherwise transacts with the airline to obtain a boarding pass).

It is a situation probably best to avoid, either by waiting to go abroad until in receipt of a PR card, or making sure someone collects mail at the address provided to the landing official, someone who can be trusted to forward the PR card abroad, or by obtaining a PR Travel Document.

I look more for what the risks are than at what will happen for sure. Moreover, while it is my understanding that the IAPI system is fully up and running, I do not know this for sure. The government's objective, of course, is to automate the procedures as much as possible, thus reducing the variability of human decision-making, but it is also recognized that there are indeed many, many variables and there will be a significant transition phase during which there will still be some screening done by airline eyes. So I cannot say for sure how it will go. (Generally I tend to mistrust claims about how it will go for sure.)

But my sense is that, yes, for a PR with a passport that is not visa-exempt the risk is high that the fact the TRV is not clearly cancelled will not be sufficient to be allowed boarding . . . but it could also be a scenario in which the airline can get or give clearance. I assume you are talking about someone who recently landed and just has not yet received a PR card, in which case there may be some flexibility. But IRCC is not publicizing how its leniency approach works in actual practice nor what other flexibility they might be allowing.

 

[axelfoley]

As I understand things, the system is up and running. The system is more than just eTA. eTA is just the part to add an extra layer of screening for visa-exempt travelers before they actually arrive in Canada.

The actual mechanisms for administering the so-called "leniency period" I do not know.

Questions about PR might arise for some PR travelers presenting a visa-exempt passport, but when, or why, or what triggers that, is less about eTA and more about the airlines liability for transporting someone who might be found to be inadmissible, by CBSA, upon arrival in Canada.

Yes. Maybe the airline and CBSA knew I was a PR with an expired card but just applied the "leniency". As you say, the system could well be fully up and running already. I had (mistakenly) taken the ease with which I managed to get to Canada as a sign that the system is not up and running, whereas in fact it could well be, but just not fully enforced until 29th September.

 

[fkl]

......
But my sense is that, yes, for a PR with a passport that is not visa-exempt the risk is high that the fact the TRV is not clearly cancelled will not be sufficient to be allowed boarding . . . but it could also be a scenario in which the airline can get or give clearance. I assume you are talking about someone who recently landed and just has not yet received a PR card, in which case there may be some flexibility. But IRCC is not publicizing how its leniency approach works in actual practice nor what other flexibility they might be allowing.

Thanks - that makes a lot of sense. And yes I was talking about the same scenario you portrayed. Though I was trying to understand a "just in case scenario" since the TRVs (Worker based ones) were recent i.e. issued a month before PR process completed. So TRVs have roughly 3 year expiry time frame. I was just trying to understand that in the event one loses PR card, assuming they can enter Canada upon landing using say COPR+passport or any other proof of status, could they still use the Work permits based TRVs to counter an airline questioning visas to board a flight to Canada.

This thought originated from the time frame where there was a recent landing involved with yet to receive PR card and need to travel back and forth to the US though entry from US is relaxed from TRV requirement in general if one has a valid study / work permit to enter Canada.

Appreciate the input

 

[dpenabill]

Thanks - that makes a lot of sense. And yes I was talking about the same scenario you portrayed. Though I was trying to understand a "just in case scenario" since the TRVs (Worker based ones) were recent i.e. issued a month before PR process completed. So TRVs have roughly 3 year expiry time frame. I was just trying to understand that in the event one loses PR card, assuming they can enter Canada upon landing using say COPR+passport or any other proof of status, could they still use the Work permits based TRVs to counter an airline questioning visas to board a flight to Canada.

This thought originated from the time frame where there was a recent landing involved with yet to receive PR card and need to travel back and forth to the US though entry from US is relaxed from TRV requirement in general if one has a valid study / work permit to enter Canada.

Appreciate the input

Traveling from the U.S. to Canada by private vehicle resolves any problem due to not yet having a PR card: at the border the presentation of passport with cancelled TRV (and it should have an entry reflecting the landing as a PR) is sufficient to gain entry into Canada.

Flying, however, still invokes the rules for presenting a prescribed Travel Document.

It occurs to me, given how recently the worker TRV was issued, did the transaction at the PoE go as it should have for landing as a PR? It almost appears possible that the border official could have seen the worker TRV and allowed entry on that, cancelled the other TRV, and perhaps the landing process was not completed? (That would explain, for example, the failure to mark the worker TRV as cancelled . . . although that too could have been a mere oversight). We all make mistakes, after all, even border officers.

There should be some notation or stamp or cancellation of the PR visa in the passport showing that the individual landed as a Permanent Resident. And the person should also have been issued a CoPR. If the individual has this, no problem.

 

[Tri-Cities]

Don't know if that matters at all, but Kat's boarding pass says "API OK"...

 

[fkl]

Traveling from the U.S. to Canada by private vehicle resolves any problem due to not yet having a PR card: at the border the presentation of passport with cancelled TRV (and it should have an entry reflecting the landing as a PR) is sufficient to gain entry into Canada.

Flying, however, still invokes the rules for presenting a prescribed Travel Document.

It occurs to me, given how recently the worker TRV was issued, did the transaction at the PoE go as it should have for landing as a PR? It almost appears possible that the border official could have seen the worker TRV and allowed entry on that, cancelled the other TRV, and perhaps the landing process was not completed? (That would explain, for example, the failure to mark the worker TRV as cancelled . . . although that too could have been a mere oversight). We all make mistakes, after all, even border officers.

There should be some notation or stamp or cancellation of the PR visa in the passport showing that the individual landed as a Permanent Resident. And the person should also have been issued a CoPR. If the individual has this, no problem.

Yeah the US part was perfectly comfortable i.e. I am aware it is easy in private car. International flight was the actual intent.

And yes PR was formally completed, annotation was there, with COPR etc. May be they missed cancellation of worker visa because of focus on other reasons. Landing wasn't smooth because of current residence in Quebec and being done on CEC grounds but worked out eventually because the required paper work was there. Still it took half a day.

 

[dpenabill]

Don't know if that matters at all, but Kat's boarding pass says "API OK"...

That is a good observation and illuminates at least an aspect of how the IAPI system responds. Makes sense that when the boarding pass is printed it affirmatively indicates the IAPI clearance was done.

There will be times the system is down, or has this or that glitch, and CBSA supposedly has provided the airlines with scripts to follow, and some training in this (so that their personnel can in turn train others), for such contingencies.

Additionally, there are various ways to get one's boarding pass and perhaps not all these have the IAPI submission procedure built in, so a boarding pass without the IAPI clearance would require the airline to submit the API information at some stage prior to actual boarding.

So yeah, I think this does matter, at least in terms of verifying more about how the IAPI system works.

And it is a strong clue that as of September 30 (barring further delays), there will be NO "API OK" for a traveler's visa-exempt passport unless that passport has eTA . . . thus, as of September 30, for the traveler with eTA, the boarding pass will (probably, it appears) indicate "API OK," not "eTA," while a visa-exempt passenger without eTA will not get an "OK" unless the traveler presents some other Travel Document (Canadian passport, Canadian PR card, special Travel Document, or a PR Travel Document, or such).