Because we had a Report 44 but it was removed and we were given a renewed PR, will this effect the time frame for our application?
When the Superintendent called us after 10 months of being in Canada, he mentioned that the Report 44 will be dropped once we prove our integration in the country. When we did and sent all the documents to prove, he called back after reviewing the documents and said that the Report 44 has been dropped after and notes have been put of how we have established here in Canada and now we are eligible to apply for PR after completing 2 yrs. That is why we felt comfortable in applying for the PR . And yes we did get our renewed PR in March 2021.
Caveat: I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice, for many reasons; moreover, with some exceptions (some things are obvious) I avoid, or at least try to minimize commenting about what is happening, let alone what will happen, in specific cases.
I can offer some observations,
the short version of which is this: it appears that whatever the procedure was, your PR status is valid and intact, and that if you otherwise meet the eligibility requirements for a grant of citizenship, you are not subject to a prohibition due to that procedure. So whatever actually happened, it APPEARS (based on your account) that history does not block you from applying for and being granted citizenship.
An Observation About Waiting to Apply With a Significant Presence Margin:
That said, it warrants a reminder that ALL prospective grant citizenship applicants would be wise to WAIT long enough to apply they will have a good margin of actual presence in Canada above the minimum, and for you, given this not-so-long-ago history, seems prudent to consider waiting even a good while longer, building a bigger margin in this situation. Conventional wisdom is a margin of at least ten days is a good idea (the minimum prudent margin) for applicants with NO wrinkles in their history or circumstances, and who are ABSOLUTELY certain about the precise dates of all travel for the five year eligibility period. My sense is that such applicants would be prudent to wait to apply longer, to wait to apply with a margin of at least a month (waiting an extra twenty plus some days should be very, very easy).
But you obviously have a significant wrinkle in your history. My guess (just a guess) is that you face an elevated risk of non-routine processing, at the least a finger print request. A bigger margin may mean the process goes more smoothly, with less delay, and you actually get to the day of taking the oath sooner . . . NO guarantees, of course, just playing the odds.
Some Further, Longer Observations:
The procedure you describe, in regards to the 44(1) Report, differs some from what I understand about how the process works, but that is of NO import relative to your status or eligibility for citizenship, since it appears to be quite clear that no enforceable Removal or Departure Order was ever issued, and whatever 44(1) Report was involved that was set aside or otherwise rendered of no effect. So whatever happened, however that unfolded, it should have NO impact on your PR status, thus no impact on your eligibility for citizenship.
However, whether or not you should check 'Yes' in response to item 4 in the paper version of the citizenship application (looking at the CIT 0002 (10-2020) version), the prohibitions section item that asks whether the applicant was ever "
under" a removal order, depends on the specific details in your case. I dare not offer an opinion about how you should respond to this, except to comment that
a prudent applicant will NOT rely on an opinion about this offered in a forum like this. As I noted, your account of the procedure in your case differs some from what I understand about how the process works. As I also noted, given that it is clear that whatever the procedure was, any 44(1) Report has been effectively set aside or dismissed, so that should have NO negative impact on your status or your eligibility for citizenship. Whether or not you were "under" a Removal Order, however, is not so easily discerned. The fact (as it appears to be) that you were not subject to an enforceable Removal Order does not necessarily mean you were never "under" a Removal Order.
Again, I cannot offer an opinion that favours checking 'Yes' in response to the prohibitions section item about being under a removal order, and in the explanation box state something to the effect there was a 44(1) Report in 2018 which was set aside (or dismissed, or whatever best describes YOUR understanding of what happened).
I really do not know if you should do this. But, otherwise, I absolutely
would NOT trust what anyone else here advises in regard to this. You will need to use your own best judgment in deciding how to approach this UNLESS you consult with a properly licensed professional.
Either way should have minimal impact. It appears clear you are NOT subject to a prohibition. To what extent that history (which will be seen and considered by the processing agents reviewing your application, whether you disclose it in the application or check 'No') will trigger additional screening and scrutiny is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to forecast. At the least, nonetheless, as I previously mentioned, it warrants a guess (just a guess) that you face an elevated risk of non-routine processing, at the least a finger print request.
Which leads back to the observation about at least considering waiting to apply longer than most prospective applicants might, to apply with a bigger margin, and it leads to the further observation that this history suggests it would be a good idea to be super-careful in how you answer the questions in the application. Everyone applying should make a concerted effort to get things as right as possible, but some would be wise to exercise an even more diligent, thorough level of care in doing so.
