Applying for PR when already a resident as thought it had expired...

[david1697]

dpenabill, what made me puzzled about possible outcome of the OP case is the fact that he applied for FSW prior to embarking on his last journey to Canada. If there was no pending FSW and CBSA didn't report him at entry, then his chances would be more or less straightforward and he could just stay 730+ days in Canada and fully restore all his privileges.
Question is: could CIC , in the course of adjudicating a benefit OP applied for (FSW) , move on to initiate removal proceedings?
FSW application carries all the residency information CIC needs to examine his RO.
I was totally clueless as to what would happen to OP under the circumstances he is currently in and suggested him to consult an attorney.
What would be your thoughts on this particular regard (pending FSW while OP is in Canada as 'waived' by CBSA PR, although in breach of RO)?

 

[Rob_TO]

Speaking of practical knowledge, do you have any statistical data , which is based on actual (not assumed/imagined) numbers of people who failed RO yet were able to enter Canada without CBSA reporting them? What is proportion of such number (if documented and known) to a number of those who failed RO and were reported by CBSA?

Do you have ANY evidence to substantiate your thoughts?
Or only your assumptions, hearsay and imagination, as usual? :

As I've already stated, it's based on years of reading people's stories of what has actually happened to them going through a POE, what questions CBSA asks about RO (if any), and what the CBSA officer actually does (reports or doesn't).

The sheer volume of people that successfully enter Canada without meeting RO and even in many cases where the CBSA officer knows they don't meet RO but still lets them in, is quite high. No I haven't been keeping records of all this, its something that is made more and more apparent with the more cases read... a view held by many other senior members of this and other sites as well. Would actually recording the stats of all the real life examples seen over several years really convince you? I assume not.

So as always my advice to anyone who doesn't meet RO would be the same. You take a risk upon entering Canada. Even if CBSA is very selective of who they actually report, and if 100 people got in ahead of you without getting reported, all it takes is 1 time to be reported to face the consequences. Similar to the drunk driving analogy above.

Yet of course I already explained all this. You really don't seem to read the posts very well before responding. For someone so obsessed with calling someone a troll when you don't agree with them, perhaps you should look in the mirror for an example of one.

 

[david1697]

As I've already stated, it's based on years of reading people's stories of what has actually happened to them going through a POE, what questions CBSA asks about RO (if any), and what the CBSA officer actually does (reports or doesn't).

The sheer volume of people that successfully enter Canada without meeting RO and even in many cases where the CBSA officer knows they don't meet RO but still lets them in, is quite high. No I haven't been keeping records of all this, its something that is made more and more apparent with the more cases read... a view held by many other senior members of this and other sites as well. Would actually recording the stats of all the real life examples seen over several years really convince you? I assume not.

So as always my advice to anyone who doesn't meet RO would be the same. You take a risk upon entering Canada. Even if CBSA is very selective of who they actually report, and if 100 people got in ahead of you without getting reported, all it takes is 1 time to be reported to face the consequences. Similar to the drunk driving analogy above.

Yet of course I already explained all this. You really don't seem to read the posts very well before responding. For someone so obsessed with calling someone a troll when you don't agree with them, perhaps you should look in the mirror for an example of one.

Your assumptions, hearsay ("reading people's stories ") and imagination are not indication of "practical knowledge". So much for someone who extols practical knowledge.

 

[Rob_TO]

Your assumptions, hearsay ("reading people's stories ") and imagination are not indication of "practical knowledge". So much for someone who extols practical knowledge.

So you assume everyone who posts a personal experience on this and other immigration sites are lying? If you just take everyone's posts as hearsay or untrue, that doesn't help many people who are hoping to learn things by reading other people's experiences.

Yes lots of assumptions. As you do as well. And as mentioned many many others have read the same experiences, and come to the same assumptions on this topic.

 

[david1697]

So you assume everyone who posts a personal experience on this and other immigration sites are lying? If you just take everyone's posts as hearsay or untrue, that doesn't help many people who are hoping to learn things by reading other people's experiences.

Yes lots of assumptions. As you do as well. And as mentioned many many others have read the same experiences, and come to the same assumptions on this topic.

Post the statistical data for number of PR who failed PR and were waived by CBSA, as well as number of those who failed RO and were reported by CBSA.
Once you post those numbers you can lay claim to a "practical knowledge" in the context of failing RO and being let go by CBSA.
Until then, all you share are assumptions, hearsay and your personal imagination.
As such , neither serves as indication of "practical knowledge".
While you lack practical knowledge, you challenge reasonable statements (grounded in existing law, ENF 23 and others) as mere "theoretical knowledge of CIC/CBSA", as if you had anything practically substantial to counter.

If what you do is not trolling then I don't know what is.

 

[Rob_TO]

If the POE officers sent a referral or letter to the local office, you may get correspondence from CIC (at the address you gave) and may be subjected to a Residency Examination, but that is no reason to panic. Best to obtain professional assistance then but that is not absolutely necessary. Put together your best account of what you did, why, and put together all the information you can regarding what ties you have to continuing residence in Canada. Again, it is my impression the odds are in your favour on this. No guarantees, but this has better odds of success than re-applying for a PR visa.

I am curious as to why you think the odds are in his favour in case a RO exam is put against him? You had mentioned possibly being in school is a H&C cause, but that would only explain the early portion of him not meeting RO. Afterwards, he says he simply went to London to work there.

Overwhelmingly on this site, people state that school and work are not sufficient H&C reasons in this case. And even if schooling perhaps was, I would guess choosing to simply live/work abroad instead of in Canada, would void any H&C claim.

So I'm wondering if you've ever actually seen a successful H&C case for RO, that involved only school/work abroad and not the "typical" H&C claims of a medical or family issue?

 

[Rob_TO]

While you lack practical knowledge, you challenge reasonable statements (grounded in existing law, ENF 23 and others) as mere "theoretical knowledge of CIC/CBSA", as if you had anything practically substantial to counter.

I never challenged ENF 23. I challenged that when a FSW VO gets an app for someone who is already a PR, you can't assume there will be an automatic investigation into ENF 23, and app would most likely simply be rejected. As I've seen a case of a TRV VO simply reject an app of a PR and not do an ENF23 investigation since that is not their primary purpose, logically the same could be said of a FSW VO. I asked you for some FSW manual or procedure that would show a VO would immediately start looking into RO in this case, but you could not provide one.
It seems though since you don't like this opinion, you resort to name calling.

 

[david1697]

I never challenged ENF 23. I challenged that when a FSW VO gets an app for someone who is already a PR, you can't assume there will be an automatic investigation into ENF 23, and app would most likely simply be rejected. As I've seen a case of a TRV VO simply reject an app of a PR and not do an ENF23 investigation since that is not their primary purpose, logically the same could be said of a FSW VO. I asked you for some FSW manual or procedure that would show a VO would immediately start looking into RO in this case, but you could not provide one.
It seems though since you don't like this opinion, you resort to name calling.

You challenged my opinion as one based on theoretical knowledge of CIC/CBSA, implying that you had something practically substantial to counter it.

Quoted below is what you posted earlier under this thread. It seems you have a misconception about "experiences on the issues in the real world" and you believe that your assumptions, a hearsay ("reading peoples' experiences") and your imagination count as "practical knowledge" that you can rely on in predicting low odds of CBSA reporting someone who failed RO and attempts to enter Canada.

BTW, not only you lack a practical knowledge (while you dispute mine on the grounds of it being "theoretical"), but you also give dangerously misleading advise to scores of immigrants who will pay an ultimate price if they rely on your suggestions.

It seems you have lots of theoretical knowledge about CIC/CBSA issues. However perhaps if you spend a couple years on this or other immigration sites reading people's actual experiences on the issues in the real world, you will see CIC/CBSA do not often do what they're supposed to, or follow their own rules properly. And enforcing RO at POEs is just one of these things. As I said, you will see story after story of people not meeting RO getting in no problem, and also some that are caught and reported

 

[Rob_TO]

but you also give dangerously misleading advise to scores of immigrants who will pay an ultimate price if they rely on your suggestions.

And what suggestions would those be? Seeing as I always explain the potential risks of each piece of advice I give, and the reasoning behind it.

If I was asking a question and a very senior member summarized what they had read over many years of other people's experiences, I would certainly take that into strong consideration, and not simply dismiss it since i didn't personally see or count up each and every case they are talking about. Countless people on this site use others' experiences to see how the system actually works, and explain as such when new people ask questions that are somewhat similar in nature.

 

[david1697]

And what suggestions would those be? Seeing as I always explain the potential risks of each piece of advice I give, and the reasoning behind it.

If I was asking a question and a very senior member summarized what they had read over many years of other people's experiences, I would certainly take that into strong consideration, and not simply dismiss it since i didn't personally see or count up each and every case they are talking about. Countless people on this site use others' experiences to see how the system actually works, and explain as such when new people ask questions that are somewhat similar in nature.

When it comes to my opinion, you can dispute or dismiss it as "theoretical", thus practically invalid (even though it's based on existing laws, regulations and reasonable expectations), but when you counter it with your assumptions it must be taken into strong consideration.
Why such inconsistency, if I may ask?

 

[Rob_TO]

When it comes to my opinion, you can dispute or dismiss it as "theoretical", thus practically invalid (even though it's based on existing laws, regulations and reasonable expectations), but when you counter it with your assumptions it must be taken into strong consideration.
Why such inconsistency, if I may ask?

I previously stated that what you said may happen, may indeed happen, and it's one thing the OP needs to consider in making his decision. Both need to be taken into consideration.

My exact words were "In the end both options discussed have a possibility of happening."

Based on how I perceive CIC to operate though, I stand by my assumption of the logical chain of events i described. But I've never said what you suggested isn't also possible. In the end there are so many variables in play it's impossible to say.

 

[david1697]

I previously stated that what you said may happen, may indeed happen, and it's one thing the OP needs to consider in making his decision. Both need to be taken into consideration.

My exact words were "In the end both options discussed have a possibility of happening."

Based on how I perceive CIC to operate though, I stand by my assumption of the logical chain of events i described. But I've never said what you suggested isn't also possible. In the end there are so many variables in play it's impossible to say.

Your exact words are:

It seems you have lots of theoretical knowledge about CIC/CBSA issues. However perhaps if you spend a couple years on this or other immigration sites reading people's actual experiences on the issues in the real world, you will see CIC/CBSA do not often do what they're supposed to, or follow their own rules properly. And enforcing RO at POEs is just one of these things. As I said, you will see story after story of people not meeting RO getting in no problem

I see no reason why you dismiss and dispute my opinion as "theoretical" ,thus practically invalid, when what you counter is entirely grounded on your assumptions and a hearsay.

 

[Rob_TO]

Your exact words are:

I see no reason why you dismiss and dispute my opinion as "theoretical" ,thus practically invalid, when what you counter is entirely grounded on your assumptions and a hearsay.

I didn't dismiss it, I said it could possibly happen.

And my assumption is based on simple logic. There are certain events that naturally trigger an RO/ENF23 investigation based on stated procedures, such as applying for PR card renewal, a PRTD, sponsoring a spouse, or presenting yourself at a POE. Mistakenly applying for FSW when one is a PR, is not an automatic RO issue. It may happen, but it may not. Any FSW manual would only state an applicant found ineligible for FSW, would be rejected as such. Stating a VO will go above and beyond to then investigate further, is your own imagination... not to say it won't happen.

And if you refuse to accept that many on this site have seen tons of people's experiences that show how CIC often operates, I don't know what to say. It's a foundation of tons of advice given on this and other immigration forums.

 

[david1697]

I didn't dismiss it, I said it could possibly happen.

And my assumption is based on simple logic. There are certain events that naturally trigger an RO/ENF23 investigation based on stated procedures, such as applying for PR card renewal, a PRTD, sponsoring a spouse, or presenting yourself at a POE. Mistakenly applying for FSW when one is a PR, is not an automatic RO issue. It may happen, but it may not. Any FSW manual would only state an applicant found ineligible for FSW, would be rejected as such. Stating a VO will go above and beyond to then investigate further, is your own imagination... not to say it won't happen.

And if you refuse to accept that many on this site have seen tons of people's experiences that show how CIC often operates, I don't know what to say. It's a foundation of tons of advice given on this and other immigration forums.

I have a long enough experience and I have seen plenty of posters who do what you do. Among other things, when cornered, you resort to constantly shifting the subject/focus/topic of conversation with each of your replies and end up going in circles. Such 'debates' can go ad infinitum and are usually done to exhaust or discredit the other rather than win an argument or point. Needless to say, it doesn't ad value nor helps OP.

I am out of this thread.

 

[Rob_TO]

I have a long enough experience and I have seen plenty of posters who do what you do. Among other things, when cornered, you resort to constantly shifting the subject/focus/topic of conversation with each of your replies and end up going in circles. Such 'debates' can go ad infinitum and are usually done to exhaust or discredit the other rather than win an argument or point. Needless to say, it doesn't ad value nor helps OP.

I am out of this thread.

I've presented pros and cons to either decision the OP could make, have listed various possible outcome of each (including your own view as one possibility), and indicated what I personally think would happen and stated my logical chain of thinking to justify it.

You meanwhile have stuck pretty much to your own opinion, refuse to accept any other, call names, and leave it at that.

The OP can decide which is more useful to them.