dpenabill said:
This discussion tends to wander wildly and oft times into more or less abstract questions which, please pardon the literary theft, approach medieval efforts to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I maintain every single statement I have made. OP is in breach of RO. CIC has duty to enforce the law (like US INS in past , it carries functions of enforcement along with benefit granting). OP has pending application (FSW) with all the information needed to discover breach of RO.
I don't know what will happen to OP, how CIC will treat his FSW application, no matter what he does with his FSW.
I made very clear my lack of knowledge of internal CIC practices and procedures and advised OP to consult an attorney.
The other poster (Rob) has made several lengthy arguments, many of them infused with logical fallacy, others claiming I made statements about OP case which I have not, still others wandering off topic and bringing irrelevant subjects or giving instructions to OP what to do in absence of the expertise or knowledge of the subject.
In number of those instances I have addressed the other poster and may continue to do so if I find it necessary.
At this point OP had already received response from us. Rob strongly suggested him to withdraw FSW and stay in Canada. Lately you seem to advise OP the same. And I have plainly told OP to consult the seasoned immigration attorney, and admitted that the subject was outside of my area of knowledge to give further comments other than advising OP to see an attorney.
But it does not prevent other posters (including you) from coming and posting very lengthy, and often erroneous, speculations on a case, to which I respond as well.
If you consider it a "medieval efforts to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" then may be you should lead by an example, cease contributing to this thread and delete your numerous earlier replies.
The more detailed accounting of the OP's POE experience illuminates some additional aspects of what happened. However, while I tend to agree with the suggestion by Rob_TO that the referral to secondary was likely due to concerns about how long this UK citizen (visa-exempt traveler) was planning to stay in Canada, there are other possibilities and the actual decision-making that happened is not particularly significant let alone important. The OP ended up in secondary where, one way or another, the examining officer identified the OP as a Canadian PR.
You suggested that OP was referred to secondary because his PR status was identified by BSO PIL. OP reluctantly agreed with you, that it was possible his PR was discovered by BSO PIL, but then he also recalled his secondary examination where he said his PR status was mentioned for the first time , and his more detailed account of events emerged only after I posted direct questions to OP. And Rob then made some comments subsequent to those latest revelations by OP.
Prior to that it was all a matter of speculation, particularly by you when you were making inferences about what happened to OP at the border.
Now you claim it's all irrelevant.
In any event, in the course of you yourself posting very long and winded comments about what may or may not have happened to OP at POE, subject of the ENF 05, and particularly Section 8.1 came up. Question arose as to whether CBSA could selectively use a vested discretionary power and not examine RO of PR.
You have never directly addressed this question, but went on to provide, among other things, an irrelevant or misleading answer (I responded to it last night).
And as far as OP is concerned, we all have provided him our respective responses. There is not much anyone can add.
But questions which arose from , among other things, your own writing remain. It's up to you if you will honestly address those questions or ignore them, their relevancy is directly related to what you yourself debated.
I also acknowledge that CBSA officers working immigration in secondary are not always that well informed. After all, when one reads very many cases, it is apparent that officers, IAD decision-makers, even Federal Court Justices sometimes get this or that detail quite wrong. Let alone a CBSA officer whose job duties span screening a wide, wide range of people relative to a wide, wide range of potential issues or problems, to be done within a limited amount of time.
That is, they do not spend the time some of us do sorting out all the angles in wrangling with isolated, particular issues. CBSA officers are on the clock. They are expected to process a certain number of people per hour. They focus on key indicators, make judgments, pursue lines of inquiry based on that, and drive toward a conclusion which satisfies their mandate, minimizing the inconvenience imposed on travelers while nonetheless enforcing Canada's immigration laws and, especially, protecting Canada from criminality, security risks, terrorism, and abuses.
And what is the point you are trying to make? Are you an attorney for CBSA in charge of defending the actions of CBSA?
Why such defensive response? CBSA deserves to be put on trial when it violates the law, exceeds its' authority, mistreats perfectly legitimate entrants (example: writes a report and subjects to hardships of removal proceedings a PR who accumulated 869 days in Canada in past 5 years , as in the case you earlier sited), but none of it is applicable to OP. Nobody is putting CBSA on trial here. If anything, CBSA in this particular instance had shown extra generosity and lavishly granted OP an opportunity to enter Canada as PR and restore his privileges, without writing a report (so we assume, at least).
And as I said earlier, anything added in regards to "Why exactly
OP got referred to secondary" would be a mere speculation and nothing more.
In this OP's circumstance, the important elements of what happened at the POE are fairly clear and not complicated:
-- referred to secondary, where the OP is identified as a PR, not just a UK traveler visiting Canada
-- sufficient attention to OP's PR status to advise the OP that it was something that he should look into, arising from circumstances in which the OP overtly acknowledged that he thought his status had "expired" (a rather salient indicator)
-- status of entry as a PR was noted in the stamp in OP's passport
-- OP was allowed to enter without being issued a 44(1) Report
What exactly is clear? What "look into" means? You keep making comments about OP qas if you were better informed than OP as to what exactly transpired at POE. OP himself is hesitant and not sure what happened, yet you are so sure about knowing everything and considering it "clear and not complicated". May be it's not complicated at all, may be it's as simple as OP being admitted without report being written, but it's not clear. You yourself admit in other instances that we don't know for sure if CBSA encounter alone will lead to removal proceedings (you just advise to deal with it "there and then" if the issue ever comes up). Despite your admitted lack of certainty, you now state that everything is fairly clear and not complicated.
You speak as someone who feels defensive about CBSA practices and tries to 'smooth the edges', though it's not clear why you do this, especially in the context of OP case where there is no indication of any wrongdoing by CBSA.
If anything, it's OP who is on the wrong side of regulations, and NO, it's NOT totally clear as to what happened at the POE. There are only inferences and assumptions based on some of the details provided by OP.
Thus, in terms of what matters, all we really know is that the examining officer in secondary was aware the OP was a returning PR, one who thought his PR status was expired, and that the officer did not decide to issue a 44(1) Report there at the POE.
I do not really know, but I would bet a lot that a FOSS NCB entry was made flagging a potential residency obligation issue.
Beyond that we really do not know whether a referral was sent to the local CIC or not. And we do not know what the local CIC would do with the referral if one was sent.
So which one is it? Is it "fairly clear and not complicated" or rather UNKNOWN as to what exactly has happened at POE and whether referral (not report) was sent to the local CIC?
While CBSA and CIC are not law enforcement agencies in the usual way we think of law enforcement, the way they approach investigations and pursuing recourse (such as initiating removal proceedings) is probably similar: discretion and priorities having a lot of influence on who they target and what they do (as in whether they make inquiries, conduct formal investigations, or pursue formal recourse such as initiating removal proceedings).
CIC has a duty to enforce the law. We used to have US INS that carried similar responsibilities (before being divided into USCIS, ICE and CBP) , but in Canada CIC is still an agency that , among other things, must enforce Immigration Laws. There is no dispute about it, it's a fact.
As I have said, my guess is that the pass at the POE is a good indicator that this individual's circumstances do not rise to the level of causing concern. Whether what tipped the scales is that for this individual strictly enforcing the PR RO is a low priority, or a perception this individual overtly deserves a chance to retain PR status, or just a perception the individual is not someone attempting to abuse the system, I cannot say I know . . . it is just my guess that the examining officer saw enough to understand the OP's situation and knowing that much gave the OP a pass.
And what does your
guess have to do with what some other CIC officer would do in his own stead under a separate set of circumstances?
Just because OP was given a
pass by CBSA on last occasion, does it mean the same
pass will be given if he attempts once again to enter Canada in breach of RO?
If not, then what relevance the
pass he had received most recently have to do with possibility that his breach of RO could be discovered in the process of adjudicating his FSW application?
It's completely irrelevant what pass he received from CBSA during his last entry IF his breach of RO comes to attention of another officer on a separate occasion. I frankly don't know why you keep saying this over and over again, when it's not relevant at all to a question I raised about pending FSW application.
But of course the OP may, nonetheless, be contacted by CIC and subject to a residency examination.
Reminder: the OP worked at least some summer holidays in Canada. How often and how recently are big factors. The more time in Canada, and the more ties to a life in Canada, the better.
And who is now counting "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"?
By the way, one of the more well known and oft exploited weaknesses in the system is that PRs predominantly working outside Canada who want to continue that employment, but not lose PR status, will periodically come to Canada. Thus, when they arrive at a POE they have not been outside Canada for so long as to be blatantly obvious about not meeting the PR RO. It was mentioned above that a PR not meeting the PR RO entered Canada three times without being challenged about residency. That is the way many have done it in the past, and some still are doing it (although, as I have said other times, my impression is that there is a trend toward more strict enforcement, assisted in part by advances in technology, and due in part to the priorities of the current government, so it is, I believe, getting tougher to do this). If that PR had not come to Canada the first two of those times, the risk (what happens in a particular case is dependent on many additional factors and circumstances) of a residency challenge would have been significantly higher by the time of the return on the third occasion.
What you cite above is what many US Permanent Residents used to do: travel to US once every six months and thus avoid being questioned about PR status, then apply for Citizenship after 5 years of being in US. The reason why immigrants used to do it is due to explicit "no longer than 6 months absent from US" rule which allowed for PR to re-enter without being questioned about intention to maintain PR status. It should be noted that it no longer works the same, because US CBP caught up with the abuse and many end in removal courts for doing it now, but most importantly it's a practice I have heard about in the context of US immigration, never in the context if Canadian RO.
I believe in case with Canadian RO, it's not as simple as 'touching ground' every now and then, because with Canadian RO the emphasis had ALWAYS been the clear cut requirement to accumulate 730 days out of 5 years in Canada to maintain PR. It doesn't matter when OP last touched the ground,
what matters is: did he stay 730 or more days in Canada in the past 5 years?
The rest of your comment is pure speculation,since we can't know what would happen differently if OP didn't come to Canada last two times.
This leads to the question about what did I mean when I referred to a PR appearing (to a POE examining officer) to be in breach of the PR RO.
No, it doesn't. See my reply above.
It is obvious, for example, that when a PR with a valid PR card and a history of periodically entering Canada, and whose last absence was not for a very long time (not for multiple years for example), approaches the POE, the risk of even being referred to secondary for immigration purposes is relatively low, even if the PR is in breach of the PR residency obligation. This is an example of a PR who does NOT appear to be in breach of the RO.
I have been referred to secondary for no reason at all. I had COPR and passport and I couldn't be in breach of RO even if I wanted to, because I was a 'brand new' , recently landed PR. Yet, I was sent to secondary. The fact is, anyone can be sent to secondary, even without any reason (other than 'gut feeling' of CBSA, which could be as simple as CBSA BSO PIL looking at you and thinking you 'look like' someone who should be sent to secondary, with nothing else to support such a split second decision). Though it's more rare in some cases than in others (may be if I had valid a PR Card , not just COPR and passport, I would not have been sent to secondary).
Furthermore, the very act of discovery of lengthy absence (which could indicate breach of RO by PR) would first require a scrutiny, without which there is no way of knowing when exactly did PR leave Canada. If someone left Canada 5 years ago via US border and returns to Canada tomorrow by Air, there is no way for Canadian CBSA to know when did the person leave Canada. Not unless they ask specific questions to determine residency obligation. Hence was my question "how does one
appear to be in breach of PR".
You have not answered that question yet.
On the other hand, a traveler presenting a visa-exempt passport and declaring that his purpose in coming to Canada is to stay for just six days less than the maximum standard time allowed a visitor, accompanying a person who is coming to Canada to work and live in Canada, that is highly likely to invite a referral to secondary.
Again, you are going into speculating about what triggered OP to be sent to secondary.
I won't add any comments to it, since I don't know, I have not been inside the head of CBSA officer who referred him to secondary.
When, once in secondary, this individual is identified as a PR, and not in possession of a valid PR card, an individual who thinks his PR status has expired, that is an example of a PR who appears to at least possibly be in breach of the PR residency obligation.
A PR who arrives in Canada for the first time in more than three years, overtly appears to be in breach of the PR RO.
See above
There are undoubtedly many, many indicators CBSA can identify, and sometimes they probably look for specific indicators more thoroughly (while some criticize their training and competency, they see dozens if not hundreds of clients day in and day out, and they get fairly skilled in what some call issue-identification or issue-recognition).
it's not always the case, they don't always get really skilled, and I would bet in at least some occasions the lack of intelligence and over-reliance on subjective perception is the real cause to excuse plain arbitrary, split-second decisions made in regards to whom to scrutinize more or less (note: this arbitrariness is lawful, can not be legally challenged as "arbitrary and capricious" in legal sense of the word, as it is within a range of discretion vested in CBSA by law, but it's arbitrary in the matter of factually sense of the word. And it's part of existing reality).
As a result, some people in breach of RO and who have been out of Canada for 20 years or more are repeatedly given a pass without ever being referred to secondary inspection, while others (who never failed RO and have no criminal records or security issues) not only get referred to secondary, but some even get reported and placed on removal proceedings while meeting their RO (like the case you cited about an individual who had 869 days in Canada, yet still had to go through legal proceedings to prove the obvious).
If anything , it tells about lack of skill and professionalism in at least some of those cases.
Sometimes POE officers have particular issues or concerns they are focused on . . . while a crude analogy that breaks down easily, think of traffic officers on a highway, sometimes they are focused specifically on interdicting speeders and they are not watching much for other violations, or the interdiction of driving-while-impaired drivers and not focused on other violations. The analogy does hold up in a significant respect: like an officer doing speed enforcement who, once he has stopped a vehicle for speeding, identifies other offences, will issue citations for or, depending on the offence, even make an arrest for the other offences, similarly a CBSA officer who is examining an individual for the targeted-concern-of-the-day (or week or month or however they go about these things) who identifies a separate significant or serious concern will almost certainly follow-through, at least to the officer's satisfaction, regarding that other issue.
And that appears to be what happened for this OP. An interview regarding concerns about the nature and duration of his trip as a visa-exempt traveler, evolved into an interview addressing his PR status, and addressing his impression his PR status had expired including advice to look into the matter. But ultimately the examining CBSA officer was satisfied that the OP should be allowed to enter Canada without further inquiry (at that time) regarding residency and without issuing the OP a 44(1) report.
You keep speculating about what had happened to OP at POE :
FSW PR visa application:
I do not follow why so much back and forth about the FSW PR visa application. The OP is a PR. A PR is not eligible to apply for a PR visa. That application should be rejected, or the applicant can withdraw the application. There is nothing to be gained by not withdrawing it. Fact of application made will remain in GCMS and copy of it will probably be retained (at least electronic copy) by CIC. It will either trigger further action by CIC or not, and while my guess is that it will not by itself trigger a residency examination, that is a guess, and I doubt anyone knows any more precisely what effect it will have than that.
OP is a Canadian PR in breach of RO (a breach that makes him a removable PR) , and unfortunately he has pending FSW application with CIC.
CIC, among other things, is an enforcement arm and has duty to remove those individuals who are removable from Canada.
Nobody suggests that OP will gain PR status via pending FSW application if it's not withdrawn. We all know that PR can't be granted PR status, while already holding PR status. We all know FSW must be denied on the account of OP being PR. No one asks about 'gain' if FSW is not withdrawn (if by 'gain' you mean acquisition of PR status via pending FSW while one is already PR).
You miss entirely the point of the issue I raise.
I ask
what if, in the course of adjudicating FSW the breach of RO comes to CIC attention (with evidence of breach being clearly shown in FSW application itself)?
Rob suggests to withdraw FSW, so I asked what are the chances that request to withdraw pending FSW application by a PR would trigger even more scrutiny than not doing anything at all?
I am just asking these questions (obviously not knowing answers), and I frankly don't understand why can't you either answer or state that you have no answers, or ignore the subject in entirety?
I ask the question rationale of which I have explained repeatedly. While not answering it you appear to be agitated by the subject being raised and it's not clear why you react in such a way.
Just as relative to whether or not the POE officers sent a referral or alert or such to CIC regarding potential RO concern, for what might happen due to the FSW PR application it is a matter of waiting and seeing, and if a residency examination is coming, deal with it when it comes. If not, stay the course, get a job, live a life in Canada, and in two years it is all history, of little or no effect or import.
Finally, you address the question , which basically seconds what I have said all along - it's UNKNOWN.
Just because it's UNKNOWN doesn't mean that question had disappeared into a thin air. it's just we don't know the answer, and therefore I advised OP to consult seasoned immigration attorney who may know better than us.
As to 'deal with it when it comes', it's like saying 'find a spare tire when you get a nail in your tire'.
While some may find this to be practically sound advise, especially if chances of getting a nail in a tire while driving are very low, others may find it to be more prudent to think of possibility ahead of the time and be prepared , not be caught by surprise, when undesired happens.
Inadmissibilty:
"Inadmissible" is a specifically defined state, certain grounds of inadmissibility applying to both PRs and FNs (security and serious criminality), some applying to FNs but not PRs (health grounds, financial grounds), some specifically applicable to PRs, like inadmissibility for failing to comply with the PR Residency Obligation (see IRPA section 41(b), referring to PR RO in IRPA section 28).
Finally, you address the question about applicability of Section 8.1 of ENF 05 to Canadian PR's.
This is what I have found in regards to IRPA Section 41(b):
Non-Compliance with the IRPA
According to Section 41 of the IRPA, a person is inadmissible for failing to comply with the IRPA:
In the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of the IRPA; and
In the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with Subsection 27(2) [which states that a permanent resident must comply with any conditions imposed under the IRPR] or Section 28 of the IRPA.
This section provides for the refusal of admission, or the removal from Canada, of those persons who have contravened any condition or requirement under the IRPA or who are not respecting their obligations under the IRPA. However, a non-compliance allegation must be coupled with a specific requirement of the IRPA or the IRPR. It should not be considered a standalone allegation.
http://www.americanlaw.com/cdninadmissible.html#noncompliance
I consent that there are grounds for removal for breach of Section 28 of IRPA, but I still don't see how that can be equated to 'inadmissibility'.
PR is admissible by definition until PR status is stripped.
Does the language of Sec. 8.1 , in regards to admissibility, apply to removability (not inadmissibility per se) under the specific circumstances discussed?
It is possible that it is (I just searched for IRPA Sec 41(b) and spend less than couple of minutes studying it) , and I now tend to think that indeed intent of Sec. 8.1 covers removability under the term of "inadmissibility" (although being removable is not the same as being inadmissible) , and if this is the case then CBSA may not have as broad discretion to not scrutinize a PR about residency in Canada as I thought it did.
But what effect inadmissibility has is very different for FNs than it is for PRs.
Moreover, "inadmissibility" should not be confused with lack of authorization to enter Canada, or being denied permission to actually enter Canada. I was probably too sloppy in using "not admissible" previously in an effort to use a single reference encompassing not just persons who are inadmissible, but others who may not have authorization to enter Canada, or who are denied permission to actually enter Canada.
What I believe you failed to distinguish is not 'inadmissibility' versus authorization to enter Canada (that would be an oxymoron, if one was at the same time banned entry yet authorized to enter) , but you failed to distinguish between 'inadmissibility' and 'removability'.
Those two are indeed separate legal concepts (though I will not be entirely surprised to find out that under some weird legal interpretation one is indeed 'inadmissible' and 'has a right to enter' and allowed to enter at the same time).
And, Sec. 8.1 may indeed, by intent, cover both removability and inadmissibility,even though it does not specifically refer to removability per se for whatever reason (may be because removability is covered under 41(b), subsection 27(2) or section 28 of IRPA , and because 8.1 refers to section 41(b) in entirety, whatever the case might be, I don't know for sure).
(Rob_TO explained some aspects of this in distinguishing between authorization to enter Canada and being allowed to actually enter Canada (permission to enter Canada one might say). As Rob_TO noted, it is not uncommon for visa-exempt nationals to be turned away at the border for reasons other than being inadmissible, such as if the border officer believes the visa-exempt national is attempting to enter Canada for a reason not consistent with being a visitor (such as to work or live in Canada). They are not "inadmissible" but may be denied admission to Canada on the particular occasion.)
Rob made very important clarification and corrected me on one specific point: Visa exempt Foreign National (like OP, who is UK Citizen) don't have a right to enter Canada. The 'right to enter' applies ONLY to Canadian Citizens and Canadian PR's.
Which cleared any questions I had about applicability of 8.1 to OP at the moment of encounter with BSO PIL when OP appraised BSO of his Visa Exempt Status. I didn't raise any other questions (as to what happens to US national , who is not Canadian PR or Citizen,when he/she shows up at Canadian POE with a U-Haul truck).
And that sloppiness of mine may have been misleading in other ways as well, because relative to PRs who are inadmissible, despite being inadmissible a PR must be allowed entry into Canada.
It's still not clear that PR who is admissible by right is at the same time inadmissible. It sounds as oxymoron. What is more likely is that PR is removable if in breach of RO (or other obligations), though still admissible.
And, it's also likely that intent of 8.1 (even though it only mentions 'admissibility') covers the removability as well (I have more detailed reference to this above).
But, I might be wrong. PR may indeed be defined as 'inadmissible' yet in possession of a 'right to enter' at the same time under some odd interpretation of law. Either way you have not clarified the matter but added more confusion to what was there before.
Note: once a PR is finally adjudicated to have lost PR status, he or she is no longer a PR. He is not an "inadmissible" PR. He is a Foreign National (FN) and not a PR at all. And the irony is that if the grounds for revocation of PR status was IRPA section 41(b), based on failing to comply with IRPA section 28 (the PR RO), that individual may very well not be inadmissible at all, and is then eligible for entry into Canada as any other FN, subject to visa requirements, or as a visa-exempt visitor (if from a visa-exempt country). (If the grounds for revocation were other than a breach of the PR RO or failure to meet a condition of PR, such as serious criminality or misrepresentation, those grounds usually also make the individual inadmissible as a FN.)
I addressed this in my post yesterday.
That is, no, the "inadmissible PR" is not one conclusively adjudicated to have, for example, failed to comply with the PR RO. And, in general, an inadmissible PR seeking entry at a POE must be allowed to enter Canada (that said, there are provisions for detaining PRs for security or criminal reasons).
See above.
"Inadmissible" is essentially a descriptive state or condition (see IRPA sections 33 to 43), and while in some instances it is an adjudicated status, in other instances it simply describes a PR who has done something to render him (or her) inadmissible and is therefore subject to certain consequences (even if there has been no action taken toward imposing consequences), such as, for example:
-- denial of a PR Travel Document
-- issuance of a 44(1) Report and Removal Order at a POE
-- subject to removal proceedings which may culminate in a departure order
A PR in breach of the PR Residency Obligation is "inadmissible" as defined by IRPA section 41(b).
See my replies above.
I totally agree that PR in breach of RO is removable (if in Canada) , or subject to be placed in removal proceedings upon entry, application for TD and etc., if outside of Canada.
What is not clear is whether 'removability' is the same as 'inadmisisbility' (I already wrote about this above).
May be it is, may be it's not. So far it is not clear that it is, even though it may be treated the same under Sec. 8.1 of ENF 05.
And it's that particular applicability of Sec. 8.1 to removable PR at POE that I was asking about all along.
Whether that has any consequences depends. As has been oft times observed, many PRs who have not complied with the residency obligation, who are thus in breach, nonetheless manage to enter Canada without any action taken against them. There is some disagreement about why there is no action, but the why does not change the what, the what being that the PR is in Canada with valid PR status. So long as this PR is in breach of the PR Residency Obligation, this PR is at risk of CIC commencing removal proceedings, but as a practical matter it appears to be extremely rare for CIC to pursue Removal Proceedings against such individuals unless the individual does something triggering CIC to assess compliance with the Residency Obligation.
Nobody ever disputed or suggested that it is common for CIC to go after PR's who are in breach of RO after the said PR's were examined and allowed to enter Canada without being reported by CBSA, and only because of entry and in absence of any other triggering events.
But possibly the triggering event (Pending FSW Application in this case) is what has been a point of contention, and it was acknowledged by yourself that you don't know if there will be any effects on RO discovery of OP on the account of his pending FSW application.
Neither do I , btw.
But just because we have no knowledge or answer in this regard doesn't mean the concern is solved or that it can be ignored as non-existent.
Thus, such a PR who does not leave and attempt to return to Canada, who does not apply to obtain a new PR card, or otherwise initiate inquiry from CBSA or CIC, can simply stay in Canada and when that individual is in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, that is when the individual has been in Canada at least 730 days within the preceding five years, he is no longer inadmissible, and the previous inadmissibility is cured, of no import, no effect.
See above.
Clarification: I think I referred to the OP as "not admissible" as a visa-exempt visitor. As I acknowledge above, this was a sloppy use of terms, and was not intended to mean the OP was "inadmissible" as a visa-exempt visitor. OP simply was not eligible to be admitted as Foreign National visitor. So, technically CBSA should not allow someone in the position of the OP, that is a PR presenting a visa-exempt passport, entry into Canada as a FN with visitor status.
In practice, particularly in the past, many, many PRs have approached the POE presenting a visa-exempt passport and been allowed to enter Canada without further status inquiry. That does not mean they then have the status of a FN visitor even though the CBSA waived them through on that basis. Indeed, this is the means, the ploy if one will, that many, many PRs in breach of the PR Residency Obligation have employed in the past, precisely because they knew if they were simply waived into Canada, then all they had to do was stay and wait two years and their status was preserved, the prior inadmissibility cured.
You probably meant to say that someone who is Canadian PR shouldn't be admitted to Canada as Foreign National Visitor, and I never disputed it.
I asked why you think someone who is a Canadian PR is inadmissible on the account of being Visa Exempt.
OP claims that he had no such 'ploy' or 'sly' agenda as you suggest. But I can see how CBSA would have been of a different opinion and could think that OP indeed applied for FSW then attempted to enter as a Visitor to try to slip in while aware of being PR in breach of RO if they chose to examine it.
One can speculate about whether the OP would have been referred to secondary if he had a return ticket to the UK in two weeks time and indicated he was visiting for two weeks. If not referred to secondary that would be an example of the PR, in effect, slipping back into Canada, and all that PR has to do is then stay for two years and the breach of the RO is cured. But even a well-informed, rather sly and perceptive individual in the PR's situation at the POE might not know for sure why the referral was made, what triggered the PIL officer's concerns, what concerns were noted in the referral to secondary. It is not as if CBSA officers explain these things (oh, they will often offer some explanation for making this or that query, but they are usually careful not to divulge investigatory methods, not to divulge what factors trigger deeper inquiry, heightened scrutiny). Once in secondary a more thorough GCMS/FOSS query is run, with predictable implications (like a PR being identified as a person with PR status).
I don't know what is 'sly' about being informed (I would say in any freely governed state it is a right of civilians to know laws they are governed under and degree of transparency in society is how any state is measured against another, when we talk about freedoms and human rights versus tyranny, despotism, persecution of civilians and etc.) , but that set aside it should also be noted that the right to conceal internal investigative methods have been recognized by High Courts as meriting exemption, so there is no question as to legal grounds to keep what needs not to be known from becoming publicly known. There are indeed legitimate needs for this (to conceal the methods of obtaining intelligence, to conceal the sources/informants used, to prevent obstruction of justice that would result from not keeping secret certain methods of investigation and etc.).
But there are also some cases of incompetence (someone with over 869 days in Canada sent to secondary, reported and later forced to litigate in court the obvious), plain bias based on subjective criteria that has nothing to do with the justifiably secret 'methods of investigation' , and those causes also play role in at least some of the cases when one is sent to secondary inspection instead of being admitted from get-go as they should.
In any event none of the latter is applicable to OP , as in his case CBSA has been more generous than it could by (it's our assumption) admitting him in as Canadian PR without reporting him for breach of RO.
What effect his pending FSW will have in future remains to be seen.
P.S. NOTICE that the Title of thread is "Applying for PR when already a resident as thought it had expired...", which means it is of a real concern for OP, and I have not been 'wildly' or otherwise wandering off the topic when raising the question of pending FSW.
