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

[david1697]

As I am in the process of further studying the subject of 'Inadmissibility' and PR who is not in Compliance of Section A28, it turns out that indeed under Canadian Immigration Regulations one can be Inadmissible yet have a Right (and must be admitted) at the same time

This is so odd.... :-X ???


ENF 02 Section 11.8.
Non-compliance by permanent residents
A41: A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act
(b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection
A27(2) or section A28
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf02-eng.pdf

So, 'Inadmissible' PR has a Right to be Admitted? :-X ???

Though, as I said, I would not be totally surprised to discover such interpretation under the law, still, it takes some flexibility and stretch of mind to fully appreciate the concept.

Which, btw, implies that CBSA (since it has no discretion under Sec. 8.1 of ENF 05 to 'disregard inadmissibility') must examine the compliance of all PR's , to ensure it's not disregarding inadmissibility of those who are not compliant.

So, it's not then by discretion to not examine that PR's in breach of RO are ordinarily admitted, but its due to favorable discretion of CBSA and H&C considerations that many (if not most or all) of non-compliant PR's are able to make into Canada without being reported.
If PR is not examined for compliance, it's not a discretion that CBSA exercises , it's something else.

Should serve as a stern WARNING to all PR's outside of Canada who are not compliant with A28.

 

[Rob_TO]

Why do you think that withdrawal request can not lead to discovery of PR or even trigger greater scrutiny, leading to RO breach discovery?

Where did I ever say "can not"?? I thought I made it very clear, and even bolded in the quote you just used, that withdrawing the app makes possibility of PR discovery unknown (and IMO very unlikely, though as mentioned that is just my opinion).

And in playing the odds, "unknown" is better odds than "guaranteed" if you let the PR app continue.

I am not saying it will, I certainly don't know it. But what reason do you have to assert that it will not?

I am saying the odds are low because all references found in available CIC manuals and documentation, simply show the procedural steps required of a visa officer when someone withdraws an app. Steps are common across all immigration streams. In all cases there is only reference to database entries and closing out the file.

I personally won't be surprised if OP's petition had long been accepted and processing had already started , it doesn't take long for CIC to charge a card and begin processing of a file.

They may have, but as far as I know putting the payment through is one of the very first indications someone has begun review of file. Since OP mentioned his CC had not been charged yet, that would indicate processing most likely hasn't started yet. And again the earlier the app is withdrawn, the better chance it would be withdrawn before it's processed and PR status discovered.

Still, supposing they haven't started processing, how do you know what they do with the file before closing it?

Again CIC docs state standard procedural steps.

Look through all known documentation across all immigration streams and back through all previous revisions of manuals/bulletins. You will not find any reference that would indicate it's common practice to analyze applications that have been withdrawn before processing. There are references to files being kept in archives, but nothing suggesting they are routinely analyzed just because.

I am done looking for references that seem to not exist. CIC posts what they do, not what they don't do. So instead I would ask, please present ANY reference in CIC literature from ANY immigration stream (not even just to FSW), that actually states CIC would do anything except simply close out the file when an app is withdrawn.

The basic notation codes officers use are I think called "PSDEC" codes, so this along with searching for keyword "withdraw" is they main search criteria used in looking for references. Again not just sticking to FSW, but across other streams as well.

Yes I agree that there are some manuals that might not be available to the public, but if none of us have seen those then you can pretty much invent anything that you think CIC might do, and say it's possible. So until I see an actual case record or doc that states it, saying CIC will analyze a withdrawn app for no particular reason will remain your invention.

You can place whatever odds you like on it. Even assuming there's a 99% chance that upon withdrawing the app CIC will further analyze the application anyways.... that is still better odds vs the 100% chance that if you don't withdraw, the app will be analyzed under the basic process and PR status certainly discovered.
OP is currently in violation of RO and is subject to proceedings, but only under the following specific conditions:
1. His PR status must be discovered by CIC
2. The fact he doesn't meet RO must be discovered by CIC.

In order for 2. to happen, 1. must happen first. Right now neither 1. (assuming he wasn't reported for RO at POE, which seems the case) nor 2. has happened. If he proceeds with the FSW app 1. is guaranteed to happen. If he withdraws it, then even under assumption nobody knows what will happen, you must acknowledge that the odds are better than "guaranteed". What the actual chances are, is irrelevant.

What you should look for are spousal applications where PR didn't meet RO, tried to sponsor their spouse but withdrew application before processing took place. This will not tell you what will happen with FSW application, but at least it will show what action CIC took to pursue those who failed RO, who submitted sponsorship app, but who withdrew their application before it was processed by CIC.
Do you have any such case reference?

Only case I've seen is a sponsor being rejected for family class app due to not meeting RO.

And in cases where people have withdrawn apps, they often get confirmation that app is withdrawn and CIC has closed their file very quickly, often within a day or two. My personal feeling is that there is so much backlog inside CIC right now, that they would not waste time and resources (nor would taxpayers like their tax dollars going to) analyzing withdrawn apps. They would simply spend a few minutes closing them out, then going to the next app sitting in their pile.

 

[Rob_TO]

So, 'Inadmissible' PR has a Right to be Admitted? :-X ???

My interpretation is that all people with a "right" to enter Canada (citizens, PRs and registered indians), also have a "right" to due process and to appeal any decision made by someone at a POE.

So even if a PR is deemed inadmissible, they still have the "right" to enter Canada to appeal that decision.

If PR is not examined for compliance, it's not a discretion that CBSA exercises , it's something else

In many anecdotal cases it seems that sometimes CBSA officers simply don't care about checking for RO in the first place (so they don't even ask necessary questions to determine previous residence history), or even if a traveler admits they've been out the country way longer than RO would allow they simply let the person enter without reporting for no discernible reason. Could be either due to a personal lack of interest in enforcement on the part of the individual CBSA officer, maybe there's a long lineup and they don't want to do the paperwork to report RO, or perhaps they simply don't know the rules well enough they are supposed to follow. If the officer is newer on the job or not as experienced, it's quite reasonable that they wouldn't have the hundreds if not thousands of pages of procedures in their manuals memorized yet. One can only speculate what is actually going through the heads of any CBSA officer, or how they are actually trained on the issue.

 

[david1697]

Where did I ever say "can not"?? I thought I made it very clear, and even bolded in the quote you just used, that withdrawing the app makes possibility of PR discovery unknown (and IMO very unlikely, though as mentioned that is just my opinion).

And in playing the odds, "unknown" is better odds than "guaranteed" if you let the PR app continue.

I am saying the odds are low because all references found in available CIC manuals and documentation, simply show the procedural steps required of a visa officer when someone withdraws an app. Steps are common across all immigration streams. In all cases there is only reference to database entries and closing out the file.

They may have, but as far as I know putting the payment through is one of the very first indications someone has begun review of file. Since OP mentioned his CC had not been charged yet, that would indicate processing most likely hasn't started yet. And again the earlier the app is withdrawn, the better chance it would be withdrawn before it's processed and PR status discovered.

Again CIC docs state standard procedural steps.

Look through all known documentation across all immigration streams and back through all previous revisions of manuals/bulletins. You will not find any reference that would indicate it's common practice to analyze applications that have been withdrawn before processing. There are references to files being kept in archives, but nothing suggesting they are routinely analyzed just because.

I am done looking for references that seem to not exist. CIC posts what they do, not what they don't do. So instead I would ask, please present ANY reference in CIC literature from ANY immigration stream (not even just to FSW), that actually states CIC would do anything except simply close out the file when an app is withdrawn.

The basic notation codes officers use are I think called "PSDEC" codes, so this along with searching for keyword "withdraw" is they main search criteria used in looking for references. Again not just sticking to FSW, but across other streams as well.

Yes I agree that there are some manuals that might not be available to the public, but if none of us have seen those then you can pretty much invent anything that you think CIC might do, and say it's possible. So until I see an actual case record or doc that states it, saying CIC will analyze a withdrawn app for no particular reason will remain your invention.

You can place whatever odds you like on it. Even assuming there's a 99% chance that upon withdrawing the app CIC will further analyze the application anyways.... that is still better odds vs the 100% chance that if you don't withdraw, the app will be analyzed under the basic process and PR status certainly discovered.
OP is currently in violation of RO and is subject to proceedings, but only under the following specific conditions:
1. His PR status must be discovered by CIC
2. The fact he doesn't meet RO must be discovered by CIC.

In order for 2. to happen, 1. must happen first. Right now neither 1. (assuming he wasn't reported for RO at POE, which seems the case) nor 2. has happened. If he proceeds with the FSW app 1. is guaranteed to happen. If he withdraws it, then even under assumption nobody knows what will happen, you must acknowledge that the odds are better than "guaranteed". What the actual chances are, is irrelevant.


Only case I've seen is a sponsor being rejected for family class app due to not meeting RO.

And in cases where people have withdrawn apps, they often get confirmation that app is withdrawn and CIC has closed their file very quickly, often within a day or two. My personal feeling is that there is so much backlog inside CIC right now, that they would not waste time and resources (nor would taxpayers like their tax dollars going to) analyzing withdrawn apps. They would simply spend a few minutes closing them out, then going to the next app sitting in their pile.

As I said to you earlier, the only thing guaranteed is that FSW will be denied because OP is already a PR.

As to discovery of RO, it could happen either way: through discovery of PR in the course of processing of FSW application or through scrutiny placed on application due to the odd nature of withdrawal request (OP , who is PR, first paid fee and filed FSW and now requests withdrawal).
I personally don't know if either course of action will lead to discovery of RO, or play triggering role in discovery of RO.
It's possible that simple discovery of PR will lead to automatic denial of FSW without further inquiries,it's possible that discovery of PR in process of adjudicating FSW will lead to further inquiries into RO, it's also possible that request to withdraw from current PR may subject the application to more scrutiny than mere denial of FSW (again, due to unique nature of withdrawal), or, as you say, withdrawal of FSW may result in closure of application without any further action taken against , either way I don't know what will or will not happen.

Unlike you, I don't venture to predict odds of one or another outcome when I have no expertise or thorough knowledge of the subject I am talking about, hence I advised OP to consult a seasoned attorney.

I understand that you disagree and still insist on making odds and predictions as to what should be a preferable course of action for OP (withdrawal of FSW rather than just waiting a denial).



As to cases where app was withdrawn, what you should look for are cases where withdrawal was requested while sponsor was in breach of RO. What happened in those specific cases?
Are there other similar cases, where someone in breach of RO applied for Travel Document or PR Card Renewal and requested withdrawal of application before it was processed (or completed)? What happened to those applicants , not just any applicant who withdrew a petition?
Knowing the answer won't tel you what exactly will happen to FSW applicant with breach of RO if withdrawn, but at least it should tell you what happened to other people who withdrew the applications while in breach of RO.

 

[david1697]

My interpretation is that all people with a "right" to enter Canada (citizens, PRs and registered indians), also have a "right" to due process and to appeal any decision made by someone at a POE.

So even if a PR is deemed inadmissible, they still have the "right" to enter Canada to appeal that decision.

That there is a due process of law in Canada is self evident and is one of the reasons I said all along that if PR is in full compliance of all regulations, the arbitrary and capricious CBSA officer is the least problematic thing to deal with.

But how does the self evident existence of a due process of law in Canada (and the right to appeal) serve to interpret the language of law which places under "inadmissible" category those who have a right of admission regardless of breach?
While PR with breach of RO is indisputably removable (and removal proceedings can be initiated upon discovery of RO), it's confusing and hard to comprehend how could the same PR be also 'inadmissible', while entitled to admission by right?

Notice that I am not questioning rationale, nor due process of law.

It's the legal definition of the word which I wonder about.

 

[Rob_TO]

As to discovery of RO, it could happen either way: through discovery of PR in the course of processing of FSW application or through scrutiny placed on application due to the odd nature of withdrawal request (OP , who is PR, first paid fee and filed FSW and now requests withdrawal).

Only one of those ways is guaranteed to uncover PR status - continuing with PR app.

The suggestion that extra scrutiny is placed on withdraw requests, is purely a product of your own imagination.
Also OP mentioned he gave credit card info and fees have not been paid yet, not to mention CIC would refund fees paid if one withdraws FSW before processing begins, so him paying a fee seems irrelevant.

Even suggesting the withdraw request is "odd" or "unique" is your own invention. If CIC hasn't processed his app yet, then they do not know he's a PR. So when receiving his withdraw request, they will simply treat like any other of the thousands upon thousands of withdraw requests they get per year.

As to cases where app was withdrawn, what you should look for are cases where withdrawal was requested while sponsor was in breach of RO. What happened in those specific cases?
Are there other similar cases, where someone in breach of RO applied for Travel Document or PR Card Renewal and requested withdrawal of application before it was processed (or completed)? What happened to those applicants , not just any applicant who withdrew a petition?
Knowing the answer won't tel you what exactly will happen to FSW applicant with breach of RO if withdrawn, but at least it should tell you what happened to other people who withdrew the applications while in breach of RO.

I don't think you are understanding here, you can't search for something that doesn't exist. I've searched and found no cases or records of any such incidents where CIC does this extra investigation into withdrawn apps. You can't search for something that hasn't happened. And if PRs not meeting RO have indeed submitted/withdrawn apps, it didn't result in anything that went on any record (simply having an app withdrawn as requested, would not appear on any official records).

You are the one here suggesting all these "possibilities" of CIC seeing a withdraw request as odd/unique, and investigating into the matter further. However to this point you have not presented 1 single case record, or 1 single piece of wording from any CIC literature (from ANY immigration stream, not isolated to just FSW) that would suggest this is something CIC does. The onus is clearly on you to present something to base your suggestion on. If you can't, then it remains simply your own invention of how you think CIC works, not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

 

[david1697]

Only one of those ways is guaranteed to uncover PR status - continuing with PR app.

The suggestion that extra scrutiny is placed on withdraw requests, is purely a product of your own imagination.
Also OP mentioned he gave credit card info and fees have not been paid yet, not to mention CIC would refund fees paid if one withdraws FSW before processing begins, so him paying a fee seems irrelevant.

Even suggesting the withdraw request is "odd" or "unique" is your own invention. If CIC hasn't processed his app yet, then they do not know he's a PR. So when receiving his withdraw request, they will simply treat like any other of the thousands upon thousands of withdraw requests they get per year.

As I said to you earlier, the only thing guaranteed is that FSW will be denied because OP is already a PR.

As to discovery of RO, it could happen either way: through discovery of PR in the course of processing of FSW application or through scrutiny placed on application due to the odd nature of withdrawal request (OP , who is PR, first paid fee and filed FSW and now requests withdrawal).
I personally don't know if either course of action will lead to discovery of RO, or play triggering role in discovery of RO.
It's possible that simple discovery of PR will lead to automatic denial of FSW without further inquiries,it's possible that discovery of PR in process of adjudicating FSW will lead to further inquiries into RO, it's also possible that request to withdraw from current PR may subject the application to more scrutiny than mere denial of FSW (again, due to unique nature of withdrawal), or, as you say, withdrawal of FSW may result in closure of application without any further action taken against OP, either way I don't know what will or will not happen.

Unlike you, I don't venture to predict odds of one or another outcome when I have no expertise or thorough knowledge of the subject I am talking about, hence I advised OP to consult a seasoned attorney.

I understand that you disagree and still insist on making odds and predictions as to what should be a preferable course of action for OP (withdrawal of FSW rather than just waiting a denial).

I don't think you are understanding here, you can't search for something that doesn't exist. I've searched and found no cases or records of any such incidents where CIC does this extra investigation into withdrawn apps. You can't search for something that hasn't happened. And if PRs not meeting RO have indeed submitted/withdrawn apps, it didn't result in anything that went on any record (simply having an app withdrawn as requested, would not appear on any official records).

You are the one here suggesting all these "possibilities" of CIC seeing a withdraw request as odd/unique, and investigating into the matter further. However to this point you have not presented 1 single case record, or 1 single piece of wording from any CIC literature (from ANY immigration stream, not isolated to just FSW) that would suggest this is something CIC does. The onus is clearly on you to present something to base your suggestion on. If you can't, then it remains simply your own invention of how you think CIC works, not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

But I never asked you to specifically search for cases where CIC does extra investigation into withdrawn apps.

I know that OP is PR in breach of RO. I know that CIC , among other things, is an enforcement arm that has duty to enforce the immigration laws.
I know that OP sent FSW application to CIC which has evidence of RO breach, an application containing everything CIC may need to enforce A28. Beyond that, there is nothing I claim to know, as far as fate of OP and his FSW application are concerned.
As to the possibilities of one or another outcome, those are acknowledged even by yourself. But you claim to know more about the CIC processes and procedures and also assert greater or lesser odds of one or another outcome, based on taking one or another action (withdrawing FSW vs not withdrawing it).

I advised you that (in order to support your own claims and assertions) what you should search for are cases where someone in breach of RO (a removable PR) first filed some sort of an application (such as sponsorship, TD or renewal of PR card) ,and then requested withdrawal of the same application. What happened to those applicants, as opposed to just any applicant who filed a case and withdrawn it? This is a question I am asking, which (if you find proper answer) should help you to back up your own assertion and assumption.

I have no onus to speak of since I don't make a positive assertion. I have no obligation to prove non-existence. Since I said all along that I don't know what outcome will follow, there is no positive assertion I am obliged to substantiate.

You, on other end, make lots of assertions and suggestions based on your assumptions. Thus you are the one who is obliged to substantiate your assertions.

 

[Rob_TO]

I advised you that (in order to support your own claims and assertions) what you should search for are cases where someone in breach of RO (a removable PR) first filed some sort of an application (such as sponsorship, TD or renewal of PR card) ,and then requested withdrawal of the same application. What happened to those applicants, as opposed to just any applicant who filed a case and withdrawn it? This is a question I am asking, which (if you find proper answer) should help you to back up your own assertion and assumption.

The only time a "case" is officially recorded, is when an appeal or removal proceeding is done. So even if there are many cases of PRs who are unaware they are PR and don't meet RO (which is actually not uncommon), applying for something, and then withdrawing the app... if the app is simply withdrawn as it should be there will be no record of this occurrence. There will only be an official record if CIC actually investigated more and proceeded to revoke PR status and/or the PR then appealed it. However this situation does not exist in any records.

You have suggested that:
- withdrawing an app in this case before CIC has realized one is a PR, could be considered "odd" or "unique" to CIC, despite the fact multiple thousands of apps are withdrawn each year
- CIC could proceed to analyze an application further, before it had begun processing but after it was voluntarily withdrawn by applicant

BOTH of these suggestions are purely your own inventions. Neither are supported by any previous case records, in any immigration stream. Neither are supported by any procedures or language in any CIC documents, in any immigration stream. Neither are supported even by anecdotal (unofficial) cases.

So until you actually put forward some evidence to back up your suggestions, they will remain strictly products of your imagination, and there really isn't anything more to add here.

 

[david1697]

However this situation does not exist in any records.

What is the source of such boastful confidence you exhibit? How do you know for sure if such 'situation' exists or not?
Are you working within CIC and have access to such data ?
Is there any other source you can reference as the source that gives you grounds to make such categorical statement?

You have suggested that:
- withdrawing an app in this case before CIC has realized one is a PR, could be considered "odd" or "unique" to CIC, despite the fact multiple thousands of apps are withdrawn each year

I still maintain that for someone to be PR in breach of RO and file FSW is very unique (if not completely unheard of).
Now, for someone who is a PR in breach of RO to first file FSW and then proceed to withdraw it... how common is this?

- CIC could proceed to analyze an application further, before it had begun processing but after it was voluntarily withdrawn by applicant

All I know is that CIC is an enforcement arm (among others) and has duty to uphold the law. And within this context there is an OP who is indisputably removable PR in Canada, due to his breach of RO. And it's also beyond dispute that CIC has his FSW application which has all the information it needs to discover the breach of RO. Finally, no one disputes that FSW application itself is subject to inevitable denial if processed, because OP already holds PR status (thus ineligible to be granted PR status).
The rest (such as what CIC will do under what circumstances) is unknown.
I say it may or may not do anything it chooses to do. And you yourself don't deny the possibility.

BOTH of these suggestions are purely your own inventions.

CIC is an enforcement agency, among other things. That's not my invention.
OP claims to have submitted FSW application to CIC. That's not my invention.
OP is in breach of RO and thus removable (or 'inadmissible' as IRPA describes it). That's not my invention.
OP's FSW application is subject to inevitable denial if processed by CIC. That's not my invention.
OP's FSW application has all the needed evidence to discover RO breach. That's not my invention.
CIC may , as enforcement agency, do whatever it chooses to do with any information given to it. That's not my invention.
And I maintain all along that I don't know what CIC will do in regards to OP, no matter what OP does now.

So, what exactly is my invention?

Occasionally you repeat some of the phrases and arguments I use, but ultimately you do not understand the meaning or context of either.

So , amusingly, in this instance you end up making an invention of your own by claiming I invented something when facts stand to establish the contrary.

Neither are supported by any previous case records, in any immigration stream. Neither are supported by any procedures or language in any CIC documents, in any immigration stream. Neither are supported even by anecdotal (unofficial) cases.

See above.

So until you actually put forward some evidence to back up your suggestions, they will remain strictly products of your imagination, and there really isn't anything more to add here.

See above.

 

[Rob_TO]

What is the source of such boastful confidence you exhibit? How do you know for sure if such 'situation' exists or not?
Are you working within CIC and have access to such data ?
Is there any other source you can reference as the source that gives you grounds to make such categorical statement?

You are asking me to prove something does not exist, which is a logical impossibility.

YOU are the one making the suggestions, so YOU are the one that needs to do the research to prove what you are suggesting DOES exist. YOU find some actual reference in any CIC document out there or a past case, that shows what YOU are suggesting may happen is something more than a figment of your imagination.

Else by your logic one could invent any situation their imagination can come up with, and say it "might" have a chance of happening since you can't prove otherwise.

I still maintain that for someone to be PR in breach of RO and file FSW is very unique (if not completely unheard of).
Now, for someone who is a PR in breach of RO to first file FSW and then proceed to withdraw it... how common is this?

CIC doesn't know he is a PR yet (assuming he wasn't reported by CBSA and FSW app has not started processing which seems a safe assumption since his CC hasn't been charged and they have not notified him of ineligibility due to PR). They won't find that out until he actually has his FSW app processed.
So to CIC, this would simply be a case of someone withdrawing an application, which is quite common and not odd or unique at all. The quicker the app is withdrawn, the better chance of it happening before PR status is discovered.

All I know is that CIC is an enforcement arm (among others) and has duty to uphold the law. And within this context there is an OP who is indisputably removable PR in Canada, due to his breach of RO. And it's also beyond dispute that CIC has his FSW application which has all the information it needs to discover the breach of RO. Finally, no one disputes that FSW application itself is subject to inevitable denial if processed, because OP already holds PR status (thus ineligible to be granted PR status).
The rest (such as what CIC will do under what circumstances) is unknown.
I say it may or may not do anything it chooses to do. And you yourself don't deny the possibility.

And as was stated many times, the very first step required before CIC can do anything regarding RO, is actually discovering he's a PR. Something that is guaranteed to happen if FSW app is processed, but something that most likely will not happen if he simply withdraws the app.

CIC is an enforcement agency, among other things. That's not my invention.
OP claims to have submitted FSW application to CIC. That's not my invention.
OP is in breach of RO and thus removable (or 'inadmissible' as IRPA describes it). That's not my invention.
OP's FSW application is subject to inevitable denial if processed by CIC. That's not my invention.
OP's FSW application has all the needed evidence to discover RO breach. That's not my invention.
CIC may , as enforcement agency, do whatever it chooses to do with any information given to it. That's not my invention.
And I maintain all along that I don't know what CIC will do in regards to OP, no matter what OP does now.

So, what exactly is my invention?

Your inventions are:
- that withdrawing an app will be seen as odd or unique, when CIC doesn't even know he's a PR yet. In general NO documentation and NO case records support this.
- that CIC will even look through his app in detail once its voluntarily withdrawn. In general NO documentation and NO case records support this.

You still have not presented any evidence whatsoever that supports your specific suggestions here. All of what you listed above, are general terms and don't give any credence to your 2 inventions.

Imagine if anyone here could simply say "CIC can do whatever it chooses to do" and give advice based on that. Nobody could prove anyone wrong on anything, since CIC "could" technically do something even though there were no records of it and it didn't appear anywhere in the manuals. For me though, I'll stick with what has actually been seen in past cases or what is actually contained in CIC documents when looking at what is a plausible scenario, and what is not.

 

[david1697]

You are asking me to prove something does not exist, which is a logical impossibility.

YOU are the one making the suggestions, so YOU are the one that needs to do the research to prove what you are suggesting DOES exist. YOU find some actual reference in any CIC document out there or a past case, that shows what YOU are suggesting may happen is something more than a figment of your imagination.

Else by your logic one could invent any situation their imagination can come up with, and say it "might" have a chance of happening since you can't prove otherwise.

CIC doesn't know he is a PR yet (assuming he wasn't reported by CBSA and FSW app has not started processing which seems a safe assumption since his CC hasn't been charged and they have not notified him of ineligibility due to PR). They won't find that out until he actually has his FSW app processed.
So to CIC, this would simply be a case of someone withdrawing an application, which is quite common and not odd or unique at all. The quicker the app is withdrawn, the better chance of it happening before PR status is discovered.

And as was stated many times, the very first step required before CIC can do anything regarding RO, is actually discovering he's a PR. Something that is guaranteed to happen if FSW app is processed, but something that most likely will not happen if he simply withdraws the app.

Your inventions are:
- that withdrawing an app will be seen as odd or unique, when CIC doesn't even know he's a PR yet. In general NO documentation and NO case records support this.
- that CIC will even look through his app in detail once its voluntarily withdrawn. In general NO documentation and NO case records support this.

You still have not presented any evidence whatsoever that supports your specific suggestions here. All of what you listed above, are general terms and don't give any credence to your 2 inventions.

Imagine if anyone here could simply say "CIC can do whatever it chooses to do" and give advice based on that. Nobody could prove anyone wrong on anything, since CIC "could" technically do something even though there were no records of it and it didn't appear anywhere in the manuals. For me though, I'll stick with what has actually been seen in past cases or what is actually contained in CIC documents when looking at what is a plausible scenario, and what is not.

Rob,

The real issue here is not OP ,complexity of his case or anything that is being debated.

The thing is, you have to learn the rules of argument, you have to understand what the logical fallacy is and you have to base your own arguments according to set rules of argument.You also should learn how to properly read the sentences and how to properly discern their meanings.
You should not be arguing for the sake of arguing per se.

You can post the same set of arguments that are infused with logical fallacy, misunderstanding of the subject and false claims and I can continue to rebut those, and it can go on ad infinitum.

At some point you have to realize that it is in your best interest to learn the rules of argument, get better grasp of the subject you wish to debate and avoid giving legal advise to unsuspecting readers who may follow it and end up paying an ultimate price (such as when you advise them to misrepresent their cases and tell lies to CBSA at POE and etc.).

Have a great day and the rest of the week

 

[Rob_TO]

Rob,

The real issue here is not OP ,complexity of his case or anything that is being debated.

The thing is, you have to learn the rules of argument, you have to understand what the logical fallacy is and you have to base your own arguments according to set rules of argument.You also should learn how to properly read the sentences and how to properly discern their meanings.
You should not be arguing for the sake of arguing per se.

You can post the same set of arguments that are infused with logical fallacy, misunderstanding of the subject and false claims and I can continue to rebut those, and it can go on ad infinitum.

I would say the exact same to you. So will just leave the entire discussion there, unless you can come up with some literature or case records that can back up your specific suggestions.

At some point you have to realize that it is in your best interest to learn the rules of argument, get better grasp of the subject you wish to debate and avoid giving legal advise to unsuspecting readers who may follow it and end up paying an ultimate price (such as when you advise them to misrepresent their cases and tell lies to CBSA at POE and etc.).

I have never claimed by advice is legal advice. It's simply advice, of which my reasoning is explained in great detail.

Also I have never advised people to lie to CBSA. I have only given advice on this to not offer information not specifically asked for, and to be vague in possibly sensitive areas such as "intent" after one enters Canada.

If you actually spend some time reading the family class or visitors section of this forum, you will see that how people display "intent" at POEs is a very grey area, and while never flat out lying there are MANY things that visitors do that follow my (and pretty much every other senior members) advice on the topic. i.e. entering as a visitor that intends to apply for inland PR so has zero intention of leaving, yet showing the CBSA officer a return airplane ticket they never intend to use, or other items to prove they will be leaving when in fact they won't be. All perfectly acceptable (and often required if they don't want to be denied entry), yet i'm sure according to you would be misrepresentation and you would advise against. Problem is you can't always go strictly by the book in some areas, as is evident by thousands of people that have actually gone through the process.

 

[david1697]

while never flat out lying there are MANY things that visitors do that follow my.....advice on the topic. i.e. entering as a visitor that intends to apply for inland PR so has zero intention of leaving, yet showing the CBSA officer a return airplane ticket they never intend to use, or other items to prove they will be leaving when in fact they won't be. All perfectly acceptable..

You should stop advising people how to lie and misrepresent facts to CBSA

 

[Rob_TO]

You should stop advising people how to lie and misrepresent facts to CBSA

And you should learn how things actually happen in reality. What i just stated, is common place and has been for years when it comes to the issue of intent.

You should read the family class and visitors forum. You'll have a field day telling everyone how wrong they are about everything, as every single post on this topic from other posters reflect what I've just said.

 

[david1697]

And you should learn how things actually happen in reality. What i just stated, is common place and has been for years when it comes to the issue of intent.

You should read the family class and visitors forum. You'll have a field day telling everyone how wrong they are about everything, as every single post on this topic from other posters reflect what I've just said.

In reality many people drink and then drive, and commit other serious offenses.

It gives no grounds to say "since so many people drink and drive this is a part of reality, so I will go ahead and advise other people to drink and drive as well".

Misrepresentation and lying to CBSA is misrepresentation and lying , no matter how many people do it and get away with it.