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

[david1697]

If you take the time to read all the historical posts of people from this site, and some other immigration sites, you'll quickly add up to hundreds of people that have been admitted without being reported even though in violation of RO.

My point remains, whether at the discretion of CBSA or a CIC VO, there is no mandatory rule that says someone must be investigated even if it's determined they don't meet RO, and it seems Canada does not put a lot of emphasis on revoking PRs those that don't meet RO.


Because once a VO sees he is a PR and declares him ineligible for FSW, there is no required duty of that VO to then continue investigation of the applicant to check their RO. That would be done purely at the whim of the VO, if they cared to do it. And while some VOs may like to play Sherlock Holmes and get to the bottom of this, others will simply not care why applicants do what they do, they will only be interested in moving on to the next FSW application in their pile. Like many CBSA officers, many VOs also simply won't care.

Not unreasonable at all, as we have also seen many cases when applicants get their PR through any of the streams, but then when they try to sponsor a family member themselves for PR there is a material fact discovered in their original PR application that wasn't true (such as declaring all family members) and even though there was clear misrepresentation CIC makes no effort to revoke the original PR.

What's unreasonable is pretending to have any real insight into what a VO would do, seeing as there are lots of examples around of them doing both ways.

On the contrary, there are safe and riskier aspects to either decision, so seeing the potential things that could happen (even if speculative) could help OP decide which decision would carry less risk or be better in their situation.

Your claim that CIC is lax about RO violation is not grounded in reality.

I don't debate the fact that CBSA has discretion not to prosecute RO violation, nor I deny there are cases where people who found to be in violation of RO are let go by CBSA.
But it is a dangerously misleading statement to suggest that CBSA or CIC doesn't put effort to find and strip of status violators.
We all remember number of news releases, especially in 2011 and 2012, that dealt with Canadian Immigrants who falsified their residency to maintain their PR status. The big scandal with immigration consultants and change of Citizenship law was in part caused by massive fraud cases reported in media, all involving false residency claims in Canada.
CBSA may admit some RO violators upon its' sole discretion, but make no mistake about it: they have directives to remove or keep out of Canada those who fail the RO.

The rest of your post I will not comment, because it's going in circles and I have addressed those points repeatedly.

Have a good one Rob.

 

[Rob_TO]

Your claim that CIC is lax about RO violation is not grounded in reality.

I don't debate the fact that CBSA has discretion not to prosecute RO violation, nor I deny there are cases where people who found to be in violation of RO are let go by CBSA.
But it is a dangerously misleading statement to suggest that CBSA or CIC doesn't put effort to find and strip of status violators.
We all remember number of news releases, especially in 2011 and 2012, that dealt with Canadian Immigrants who falsified their residency to maintain their PR status. The big scandal with immigration consultants and change of Citizenship law was in part caused by massive fraud cases reported in media, all involving false residency claims in Canada.
CBSA may admit some RO violators upon its' sole discretion, but make no mistake about it: they have directives to remove or keep out of Canada those who fail the RO.

The rest of your post I will not comment, because it's going in circles and I have addressed those points repeatedly.

Have a good one Rob.

The fact that CBSA allows anyone not meeting RO and with no strong H&C reasons to enter Canada without reporting them, shows they and CIC (who is fully aware on what CBSA is doing) are lax about it in general. It's not a CBSA officer's job to decide on whether PR status should be revoked or not. The main job of CBSA in this case should be to report the person in all cases with no h&c element, allow them entry into Canada as a PR, and CIC will follow up with a hearing to determine their PR fate. At least this is what would happen if CIC was actually serious about enforcing the RO rules, yet they turn a blind eye to what CBSA is actually doing.

Oh and someone falsifying residency in a PR renewal application is pure misrepresentation and fraud. And all misrepresentation in any immigration application should be enforced as such, no matter if it's for RO or some other issue. You can't compare that to a PR not meeting RO being honest with a CBSA officer, yet still being allowed into Canada without being reported to CIC.

As to the rest you have only addressed it via your personal opinion and the assumption a VO will perform tasks not dictated in their manual or operating procedure, so yes the discussion will end there. In the end both options discussed have a possibility of happening.

 

[yazmost]

Just to make it clear. It's very rare that VO will report any PR who didn't meet RO at port of entry especially at a border line not in the air port. I had that my self and came to Canada 6 months before my PR expires and wasn't questioned almost at all...... my wife wasn't even asked what's your name! I have been in Canada now for 2 years and 2 months straight without going out of Canada for an hour since my PR is already expired on April 2013! DO YOU GUYS THINK IT'S SAFE NOW TO START THE PROCESS OF RENEWING? You think CIC won't consider my RO for the first 5 years? Please let me know if you have experience about it.


Thanks

 

[MarioYYZ]

Just to make it clear. It's very rare that VO will report any PR who didn't meet RO at port of entry especially at a border line not in the air port. I had that my self and came to Canada 6 months before my PR expires and wasn't questioned almost at all...... my wife wasn't even asked what's your name! I have been in Canada now for 2 years and 2 months straight without going out of Canada for an hour since my PR is already expired on April 2013! DO YOU GUYS THINK IT'S SAFE NOW TO START THE PROCESS OF RENEWING? You think CIC won't consider my RO for the first 5 years? Please let me know if you have experience about it.


Thanks

The first 5 years you mention are irrelevant. They look at the 5 years preceding the date you sign your renewal application.
You've "done your time". You are eligible to apply.

 

[david1697]

The fact that CBSA allows anyone not meeting RO and with no strong H&C reasons to enter Canada without reporting them, shows they and CIC (who is fully aware on what CBSA is doing) are lax about it in general.

No, it only shows that CBSA officer has a prosecutorial discretion, a choice to prosecute or not prosecute for RO violation.
In no way it serves to show that CBSA is lax about it in general.

It's not a CBSA officer's job to decide on whether PR status should be revoked or not. The main job of CBSA in this case should be to report the person in all cases with no h&c element, allow them entry into Canada as a PR, and CIC will follow up with a hearing to determine their PR fate. At least this is what would happen if CIC was actually serious about enforcing the RO rules, yet they turn a blind eye to what CBSA is actually doing.

Nobody argued that CBSA per se has power to revoke PR status, although the direct effect of the action of CBSA on RO violation is revocation of PR status , unless one can win appeal under H&C or other exceptions.
If there are valid grounds to revoke PR, PR will ultimately be revoked. The mechanism of "reporting" , entitling PR to enter Canada and allowing for appeal is to ensure due process of law.
What is not clear is why you bring this procedural debate into conversation, as if anyone disputed obvious.

Oh and someone falsifying residency in a PR renewal application is pure misrepresentation and fraud. And all misrepresentation in any immigration application should be enforced as such, no matter if it's for RO or some other issue. You can't compare that to a PR not meeting RO being honest with a CBSA officer, yet still being allowed into Canada without being reported to CIC.

I am not comparing, I just brought to your attention the fact that RO violation had recently been highlighted in media in connection with Citizenship and Residency Fraud. If you disagree with the fact that those things are brought up and mixed together in media, you may express your protest to media outlets as well as to Immigration Minister of Canada. I don't decide those things, I just let you know that RO is looked at and enforced by CIC in the context of other immigration violations.

I personally don't like it (by "it" I mean the hype around PR RO), I believe someone merely staying outside of Canada or even ending up abandoning PR has nothing to do with violating Canadian laws, and I don't approve of media coverage that mixes those who commit fraud and crime with those who simply stay out of Canada without resorting to residency falsification.
But regardless of what I approve or disagree with, failing to meet the RO obligations are placed on forefront of CIC enforcement priority list and anyone who is found to have failed the RO is at great risk and peril of loosing a PR.
Of course, not doing any crime will totally absolve one of criminal charges, however , being that RO violations are taken so seriously and associated with criminal violations,it will often subject violators to extensive scrutiny by any CBSA/CIC officer who shares the sentiments expressed by the media.

As to the rest you have only addressed it via your personal opinion and the assumption a VO will perform tasks not dictated in their manual or operating procedure, so yes the discussion will end there. In the end both options discussed have a possibility of happening.

No, you are wrong, not everything I stated is just my opinion. Some are hard facts based on hard evidence. It's a fact that failure to meet RO can result in CBSA report at the port of entry. It's a fact that one who is reported and has no valid argument to justify stay abroad will be stripped of PR status and ordered deported. It's a fact, not my opinion, that Immigration Officers have a duty to check the RO against ENF 23 when immigrant applies for benefit, such as admission to Canada or Travel Document or Renewal of PR Card and etc.

As far as what will happen or will not happen, neither of us is a Nostradamus (I know I am not), and no one can know with certainty what will happen in future, especially when we have so little knowledge of the case as one presented by OP.

But you are giving a dangerously misleading advise when you tell people that CIC or CBSA couldn't care less about RO violations and that they are safe and sound and secure with retention of their PR status, just because you assume CBSA/CIC couldn't care less about enforcing RO violations.

 

[Rob_TO]

No, it only shows that CBSA officer has a prosecutorial discretion, a choice to prosecute or not prosecute for RO violation.
In no way it serves to show that CBSA is lax about it in general.

Yes and that "choice" or "discretion" is often a complete joke. If Canada was serious about enforcing RO they would actually dictate under what grounds a CBSA officer could make this "choice", but in tons of cases they allow people in who blatantly don't meet RO and have zero H&C reasons.

The way this "choice" and "discretion" is actually being used in reality is what makes it lax in general around enforcing RO here.

If there are valid grounds to revoke PR, PR will ultimately be revoked. The mechanism of "reporting" , entitling PR to enter Canada and allowing for appeal is to ensure due process of law.
What is not clear is why you bring this procedural debate into conversation, as if anyone disputed obvious.

Because you don't seem to grasp the fact that this "reporting" is critical to enforcement of RO, and that in reality CBSA/CIC choose to "report" sporadically and not consistently, even if there are valid grounds to report it.

I am not comparing, I just brought to your attention the fact that RO violation had recently been highlighted in media in connection with Citizenship and Residency Fraud. If you disagree with the fact that those things are brought up and mixed together in media, you may express your protest to media outlets as well as to Immigration Minister of Canada. I don't decide those things, I just let you know that RO is looked at and enforced by CIC in the context of other immigration violations.

I should clarify then and say Canada is lax about enforcing RO in cases when PRs don't meet RO and present themselves at a POE, or in other words any case when a PR is not actually applying to renew their PR card during which time a full residency exam should be done as due process.

No, you are wrong, not everything I stated is just my opinion. Some are hard facts based on hard evidence. It's a fact that failure to meet RO can result in CBSA report at the port of entry. It's a fact that one who is reported and has no valid argument to justify stay abroad will be stripped of PR status and ordered deported.

Yes that's all true and i've never disagreed to that, and will always advise people of the risks of travelling back to Canada without meeting RO.

It's a fact, not my opinion, that Immigration Officers have a duty to check the RO against ENF 23 when immigrant applies for benefit, such as admission to Canada or Travel Document or Renewal of PR Card and etc.

That's great, but this specific case in someone applying for FSW, where checking ENF23 is most definitely NOT standard practice. Unless you've since found the entry in the manuals that shows an officer will do this. If not, then yes it's just your opinion in this case.

Also there has been another case on this site where someone who thought they were no longer a PR (but actually were) applied for a regular TRV back to Canada. The TRV visa officer simply told them they were a PR, and should apply for a PRTD instead. Of course if they applied for PRTD at that time the RO would be brought into issue, but it was obvious the TRV VO did no such investigation into their RO.

But you are giving a dangerously misleading advise when you tell people that CIC or CBSA couldn't care less about RO violations and that they are safe and sound and secure with retention of their PR status, just because you assume CBSA/CIC couldn't care less about enforcing RO violations.

I've never once said people are "safe and sound". You seem to be just making up things now.

I said in general Canada is lax about enforcement. Lax doesn't mean non-existent. Risk will always be there.

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. So my advice is always for someone to understand the risks they are taking, but to also know what has happened historically with people in the same situation. Heck personally I know 1 person who doesn't meet RO yet has left and returned to Canada 3 separate times now without being bothered by CBSA at all on the topic.

 

[Dandandandan]

Thanks for the responses, I think the fact you two are having such a big debate over the issue highlights that this is an unusual case and there is nothing that really tells us what exactly will happen... Yes, at the time i came through I probably should have renounced the status and continued with my original plan and/or got advice from an attorney before doing anything but all I really knew about my PR status was information I'd been told by my parents so was caught a little off guard when I was told I was still a PR.

To give a bit more information; I believe I was let in as a PR as that has been written and initialled on my passport stamp. I don't think I was reported as the officer did not mention that (is there any way of knowing for sure i.e. would I have had to sign something or is it just a case of a letter turning up at the address i gave?).

I do have a SIN and a bank account as I have previously worked summer holidays here and from looking at the Service Ontario website I don't think I should have too much trouble swapping my driving license over or registering for OHIP (if this is incorrect please let me know).

In terms of the 2 years in Canada, that for me is not a problem as my family and my girlfriend are now here. If anything I would rather be here unable to leave than be in the UK waiting for paperwork to come through (hence I was hoping to get a work and travel visa so i could stay).

Finally, strength of my FSW application; I obviously don't have any experience in what counts as 'strong' or not but I would like to think it is a strong one else I would not have applied (Mechanical Engineer, 3 years experience, masters degree, family who are citizens and native English speaker).

There is obviously no clear choice so I need to weigh this up carefully before deciding. Couple of questions to help with this are:

How long does it usually take to surrender PR status? I don't want to end up in the situation where my FSW app gets/has already rejected due to having PR status then give up the one I have...

How quickly do they withdraw PR applications once an instruction is received? I agree that a sudden withdrawal of an application that is already being processed where the person being looked at has questionable PR status will look suspicious so would not want that to happen either...

Lastly, what are the implications of having PR involuntarily revoked? Is it simply that I would become a temporary resident or are there further repercussions?

If anyone is able to answer those questions or offer any further thoughts please do. If not, thanks anyway, I'll keep you posted as to what happens.

Cheers

 

[david1697]

Yes and that "choice" or "discretion" is often a complete joke. If Canada was serious about enforcing RO they would actually dictate under what grounds a CBSA officer could make this "choice", but in tons of cases they allow people in who blatantly don't meet RO and have zero H&C reasons.

The way this "choice" and "discretion" is actually being used in reality is what makes it lax in general around enforcing RO here.

Because you don't seem to grasp the fact that this "reporting" is critical to enforcement of RO, and that in reality CBSA/CIC choose to "report" sporadically and not consistently, even if there are valid grounds to report it.

I should clarify then and say Canada is lax about enforcing RO in cases when PRs don't meet RO and present themselves at a POE, or in other words any case when a PR is not actually applying to renew their PR card during which time a full residency exam should be done as due process.

Yes that's all true and i've never disagreed to that, and will always advise people of the risks of travelling back to Canada without meeting RO.

That's great, but this specific case in someone applying for FSW, where checking ENF23 is most definitely NOT standard practice. Unless you've since found the entry in the manuals that shows an officer will do this. If not, then yes it's just your opinion in this case.

Also there has been another case on this site where someone who thought they were no longer a PR (but actually were) applied for a regular TRV back to Canada. The TRV visa officer simply told them they were a PR, and should apply for a PRTD instead. Of course if they applied for PRTD at that time the RO would be brought into issue, but it was obvious the TRV VO did no such investigation into their RO.

I've never once said people are "safe and sound". You seem to be just making up things now.

I said in general Canada is lax about enforcement. Lax doesn't mean non-existent. Risk will always be there.

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. So my advice is always for someone to understand the risks they are taking, but to also know what has happened historically with people in the same situation. Heck personally I know 1 person who doesn't meet RO yet has left and returned to Canada 3 separate times now without being bothered by CBSA at all on the topic.

Rob,

Either you don't know what "Prosecutorial Discretion" is and how it's exercised, or else you are trolling me.
Either way I will not repeat what I have already and clearly stated.

As to "practical" knowledge, I have not seen the statistics of number of people who failed RO yet were let into Canada by CBSA without being reported. Unless you have that statistical information and post it, all you say is a pure assumption based on a hearsay.
You don't know what percentage of people who successfully cross Canadian border with failed RO post on canadavisa.com, nor do you know what percentage shares negative experiences here. You may also have cognitive bias, because since I have been on this forum and other forums I can't recall "hundreds" of posters who sailed through CBSA with failed RO, but I have seen plenty of posts from desperate immigrants who failed RO, got caught and were pleading for help to avoid deportation.
In any event hearsay and random posts by visitors of a public forum can hardly be a source of "practical" knowledge to calculate probabilities.
But existing laws in ENF 23 and directives to enforce them are a clear warning to immigrants about practically existing risks.

 

[david1697]

To OP:

I really don't know what will happen with your FSW app and your current PR status.
If I were you I would consult a seasoned immigration attorney in Canada.

Good luck!

 

[Rob_TO]

Either you don't know what "Prosecutorial Discretion" is and how it's exercised, or else you are trolling me.

Sorry but you are the one that seems to take why I say and twist the words around.
Again, you can stick to your theoretical knowledge of how things should work. If you look at what happens in reality, the "Prosecutorial Discretion" CBSA goes through, though a perfectly legal and acceptable process, is quite often non-existant (they don't even bother to ask about residence history) or incredibly lax even when they do find out.

because since I have been on this forum and other forums I can't recall "hundreds" of posters who sailed through CBSA with failed RO, but I have seen plenty of posts from desperate immigrants who failed RO, got caught and were pleading for help to avoid deportation.

I see you have been on this site a whole few months. After reading people's actual stories for a couple years, then perhaps you'll see the incredible number of people who enter Canada no problem without meeting RO. Seems to happen more often than people being caught, and many others agree with this.

 

[Rob_TO]

I do have a SIN and a bank account as I have previously worked summer holidays here and from looking at the Service Ontario website I don't think I should have too much trouble swapping my driving license over or registering for OHIP (if this is incorrect please let me know).

I believe you can just use your previous SIN, as long as it was the permanent SIN you got after landing as PR and not under some temporary worker previous to that.

For OHIP, see here: http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/FormDetail?openform&ENV=WWE&NO=014-9998E-82
For the "List 1" proof You need to show either:
- COPR
- PR card expired not more than 5 years

So perhaps it's ok to apply with your expired PR card. If you still have your COPR, I would bring both. I'm not sure how Service Ontario checks if someone with an expired PR card, is still actually a PR or not?

How long does it usually take to surrender PR status? I don't want to end up in the situation where my FSW app gets/has already rejected due to having PR status then give up the one I have...

Not sure how long any necessary paperwork would take to get you off the system as a PR.

How quickly do they withdraw PR applications once an instruction is received? I agree that a sudden withdrawal of an application that is already being processed where the person being looked at has questionable PR status will look suspicious so would not want that to happen either...

In general a withdrawal of an application is not unusual. People withdraw their PR app across all the various streams, for any personal reason you could think of.

In family class apps, I've seen apps withdrawn almost immediately (within a day or 2) of the request being made. CIC sends a confirmation letter that the app was withdrawn, and after that CIC should not even look at the app again. But I have no idea if this would be different for FSW apps.

Lastly, what are the implications of having PR involuntarily revoked? Is it simply that I would become a temporary resident or are there further repercussions?

In general the implications are the same if it happens voluntarily or involuntarily. You would lose your ability to work, and would need to get proper visitor (or other) status if you wished to remain in Canada.

Perhaps involuntary vs voluntary could have an impact on if CIC/CBSA grants you proper visitor status. If CIC revokes your status, I can see them or CBSA being more reluctant to give you a new 6-months visitor status here whether you apply online or try leaving/re-entering Canada on your visa-exempt passport.

Best to see if you can find posts of people that had their PRs revoked due to not meeting RO, and see their experiences on staying in or re-entering Canada as visitors afterwards.

Unfortunately not a lot of solid answers here. Your case is indeed very unique, so these are just educated guesses on what could possibly happen. If you don't mind staying in Canada 2 straight years without leaving, and CBSA didn't report you for RO, cancelling your FSW app immediately then just laying low for 2 years does seem the safest option.

 

[david1697]

Sorry but you are the one that seems to take why I say and twist the words around.
Again, you can stick to your theoretical knowledge of how things should work. If you look at what happens in reality, the "Prosecutorial Discretion" CBSA goes through, though a perfectly legal and acceptable process, is quite often non-existant (they don't even bother to ask about residence history) or incredibly lax even when they do find out.

I see you have been on this site a whole few months. After reading people's actual stories for a couple years, then perhaps you'll see the incredible number of people who enter Canada no problem without meeting RO. Seems to happen more often than people being caught, and many others agree with this.

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? :

 

[dpenabill]

It is unfortunate that the OP's query has been diverted by an ongoing debate, which has been rehashed repeatedly elsewhere, which is of little relevance to the OP's situation and a distraction. (I will, nonetheless, offer this sidebar: assertions that CBSA does not routinely enforce the PR Residency Obligation for returning PRs clearly in breach of the RO is akin to saying that because many drunk drivers make it home, and are not arrested and prosecuted, law enforcement typically does not bring charges against a driver who appears to be impaired . . . big difference, though, is that these days the POE amounts to there being the equivalent of a roadside check on most roads most nights . . . big clue: if a law enforcement officer has contact with an impaired driver, the odds are very high there will be an arrest and prosecution, no matter how many times drunk drivers get away with it.)

This means I am now in the country as a resident(?) but obviously my PR card has now expired. My understanding is if I stay here for the 730 days I could renew my PR card(?) but my main questions are, what happens when Immigration Canada go to process an application for PR for someone who already has PR status? And, am I able to get a job if I have an expired PR card? As it is not really feasible (or sensible) to stay here for 2 years and not work.

Effectively what I'm asking is, would it be better to remain here for 2 years to renew the PR card (if that is an option) or to revoke the current PR status and carry on with the original (and somewhat risky) plan.

Thanks for the responses, I think the fact you two are having such a big debate over the issue highlights that this is an unusual case and there is nothing that really tells us what exactly will happen... Yes, at the time i came through I probably should have renounced the status and continued with my original plan and/or got advice from an attorney before doing anything but all I really knew about my PR status was information I'd been told by my parents so was caught a little off guard when I was told I was still a PR.

To give a bit more information; I believe I was let in as a PR as that has been written and initialled on my passport stamp. I don't think I was reported as the officer did not mention that (is there any way of knowing for sure i.e. would I have had to sign something or is it just a case of a letter turning up at the address i gave?).

I do have a SIN and a bank account as I have previously worked summer holidays here and from looking at the Service Ontario website I don't think I should have too much trouble swapping my driving license over or registering for OHIP (if this is incorrect please let me know).

In terms of the 2 years in Canada, that for me is not a problem as my family and my girlfriend are now here. If anything I would rather be here unable to leave than be in the UK waiting for paperwork to come through (hence I was hoping to get a work and travel visa so i could stay).

There is obviously no clear choice so I need to weigh this up carefully before deciding.

My impression is that your situation is not all that complicated, not particularly difficult, and your best course of action is to simply stay, go to work in Canada, and after you have been here for more than 730 days within the preceding five years, apply for a new PR card.

That impression is, of course, contingent on CIC not pursuing removal proceedings. We can speculate for days and weeks about whether or not CIC will investigate and pursue formal proceedings to determine if you are inadmissible, due to a breach of the PR Residency Obligation. No one here can definitively say you will or you will not be subjected to such a process.

My impression is that the odds lean in your favour at this point, against CIC pursuing removal proceedings, and moreover that even if CIC does investigate and conduct a residency examination, you have good odds of avoiding loss of PR status on the basis of H&C grounds. Not because CIC is lax about enforcing the PR Residency Obligation (there are strong indicators to the contrary), but because your circumstances appear to fit into the scope of discretion for, essentially, waiving the breach.

In other words, there really is a fairly clear choice, if you want to preserve your Canadian PR status, stay, work, live a normal life in Canada, and when you clearly are in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, apply for a PR card.

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.



In the meantime:

In the meantime, you are still a Permanent Resident. You are alive, not a Canadian citizen, there is no enforceable Removal Order, and you have not surrendered your PR status, therefore you are still a PR -- once a PR always a PR until death, becoming a Canadian citizen, adjudicated loss of PR status, or PR status is voluntarily and formally (in writing) surrendered.

As a PR you have status to legally work in Canada. And, you have a VIN, thus there should be no impediments to working in Canada. (Employers may require you to present your VIN card; copy can be obtained if you have lost this.)

I do not know how difficult it might be to obtain OHIP coverage. My understanding is that if it is a first time application, a valid PR card is ordinarily required. If you had OHIP previously, and are applying to reinstate insurance based on re-establishing residence, perhaps you will only need to prove identity and residence (not status), I do not know. In any event, obviously the extent to which this is a problem is dependent on personal circumstances. (I went for years without health insurance, essentially self-insured, and even had surgery during that time which I had to pay out-of-pocket, including a substantial deposit upfront . . . but of course going uninsured is a risk, and for some not practically feasible.)

I am not sure, either, about how difficult it might be to obtain an Ontario drivers' license. The CoPR may be sufficient to show status for purposes of a drivers' license (my impression is that OHIP is tougher in this respect).

Additionally the CoPR and cancelled visa in the passport used at the time of landing may be sufficient proof of status in some circumstances.


Overall:

Overall, again, the main thing is that unless CIC investigates and issues a Removal Order, your PR status is intact, you can stay and work. Even if CIC investigates and you are subject to a Residency Examination, it appears you have a good case for CIC to favourably exercise its discretion based on H&C grounds.



Note regarding H&C grounds:

There is often some confusion about what is relevant to H&C determinations. For example, in the context of PRs who have failed to meet the obligation to be in Canada for 730 days within five years, some participants in this forum assert that being abroad to attend school is not considered in the H&C assessment. This is patently not accurate relative to a determination that may lead to a loss of PR status.

What constitutes "H&C grounds" in other contexts is, in many respects, similar or even the same in the context of determining whether a PR's breach of the Residency Obligation should result in the loss of PR status, and thus factors related to unusual and undeserved hardship, or disproportionate hardship, loom large. BUT in the specific context of determining loss of PR status, the H&C assessment is substantially broader.

In particular, while there are formal guidelines prescribing specific factors which MUST be considered in evaluating H&C grounds (most of which are similar to consideration of H&C factors in other contexts), overall the guidelines for determinations as to loss of PR status also provides the following:

The range of factors to be considered should not be restricted by these guidelines. Officers are obliged to consider all the information presented by a permanent resident.

H&C factors must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Permanent residents are free to make submissions on any aspect of their personal circumstances that they feel would warrant retention of their permanent resident status.

For a thorough outline of what is considered in evaluating H&C grounds in a determination which may result in loss of PR status, see ENF 23 Loss of Permanent Resident Status, section 7.7 beginning on page 19 in particular. Note, CIC is migrating to a different format for sharing information of this sort, and sometime in the near future the operational manuals will not be available (many are already gone, such as most of those regarding citizenship). While these manuals will no longer be valid, technically they have not been formally binding all along and thus have been just guidelines; they will continue to be a valuable resource illuminating internal practices and policies at CIC, subject to changes of course. Thus, nonetheless, to the extent they are consistent with the formal statutory provisions and adopted regulations, they will continue to illuminate important aspects of internal CIC processing practices. Thus, it may be worth saving a copy of this particular pdf for future reference (the availability of this manual online may disappear any day).

 

[dpenabill]

Additional note: I did not go into much detail about the specific factors tending to support a favourable H&C assessment in your case. Frankly, there is little need to do so at this stage. Only if you are contacted by CIC, and CIC is pursuing a Residency Examination, will you need to articulate and document the various factors to be considered in assessing whether you should lose PR status or be allowed to retain PR status.

That is, again, at this point, with no indication there are any removal proceedings initiated, just stay, work, and live the normal life of a PR in Canada. That is, after all, your status, you are one more PR among hundreds of thousands of other PRs in Canada.

If CIC does initiate proceedings and conducts a Residency Examination, best to see a lawyer, but in any event that is when you will want to focus on compiling all the positive, supporting information and documentation you can.

By the way, you could at least consult with a lawyer for little more than what it would cost to make a new PR application. No reason to do this unless, until, again, you are contacted by CIC and CIC is pursuing a Residency Examination.

 

[david1697]

It is unfortunate that the OP's query has been diverted by an ongoing debate, which has been rehashed repeatedly elsewhere, which is of little relevance to the OP's situation and a distraction. (I will, nonetheless, offer this sidebar: assertions that CBSA does not routinely enforce the PR Residency Obligation for returning PRs clearly in breach of the RO is akin to saying that because many drunk drivers make it home, and are not arrested and prosecuted, law enforcement typically does not bring charges against a driver who appears to be impaired . . . big difference, though, is that these days the POE amounts to there being the equivalent of a roadside check on most roads most nights . . . big clue: if a law enforcement officer has contact with an impaired driver, the odds are very high there will be an arrest and prosecution, no matter how many times drunk drivers get away with it.)




My impression is that your situation is not all that complicated, not particularly difficult, and your best course of action is to simply stay, go to work in Canada, and after you have been here for more than 730 days within the preceding five years, apply for a new PR card.

That impression is, of course, contingent on CIC not pursuing removal proceedings. We can speculate for days and weeks about whether or not CIC will investigate and pursue formal proceedings to determine if you are inadmissible, due to a breach of the PR Residency Obligation. No one here can definitively say you will or you will not be subjected to such a process.

My impression is that the odds lean in your favour at this point, against CIC pursuing removal proceedings, and moreover that even if CIC does investigate and conduct a residency examination, you have good odds of avoiding loss of PR status on the basis of H&C grounds. Not because CIC is lax about enforcing the PR Residency Obligation (there are strong indicators to the contrary), but because your circumstances appear to fit into the scope of discretion for, essentially, waiving the breach.

In other words, there really is a fairly clear choice, if you want to preserve your Canadian PR status, stay, work, live a normal life in Canada, and when you clearly are in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, apply for a PR card.

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.



In the meantime:

In the meantime, you are still a Permanent Resident. You are alive, not a Canadian citizen, there is no enforceable Removal Order, and you have not surrendered your PR status, therefore you are still a PR -- once a PR always a PR until death, becoming a Canadian citizen, adjudicated loss of PR status, or PR status is voluntarily and formally (in writing) surrendered.

As a PR you have status to legally work in Canada. And, you have a VIN, thus there should be no impediments to working in Canada. (Employers may require you to present your VIN card; copy can be obtained if you have lost this.)

I do not know how difficult it might be to obtain OHIP coverage. My understanding is that if it is a first time application, a valid PR card is ordinarily required. If you had OHIP previously, and are applying to reinstate insurance based on re-establishing residence, perhaps you will only need to prove identity and residence (not status), I do not know. In any event, obviously the extent to which this is a problem is dependent on personal circumstances. (I went for years without health insurance, essentially self-insured, and even had surgery during that time which I had to pay out-of-pocket, including a substantial deposit upfront . . . but of course going uninsured is a risk, and for some not practically feasible.)

I am not sure, either, about how difficult it might be to obtain an Ontario drivers' license. The CoPR may be sufficient to show status for purposes of a drivers' license (my impression is that OHIP is tougher in this respect).

Additionally the CoPR and cancelled visa in the passport used at the time of landing may be sufficient proof of status in some circumstances.


Overall:

Overall, again, the main thing is that unless CIC investigates and issues a Removal Order, your PR status is intact, you can stay and work. Even if CIC investigates and you are subject to a Residency Examination, it appears you have a good case for CIC to favourably exercise its discretion based on H&C grounds.



Note regarding H&C grounds:

There is often some confusion about what is relevant to H&C determinations. For example, in the context of PRs who have failed to meet the obligation to be in Canada for 730 days within five years, some participants in this forum assert that being abroad to attend school is not considered in the H&C assessment. This is patently not accurate relative to a determination that may lead to a loss of PR status.

What constitutes "H&C grounds" in other contexts is, in many respects, similar or even the same in the context of determining whether a PR's breach of the Residency Obligation should result in the loss of PR status, and thus factors related to unusual and undeserved hardship, or disproportionate hardship, loom large. BUT in the specific context of determining loss of PR status, the H&C assessment is substantially broader.

In particular, while there are formal guidelines prescribing specific factors which MUST be considered in evaluating H&C grounds (most of which are similar to consideration of H&C factors in other contexts), overall the guidelines for determinations as to loss of PR status also provides the following:

The range of factors to be considered should not be restricted by these guidelines. Officers are obliged to consider all the information presented by a permanent resident.

H&C factors must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Permanent residents are free to make submissions on any aspect of their personal circumstances that they feel would warrant retention of their permanent resident status.

For a thorough outline of what is considered in evaluating H&C grounds in a determination which may result in loss of PR status, see ENF 23 Loss of Permanent Resident Status, section 7.7 beginning on page 19 in particular. Note, CIC is migrating to a different format for sharing information of this sort, and sometime in the near future the operational manuals will not be available (many are already gone, such as most of those regarding citizenship). While these manuals will no longer be valid, technically they have not been formally binding all along and thus have been just guidelines; they will continue to be a valuable resource illuminating internal practices and policies at CIC, subject to changes of course. Thus, nonetheless, to the extent they are consistent with the formal statutory provisions and adopted regulations, they will continue to illuminate important aspects of internal CIC processing practices. Thus, it may be worth saving a copy of this particular pdf for future reference (the availability of this manual online may disappear any day).

+1 from me.

It's directly relevant to question asked by OP.

Besides, as a PR who is currently located abroad, and who may fail RO resulting in loss of PR if not moved to Canada by date specific deadline , I find information shared above to be very valuable.