At port of entry how do officer verify whether you are in Breach of RO or not? Say that my PR card is about to expire but I am travelling outside of Canada for a short vacation of two weeks. Will I have to face any questioning on my way back? (I am compliant with my RO and are employed in Canada as of now)
At PoE How They Verify You are in Breach of RO?
- Thread starter sj1234567
- Start date
It's a good question. I believe mostly that they have boilerplate information on you (name, dob, etc) and - crucially - entries to Canada and SOME exit info (increasingly good exit info). I don't believe they have a running total of compliance or anything like that - no easy to read field that says "RO compliant."
There is also, I believe, statements about flags or information obtained on previous crossings (more a bit below). But most of the time, if there is no flag or other requirement to check in more detail, they do quick decision. Most of the time that's going to be the case for PRs who appear to be residing in Canada and haven't had an issue before. People who've only been abroad for a couple weeks are mostly going to get the benefit of the doubt - unless there's some other issue.
For travellers with no flags or specific warnings or comments, mostly I think they eyeball the summary info they have and ask questions, and determine whether there seems to be an issue - i.e whether the traveller seems to be in compliance. They may do quick comparison with the screen info, and possibly more detailed. And if there appears to be an issue, decide or not to send the traveller to secondary.
And note: probably, most of the time, they don't bother with cases of PRs who are just a bit out of compliance, or if the person seems credible and has 'reasons' to have been out of compliance. Warning: people who don't seem credible or who give answers that don't add up - yep, they're going to be subjected to more checks.
Flags: this could be serious things or minor. An example might be a flag that a PR was warned before about being out of compliance or something else.
Note - this is mostly an educated guess, I have no inside information.
Thank you for the detailed answer. For the most part, this makes sense. In recent times almost all airports use Kiosks that let you print out your entry information which immigration officers take a look at and let you pass. Immigration officers hardly do much of a check in addition. So I am assuming if there is any flag it should come up during the kiosk arrival info submission.
When I went through last two months back did not have any issues. So hopefully they would see that I am a resident here living and working on a job and returning from a short vacation. I was not worried before, but since my PR card is close to expiring (in June) I am a bit concerned. Also I will have applied for a new PR card before my travels next week, so that will also serve me as proof hopefully I am compliance of the RO.
Probably [more than] slightly off-topic, but found this an interesting read regarding R.O.:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/card/complex.html
While an IRCC officer has the authority to examine residency obligation compliance as per A28, a residency determination is not required to issue the PR card. When an officer proceeds with the residency determination, what will ultimately influence the period of validity of the card is whether the client
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/card/complex.html
While an IRCC officer has the authority to examine residency obligation compliance as per A28, a residency determination is not required to issue the PR card. When an officer proceeds with the residency determination, what will ultimately influence the period of validity of the card is whether the client
- meets residency obligation;
I don't think you have anything to worry about. If they ask about your card, it'll probably be to remind you to renew.
I assume the main thing the kiosk does is pull up the main file and yes, probably highlight the flag/warning for those that have one, as well as (I'm speculating here) a little bit of so-called AI for ones that meet some probability of issues, and also some 'randomization'. The rest just get the light examination at primary.
My spouse had a flag (erroneous really or at least no longer relevant) for a while and yes, the kiosk print-out came with a code or something that meant being sent straight to secondary.
I've not read all of that in contxt, but it seems to me that you may be missing the obvious bit here, that residency determination and residency obligation [compliance with] are not the same thing.
I.e. that 'residency' here being used to mean actual physical presence, and hence 'residency determination' is ... verifying the applicant is/has been/when in Canada - a factual determination, days in Canada. Which we know they do at times in part by simply asking the applicant to appear at an IRCC office to get the card.
So this is quite bureaucratic but seems to simply mean:
-they can prepare the card and convoke the applicant;
-at that point they get the info about actual physical residency (dates, numbers) ie the residency determination;
-that allows them to confirm compliance (or not) and decide whether the card should be one or five years and the one they have can simply be handed over or not.
But not certain. The Treaty of Ghent was more clearly written.
What code or mark? Can you remember? Or your wife spent more time on the kiosk than you?
It's sometimes an obvious mark (Red X), while other times is much more discreet/cryptic.
I wish I was that attentive after long flights. Sometimes was kind of obvious but mainly we just listened to the agents.
And no, it wasn't at the kiosk stage - it was when we got to 'primary' i.e the first officer after the line.
Lately it seems pearson has been working to fix the issues there and they sometimes don't even get to window or any more than cursory examination, they just look at the kiosk printout and wave them through, and we've since dealt with the 'false flag' - so now she seems to just get waved through. (Spouse has been travelling without me so all second hand now)
Reminder: The primary source of information relied on in assessing PR Residency Obligation compliance, just like assessing physical presence for a citizenship application, is the Permanent Resident. The PR is the one best source of this information. The one and ONLY source who for sure was in a position to capture and record EVERY exit and entry. While there are plenty of nuances and weedy tangents, it mostly comes down to the PR's account, and whether that can be relied on, whether other sources of information (such as CBSA travel history) concur or conflict with that. This is one of the main reasons why it is so important to maintain credibility.
So the short answer to the query here, when there is questioning about RO compliance at the PoE the officer gets most of the information relied on from the PR. Of course they have tools to evaluate and cross-check some of that information, but as long as the PR's information shows RO compliance and there is no indication the PR's information lacks credibility or is otherwise unreliable, that will be sufficient for verification of RO compliance.
If and when the best source of the information, the PR, is considered unreliable, it gets more complicated.
PoE Examinations As To RO Compliance:
With some variations in degree (and some exceptions), the nature and scope of Port-of-Entry questioning about RO compliance can be, in more or less sequential order:
-- minimal or none (the most common by far)
-- some detailed questions, potentially telescoping to more questions and more probing questions in more detail when there is more indication of a RO breach in the information available to the PoE official conducting the examination (considering information provided by the PR and information in GCMS, and other sources like CBSA travel history)
-- a residency determination
-- if the examining officer makes a residency determination that the PR is inadmissible due to a breach of the RO and accordingly prepares a 44(1) Inadmissibility Report, there is then a review by a second officer which also includes interviewing/questioning the PR; second officer reviews validity of examining officer's decision (does known information support conclusion there was a RO breach?), and if that is valid then determines whether to allow the PR to keep status for H&C reasons
For most PRs returning to Canada there is NO verification, at a Port-of-Entry, that the PR is in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. Most PRs are not even asked questions about their RO compliance.
For immigration purposes (in contrast to customs) and Canadians (including Canadian PRs), the primary focus of PoE screening is to verify the traveler is in fact a Canadian. Which for PRs means verifying identity and that the person positively identified has PR status. This is a simple, rudimentary process when the PR presents a valid PR card with biometric information (including the traveler's in person, there at the PoE, facial appearance) supporting a positive identification of the traveler that is consistent with the client's information in GCMS (which a PoE officer usually pulls up on the monitor). This is so simple and rudimentary it is also easily done electronically and mechanically (employing various sensors) at kiosks in some airports.
Generally NO RO compliance questions UNLESS something triggers inquiry into RO compliance.
When There Are RO Compliance Questions:
Nonetheless, returning PRs can be examined regarding RO compliance. Again, most are not. The scope of the PoE examination is largely at the discretion of the PoE officials, and they have very broad discretion (not unfettered discretion but it can seem like that).
If so examined, the nature and scope of the examination as to RO compliance can range from minimal questions to a residency determination.
@armoured generally outlined some circumstances or factors which can influence whether PoE officials decide to ask RO compliance related questions. Unless there is an obvious reason to believe the traveler is inadmissible for a breach of the RO, the questioning will proceed consistent with the typical telescoping law enforcement approach, the scope of the examination expanding if the traveler's responses and the circumstances invite further questions or concerns.
We are well aware (no need to guess) of some factors that increase the risk of RO compliance examination. How much so, however, is more difficult to forecast. Not having a valid PR card, for example, obviously increases the risk of RO questioning.
If the traveler has been outside Canada for more than three years, since that indicates a RO breach on its face unless the PR is entitled to credit for an exception (such as accompanying a citizen spouse), that is likely enough, in itself, to telescope the examination to a full blown residency determination.
Arriving at a PoE following a lengthy absence and just before the PR card expires increases the risk of RO related questioning.
But there is, of course, a wide range of other factors that can trigger RO compliance questions. It should be no surprise that there are often many of telltale signs, sufficient to at least invite questions, for PRs who are not in compliance with the RO.
At the other end of the spectrum, PRs who appear to be returning to Canada after a brief trip abroad, and who otherwise appear likely to be well settled in Canada, are not at much risk for RO compliance questioning.
Meanwhile, as @armoured also mentioned, the PR's GCMS might have a "flag" (called an "alert" in most internal CBSA and IRCC information), or there may be particular circumstances generally described as a flag, or "red flag," circumstances that more or less invite elevated scrutiny. Even the PR's demeanor may trigger questions. Evasive or vague responses can lead to more questions.
Some particular alerts or flags we know about, in addition to the obvious like a previous PoE examination resulting in a caution or admonition about RO compliance, includes PRs with a PR card renewal application in non-routine processing or scheduled for an in-person card pick-up.
But, basically, if the PR's circumstances are not such as to indicate there is a RO compliance issue, RO related questioning is NOT likely, and even if there are some RO related questions (they can be random), as long as the PR's responses are credible and indicate RO compliance, the questioning will be, almost always, lightweight, no problem.
But, sure, there are close call cases, such as a PR in border-line compliance one might say.
Residency Determinations:
The extent to which border officials will probe RO compliance mostly depends on how credibly the PR presents information indicating compliance. It does not appear that PRs need to make a strong case backing up their account showing they are in RO compliance to avoid the inadmissibility procedure. If the PR makes even a modest but credible case they are in compliance, even if the officers have doubts or concerns (but it is not clear there has been a breach of the RO), it appears they more often caution the PR about RO compliance, enter notes and an alert into the PR's GCMS (flagging for officers who will screen the PR in any subsequent entry into Canada), and authorize entry. After all, if the PR enters Canada and stays, that is consistent with the purpose of the RO.
If the officer concludes there is a breach, typically based on either the PR's admissions or the PR's failure to provide information in circumstances strongly indicating a RO breach, then what happens depends on whether the PR will be allowed to keep status for H&C reasons.
While I have not seen many anecdotal reports recently about PRs required to complete a written RQ during a PoE examination, sometimes PRs are indeed asked to fill out a written questionnaire comparable to completing a PR TD application or the RQs issued to PRs subject to a Residency Determination by IRCC. Otherwise, nonetheless, the PR can be verbally asked the same questions, providing dates of travel, address history, and work history, and additional corroborating information. To be completed according to best recollection, of course, best AND HONEST recollection. And of course this is cross-checked against other sources, including CBSA travel history and other information in the client's GCMS.
Much of the anecdotal reporting suggests many PRs in these situations are not advised the questioning has progressed from a routine PoE examination to a residency determination, and they are not otherwise aware of this transition. Many appear to not even know that a 44(1) Report has been prepared (if things get to that stage), but they should be able to figure out that's happening if one officer has completed questioning and they are then being interviewed by a different officer (this is not the transition from a PIL officer to Secondary, but from one Secondary officer to another).