ETA - Visit Visa Exempt National PRs RO risk

[Msafiri]

New details on the Electronic Travel Authorization Scheme. Its effective August 1, 2015 but compulsory from March 15, 2016. Will be interesting to see if this increases the risk of PRs that are visit visa exempt nationals with no PR Card or expired PR Card but in breach of the RO being caught out. This because its asks for employer details, when the employment started and current address. This when matched against a UCI number which every PR has then its fairly easy for inference to be made on if you have 730 days or not in the preceding 5 years. On the flipside I see this requiring Secondary Inspection capacity expansion which is already an issue at major airports especially Pearson and Vancouver. I expect RO breaching visit visa exempt PRs to start going the land entry route which doesn't need the ETA. Curious too if other countries will implement a reciprocal ETA type scheme - its certainty nice revenue stream and why shouldn't say the EU countries require the same.

 

[joeblowcocomo]

ETA is not required for permanent residents of Canada, so no additional barriers besides the existing ones are put in place, as far as I understand.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=1050&t=16

 

[Msafiri]

No doubt. I amended my post to show the potential issue being that where the PR is a visit visa exempt national but has no PR Card or has an expired PR Card. In the latter case outcome will depend on if the airline gives them a pass and accepts an expired PR Card.

 

[dpenabill]

New details on the Electronic Travel Authorization Scheme. Its effective August 1, 2015 but compulsory from March 15, 2016. Will be interesting to see if this increases the risk of PRs that are visit visa exempt nationals with no PR Card or expired PR Card but in breach of the RO being caught out. This because its asks for employer details, when the employment started and current address. This when matched against a UCI number which every PR has then its fairly easy for inference to be made on if you have 730 days or not in the preceding 5 years. On the flipside I see this requiring Secondary Inspection capacity expansion which is already an issue at major airports especially Pearson and Vancouver. I expect RO breaching visit visa exempt PRs to start going the land entry route which doesn't need the ETA. Curious too if other countries will implement a reciprocal ETA type scheme - its certainty nice revenue stream and why shouldn't say the EU countries require the same.

ETA is not required for permanent residents of Canada, so no additional barriers besides the existing ones are put in place, as far as I understand.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=1050&t=16

No doubt. I amended my post to show the potential issue being that where the PR is a visit visa exempt national but has no PR Card or has an expired PR Card. In the latter case outcome will depend on if the airline gives them a pass and accepts an expired PR Card.

The impact of the eTA process on PRs with visa-exempt passports has been a question since details about the eTA program first emerged.

The real question is whether a PR carrying a visa-exempt passport can obtain the eTA using his or her visa-exempt passport.

That is, once the eTA system is fully in force, will a Canadian PR be able to use his or her visa-exempt passport to obtain the eTA? If not, if the system screens and identifies PRs and precludes eTA for PRs, that will indeed make returning to Canada more difficult for PRs without a valid PR card and not in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation . . . and may require many PRs who live with a Canadian citizen spouse abroad to obtain a PR TD rather than use their visa-exempt passport to travel to Canada.

CIC's canned answer is superficial, which in many respects is typical:

CIC:

I am a permanent resident of Canada. Do I need an eTA if I leave and want to return to Canada by air?

No, you will not need an eTA if you are a permanent resident of Canada. When eTA becomes mandatory on March 15, 2016, you will need to travel with your permanent resident card of Canada. Otherwise, you may not be able to board your flight to Canada.

(CIC further provides a link for those who do not currently have a PR card.)

That basically says nothing more than the absolute obvious (a PR abroad with a valid PR card can use the PR card to board a flight destined to Canada . . . same as it has been) with a misleading twist.

What does "otherwise" mean? It is so broad as to be, in effect, meaningless and in some respects misleading. A PR abroad with a valid PR Travel Document, for example?

To be clear:

PRs with a valid PR card could previously board a flight destined to Canada with no other documentation as to authorization to enter Canada. The eTA program does not change this at all. (Individual countries still have their own border controls, which may include other requirements for leaving the country or boarding an international flight, and thus may impose exit controls or may require airlines to require other documentation, such as a passport.)

To date, and still, Canadian PRs are technically required to present either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document in order to board a flight destined for Canada. CIC's response to the question does not address the PR TD situation, but it is quite certain this continues and is not affected by the eTA program.

Thus, PRs with a valid PR card OR a PR TD should continue to be allowed to board flights destined for Canada.

To date, most reports indicate that Canadian PRs in possession of a valid visa-exempt passport can routinely board a flight destined for Canada by presenting their visa-exempt passport, without displaying a PR card or a PR TD. Technically this should not be allowed, but practically this appears to be at least common.

Obviously this will at least partially end under the eTA program.

Note: there has been NO reliable suggestion I am aware of that airlines might accept an expired PR card for purposes of showing status to enter Canada. I am quite sure that the regulations requiring airlines to screen boarding passengers for status to enter Canada do not allow this. Individual passengers may, on occasion, persuade airline staff otherwise, but this is likely unusual if not rare. Boarding the flight screening is different than POE screening: at the POE, presentation of an expired PR card can facilitate entry.

Once the eTA program is in full force, visa-exempt travelers will be required to obtain the eTA in advance of the flight destined for Canada. For this purpose, PRs are not really visa-exempt travelers regardless of their possession of a visa-exempt passport: they are PRs. The question is whether or not a Canadian PR in possession of a visa-exempt passport will be able obtain the eTA authorization for travel using that passport.

Reminder: once a visa-exempt traveler obtains the eTA authorization, that authorization remains valid for a period of . . . I forget, I think it is five years . . . or until the passport expires. The airline has little or no discretion. Travelers with visa-exempt passports (except U.S. citizens and a few others) will have to go through the eTA process in order to have their passport cleared for boarding a flight destined to Canada.

As I noted, the oft reported practice of Canadian PRs boarding a flight for Canada by displaying a visa-exempt passport (without displaying proof of PR status) will at least partially come to an end under the eTA program. That is because all visa-exempt travelers (U.S. and few others excepted) will have to have their passports cleared through the eTA program. So there will be no just walking up to the gate, presenting a visa-exempt passport, and thereby being allowed to board a flight for Canada.

In effect, to just walk to the gate and be allowed to board, the PR will need to display either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document.

The key question: what will happen if a visa-exempt PR uses his or her passport to apply for the eTA?

Will the system be designed to screen for and identify visa-exempt passport holders who have Canadian PR status? That's the question.

If the PR in Paris wants to book a flight to Toronto, will he be able to do so just using his visa-exempt passport?

So far I have not seen any response from CIC indicating an answer to this question.

So far, all the CIC information regarding the program indicate that its purpose is other than to screen travelers for PR status. But will it anyway?

We do not know.

What we do know is that if a PR with a visa-exempt passport makes the eTA application and obtains the eTA authorization, that passport will be good for boarding a flight to Canada for (I think it is five years . . . or until the passport expires). That is, the traveler only needs to go through the eTA once and is then good for . . . five years I think.

Thus, in the near future some PR with a visa-exempt passport is bound to try this and find out . . . and sooner or later someone trying this will report his or her experience in one of the forums (this one seems the busiest these days).

Of course, going forward, even if initially the eTA system allows a PR to obtain the eTA using his visa-exempt passport, that is no guarantee that updates to the system will not suddenly, sometime in the future, screen and identify PRs and preclude eTA for PRs.

I would note that the electronic databases have grown considerably more sophisticated in the last several years and that it is very easy for the system to identify CIC clients (including PRs of course) based on passport identification (passport number for example) . . . so it would be very easy for the eTA system to in fact identify any visa-exempt passport as belonging to a PR . . . the question is whether CBSA/CIC will include this in the program's screening functions. (Actually, the question is more in the vein of when will this be included?)

 

[dpenabill]

The distinction between screening by airlines prior to boarding a flight and the screening done at the POE upon arrival in Canada should be emphasized.

The eTA is all about being allowed to board a flight to Canada. Technically this is not premised on authorization to enter Canada since it is only for visa-exempt passport holders whose passport alone, and already, constitutes authorization to enter Canada.

At the POE, border control is about permission to actually enter Canada. Permission to actually enter Canada is different than authorization to enter Canada.

The eTA screening is more about security and other reasons for which a traveler might be denied permission to actually enter Canada . . . such as an inadmissible Foreign National or a FN who has previously been deported from Canada or who is otherwise someone requiring authorization to return to Canada.

In any event, the key question is whether the process for obtaining eTA will screen for and identify those with PR and preclude eTA for them.

 

[CastorT]

could you please give me some advices,
my pr renewal is under secondary reviews,and my pr card has been just expired.
do i need to apply the eTA when i go back to Canada if i leave for traveling, cuz i am a visa exempt national ?

 

[keesio]

No, you will not need an eTA if you are a permanent resident of Canada. When eTA becomes mandatory on March 15, 2016, you will need to travel with your permanent resident card of Canada. Otherwise, you may not be able to board your flight to Canada.

My wife doesn't travel with her PR card because her NEXUS card has always been enough. I wonder if that will change also...

 

[Msafiri]

My wife doesn't travel with her PR card because her NEXUS card has always been enough. I wonder if that will change also...

If I'm no mistaken your wife is a US Citizen and is exempt from the eTA scheme.

 

[Msafiri]

could you please give me some advices,
my pr renewal is under secondary reviews,and my pr card has been just expired.
do i need to apply the eTA when i go back to Canada if i leave for traveling, cuz i am a visa exempt national ?

Since its not mandatory until March 2016 my opinion is that the airline shouldn't sweat you if you show them an expired PR Card in case they ask for an eTA. After March 2016 no one knows if showing an expired PR Card will require the PR to apply for eTA. CIC/CBSA as usual vague with this and its not clear if the 'exemption' link is to holding a PR Card or holding PR status. This is mostly a revenue stream from visitor visa exempt passport holders. CIC will figure out the impact on PRs/ how this ties in with the IRPA at some later date

 

[CastorT]

Since its not mandatory until March 2016 my opinion is that the airline shouldn't sweat you if you show them an expired PR Card in case they ask for an eTA. After March 2016 no one knows if showing an expired PR Card will require the PR to apply for eTA. CIC/CBSA as usual vague with this and its not clear if the 'exemption' link is to holding a PR Card or holding PR status. This is mostly a revenue stream from visitor visa exempt passport holders. CIC will figure out the impact on PRs/ how this ties in with the IRPA at some later date

Thank you very much!! i'll wait and see if there is a further informatiom
thanks!!

 

[thisischristine]

I have a question regarding a PR with a Visa Exempt Passport...

My husband landed in Canada when he was 9 years old, as his mother married a Canadian. He and his mother were British at this time, but were granted PR as a spouse and dependent. He lived there continuously until he was 18, graduating High School etc. He has a permanent SIN card which does not begin with a 9.

In 2000, he came to the UK (prior to PR Cards being issued). Over the next few years (last time was 2004) he flew back and forth visiting his mum, and never did anything other than enter the tourist line at the airport with his UK passport. He was never stopped or questioned about his PR. He also worked using his SIN card.

He has now been offered a great job by an old friend in Canada and would like to take it. If he flies in on his UK passport, as a visa exempt visitor (obv, he doesn't currently meet RO so needs to avoid having his PR revoked) and then uses his old IMM 1000 as proof of landing (dated 1990) once he is in the country, can he start his Residency Obligation 730 days and regain PR? Then apply for a PR card? Myself and the children are British passport holders and happy to fly back and forth for 2 years until it is sorted.

 

[Finland]

Dear all

Any one got any update on the below , can visa exampet passport holder submit a request for ETA as he don't have a PR yet ( still in production by CIC )

 

[Finland]

Any one got any update on the below , can visa exempt passport holder submit a request for ETA as he don't have a PR yet ( still in production by CIC

 

[kateg]

New details on the Electronic Travel Authorization Scheme. Its effective August 1, 2015 but compulsory from March 15, 2016. Will be interesting to see if this increases the risk of PRs that are visit visa exempt nationals with no PR Card or expired PR Card but in breach of the RO being caught out.

There is no question. It will.

This because its asks for employer details, when the employment started and current address. This when matched against a UCI number which every PR has then its fairly easy for inference to be made on if you have 730 days or not in the preceding 5 years.

The ETA does not have the information required to determine if you have met the residency obligation. There's a reason the ETA is not required for Permanent Residents - in fact, it's not permitted.

On the flipside I see this requiring Secondary Inspection capacity expansion which is already an issue at major airports especially Pearson and Vancouver. I expect RO breaching visit visa exempt PRs to start going the land entry route which doesn't need the ETA.

That only works if you are able to get entry into the United States, which also requires an ETA for visa-exempt travellers. It also will decrease the requirements for secondary, not increase it.

The purpose of the ETA is to permit them additional time to process your information and look for criminality. Currently, they get passenger information from the airline, which permits them a short period of time to look for potential criminal history. It has a very limited amount of information, as well - it basically lets them search for someone with the same (or similar name) in a country, and the same birthday. As they only get one piece of information (the passport), that's the only country they can really search.

With an ETA, they have an opportunity to ask if you have multiple citizenships. They get your residential address (not just your credit card billing address), your place of birth, and your UCI (if appropriate). They have significantly longer to look for criminal history, more information with which to do so, and most importantly they can do this before you board the flight, not simply turn you away once you get here. This means that officers can work from a central location, in a queue, rather than having many people show up at the airport all at once. Any questions can be answered while you are in your home country, which means that officials at the airport are concerned with what you have with you, not who you are.

Centralized intake means fewer officers, being more efficient. It means that they can have specialization (with certain officers working with specific countries), and shifts that permit them to call foreign police departments and governments during the hours they are open. It means that they can reduce the processing staff at individual points of entry, ensure that there is always someone available to process each and every person that will be coming on visa waiver, and free up agents from processing immigration and criminal history at the airports, enabling them to focus on customs.

Curious too if other countries will implement a reciprocal ETA type scheme - its certainty nice revenue stream and why shouldn't say the EU countries require the same.

The fee is $7. Given what the CBSA makes and the overhead involved, they lose money on any ETA that requires a human to look at it. It's about safety, not money.

 

[kateg]

No doubt. I amended my post to show the potential issue being that where the PR is a visit visa exempt national but has no PR Card or has an expired PR Card. In the latter case outcome will depend on if the airline gives them a pass and accepts an expired PR Card.

Here are the rules for commercial carriers:

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5023-eng.html

Permanent residents of Canada
The following documents are considered proof of Canadian permanent resident status:

Permanent Resident Card (see Appendix I, item 4). The Permanent Resident Card, accompanied by a valid foreign passport is proof of permanent resident status for international travel purposes. The card has an expiry date and is valid for either five years or one year.

Permanent resident travel document (visa counterfoil) for permanent resident without a Permanent Resident Card (see Appendix I, item 4). Permanent residents outside Canada who do not have a Permanent Resident Card and who would be unable to otherwise return to Canada may obtain a permanent resident travel document from a Canadian mission abroad. This is a counterfoil in the same format as a visa and is affixed to the permanent resident's passport or travel document.

Permanent residents may also travel to Canada with the following documents:

Canadian Refugee Travel Document (see Appendix I, item 2).
Canadian Certificate of Identity (see Appendix I, item 3).
Single Journey Travel Document (see Section 2.4).

Where a permanent resident travels on either of these documents, the permanent resident must be in possession of a Permanent Resident Card. Alternatively, the document must be endorsed with a permanent resident travel document (same format as a visa), issued at a Canadian mission abroad.

When examining documents presented by a person for travel to Canada, check them carefully to determine that they are:

genuine and unaltered;
valid (not expired); and
being used by the rightful holder (the photograph and personal details are those of the person in front of you).

Failure to abide by the regulations results in a fine. They will not just "let you slide".