I am a vocal critic of Canadian RO, which I consider arbitrary, silly and ill conceived, like a caprice of a toddler that throws violent tantrums. There are plenty of my posts on this forum where I dispute reasonableness of RO with those who try to justify it. But then there are posters like OP, who defy my comprehension. I mean, why put your life and future in your country of permanent residence at risk over a desire to attend a wedding of your friend? I know how dear a friend can be, I know how much it means to be a part of an event like that when culprit is someone very close to you. I understand all that. But then there is a perspective. Just think about it: do you want to give up your future life in your newly adopted country, so you can spend few joyful hours standing next to your friend and wishing them well? It's not like you have no choice, can't get a job, don't want to do survival job and etc. It's not like your friend is in dire need or trouble and your presence can make all the difference, save their life and fortune. None of that applies. So, why this is even a question to ponder? And for OP's information, there is no "way around it". When you come to POE you may or may not be asked about RO. And if you are, the record of your prior entry and exit will make it obvious that you are in breach of RO. So, go for it if you are Ok with giving up your residency. Otherwise, don't.
I am in Canada with an Expired PR card doing my Obligated days but I've been invited to a wedding in the UK (help)
- Thread starter tk785
- Start date
I agree with you about the OP's case.
Regarding the issue of residence obligations, I wish Canada would follow New Zealand's example, and would allow an indefinite permanent residency visa that carries no further residence obligations after 2 years of living in the country. But a lot of people who are in breach of Canada's RO cannot even live in Canada for 2 years. If anyone effectively lost their PR status because of the breach of residence conditions, and are upset about it, see below:
With the volume of PRs Canada accepts that would create huge liability issues. Allowing people to return after only years in Canada and potentially having only worked less than 2 years because many don’t arrive with a job and it can take a while for anyone new to the job market to secure a new job. You could then allow all these PRs return to study in Canada paying domestic tuition, retire in Canada, return to use healthcare, etc. New Zealand is a smaller country, an island that is quite isolated from other countries, etc. so unless someone really intended to relocate for a long period of time people would be less likely to return to NZ.I agree with you about the OP's case.
Regarding the issue of residence obligations, I wish Canada would follow New Zealand's example, and would allow an indefinite permanent residency visa that carries no further residence obligations after 2 years of living in the country. But a lot of people who are in breach of Canada's RO cannot even live in Canada for 2 years. If anyone effectively lost their PR status because of the breach of residence conditions, and are upset about it, see below:
Why do you think that anger and resentment are the only things that can motivate a man? You think no other motives can exist? I am US citizen, I am not angry, I can toss my Canadian PR status in the river and have a glass of Margarita for getting rid of it. But I believe in the right and wrong. I think it's important to stand for the right, and if you remain silent you are as good as culprits who do the wrong. Do you disagree?I agree with you about the OP's case.
Regarding the issue of residence obligations, I wish Canada would follow New Zealand's example, and would allow an indefinite permanent residency visa that carries no further residence obligations after 2 years of living in the country. But a lot of people who are in breach of Canada's RO cannot even live in Canada for 2 years. If anyone effectively lost their PR status because of the breach of residence conditions, and are upset about it, see below:
Pretty much the same thing:
NZ PR 2 years of living in the country versus Canadian citizenship 3 years of living in the country.
I'm not sure why you want to debate on this. Besides, it's not just an island. NZ has north island and south island.
What is the difference between "new" PR and a PR who returns after years of absence? Both are entitled to the same benefits, having paid $0 (ZERO) taxes to earn. Why are you so much against RO violations, and not opposed to new PRs coming to Canada? May be you should start with reducing the level of immigration and getting jobs for all existing PRs before you bring in more?
I would argue that the New Zealand system is better. This is because people can then remain a PR for the rest of their lives while being able to leave and come back at any time, without having to acquire a new citizenship which may jeopardize their old citizenship.
Totally agree. That way, people don't need to give up their original citizenship.
Unfortunately, the UK is not a leeway immigration country. What I mean by this is that there are high chances that CBSA will access and dig into previous records you might have in the UK. If you ever take the risk, do not try flying in through Pearson Airport, maybe Montreal.
OVERALL/SUMMARY: The discussion so far has fairly well covered the essence of the matter: There is no risk-free way to leave Canada while in breach of the Residency Obligation. And, meanwhile, there is no reliable way to precisely quantify the risk, that is, to calculate the probabilities, the "odds" some of us might say.
It is the OP's personal decision whether to avoid the risk of a negative RO examination upon returning to Canada, or to take the risk in order to attend festivities abroad.
As @scylla succinctly put it, and others have emphasized and elaborated on:
THUS . . . Leaving Canada risks a RO examination upon returning to Canada, which could result in being Reported and Issued a Removal Order, terminating PR status unless there is an appeal and the Report and Removal Order is set aside.
Not leaving Canada avoids the risk of a decision terminating PR status that could happen upon returning to Canada.
Other factors influence how much risk there is. Generally I agree with the observations by @armoured, including reference to factors suggesting cause to apprehend elevated risks (such as the character of the previous interaction at the PoE), and some factors likely reducing or mitigating the risks, such as
and, very much so, the reference to so "many variables" . . . making it very difficult to quantify the risks.
So, the "safe" approach, the no-risk decision, is to stay in Canada.
I have no input into discussions about what the rules should be and it does not appear to me the OP was asking about that.
Apart from that . . . What Difference It Might Make Depending On How Long A PR Has Been A PR:
Some discussion above raised questions about why there might be a difference in approach, in RO enforcement, in regards to a "new" PR (less than five years since landing) versus someone who has been a PR longer than that. There is, of course, no difference for purposes of eligibility for Canadian benefits, so long as the individual actually meets the eligibility requirements for the benefits. And as long as the PR complies with the PR RO, there is no direct restriction or limitations imposed on a PR based on how long they have been a PR.
What I have occasionally reminded the forum, however, is that the purpose underlying the grant of PR status is an important factor in how the rules are interpreted, applied, and enforced. Again, this is about what the law is, including its purpose, not about what some think the law should be. The purpose of the law (readily apparent in the legislative record and specifically articulated in numerous IAD and Federal Court decisions) is to facilitate a path to PERMANENT settlement IN Canada. This is not about permanent status in Canada, but about actual, physical permanent settlement in Canada. For those granted PR status to settle and live in Canada permanently.
The law does not directly require those granted PR status to actually settle and live in Canada permanently. Its purpose, nonetheless, is important and has a real impact. Among the ways in which this influences policies and practices, and especially the manner in which the rules are interpreted and enforced, two in particular loom large:
-- RO compliance and cutting-it-close--
When PRs are cutting-it-close, relative to complying with the PR RO, and they have been a PR for more than five years, that tends to indicate they have not followed through consistently with the purpose for which they were granted PR status. Those cutting-it-close after five years have been living outside Canada more than in Canada. That is inconsistent with coming to Canada to settle and live here permanently. So that invites concerns, questions, which invites increased scrutiny, potentially increased skepticism, potentially influencing CBSA or IRCC decision-makers to make less favourable inferences. Reminder: what the law allows is not necessarily concurrent with the law's objective, with its purpose. Those who fail to discern the difference, and rely strictly on what the law allows, and act inconsistent with the law's purpose, do so at their peril. They put themselves at risk of the law being strictly applied against them, strictly enforced, and close-call-issues not going their way.
-- Breach of RO and H&C Relief --
This is where a pattern of not settling in Canada permanently can really bite. Who CBSA immigration or IRCC officials or IAD decision-makers will conclude deserves an opportunity to keep PR status, despite breaching the RO, must necessarily take into consideration the purpose of the grant of PR status, which again is so the person can settle and live in Canada permanently. For someone who has been a PR more than five years, and who still remains so NOT settled in Canada, let alone permanently, that they have been outside Canada more than 3/5 of the time during the last five years, out of Canada well more than in Canada, means they have acted inconsistent, rather blatantly inconsistent, with the purpose for which they were given PR. To say this hurts the equities calculation in their H&C case is probably an understatement. Bad outcome rising (to abuse a CCR song title).
AND A Clarification:
The other comments here probably make it clear enough, but just to be sure: the risk is not that you will not be able to get back into Canada. You will be allowed entry into Canada.
Worst case scenario at the Port-of-Entry is being issued a 44(1) Report which is upheld on review by a second officer, resulting in a Removal Order being issued, which will ordinarily happen while you are still present in the PoE. You would then still be allowed to ENTER Canada, since the Removal Order is NOT enforceable for at least 30 days, and if you appeal you will be able to stay in Canada pending the appeal, since the Removal Order continues to be unenforceable as long as the appeal is pending.
This is actually significant for a PR who has established in-fact residence in Canada more or less permanently, which not only should reduce the risk (but, for emphasis, NOT eliminate the risk) of being "Reported" upon returning to Canada after a short trip abroad (emphasis on short), but even if Reported, should also reduce the risk of a final outcome after appeal resulting in the loss of PR status.
This observation should NOT be understood to diminish any of the cautionary comments others have posted. I offer it for context. Many of us are gamblers in various ways. I suspect most immigrants have taken some fairly big gambles on their way to a life in Canada. It is one thing to say "do not gamble." Quite another to make real life choices involving important but competing interests. Personal values, personal preferences, in conjunction with all those circumstantial variables (as @armoured referenced), not the least of which are personal resources (if there is an appeal, it could really help if you can afford a good lawyer), not to mention some very difficult to predict contingencies, all come into play.
It is your decision to make.
Without elaborating, I would acknowledge there are some factors here mitigating the odds of being Reported. It warrants remembering, however, that the probability of a bad outcome is only part of the risk-assessment calculation. The severity of consequences is a big factor as well. After all, odds playing Russian Roulette are very favourable, actually, five to one there will be a good outcome (no bullet in the brain). But the severity of the outcome otherwise renders that gamble, well, suicidal.
Which is to say, even if the odds were good you would not be Reported and issued a Removal Order when you return, the severity of losing PR status still make it a bad bet for most.
If you were married to a Canadian who could sponsor you again if you lost PR status, even if the odds of being Reported were higher, it might not be a bad bet.
It is your decision to make. Based on your situation, your circumstances, your values and preferences.
Some Observations Re Previous PoE Experience and Implications:
Not sure this tangent is worth the OP's effort. Just in case the importance of making it to the festivities abroad would make it worthwhile for the OP to do the homework, take the time, invest the effort, just to find out, no guarantee it will work out positively . . . there is, perhaps, a path to insure keeping PR status and still make the trip . . . maybe a long shot, so, FWIW . . .
It may seem ironic, but it might actually be to the OP's benefit if there was a 44(1) Report prepared during the PoE examination last May.
What I have learned is that border officials do not necessarily give the PR a copy when a 44(1) Report is prepared or even clearly advise the PR such a report has been prepared, let alone explain what it means and why it has been prepared. This is INCONSISTENT with the Operational Manual guidelines.
ENF 5 "Writing 44(1) Reports" specifically says (section 14.1) that the officer preparing the Report must give a copy to the person concerned, and also "counsel" the person as to the reasons for the Report. But that is not how it always goes. (Reminder: while the manuals are good resources about how things work, they are not official, not binding, and they have been poorly updated for a long time now, and even to the extent they correctly specify what the law requires, that does not necessarily dictate how things are done in practice.)
In contrast, for inland procedures (such as where a PR applies for a PR card despite being in breach of the RO, triggering a formal inland residency determination), ENF 5 "Writing 44(1) Reports" says that where the MD (meaning an officer with Minister's Delegate authority) has jurisdiction to issue the removal order (which is precisely the situation for the "MD" attendant a PoE review of the 44(1) Report for a RO breach; noting, however, PoE examinations are not considered "Inland") then, ENF 5 states that "disclosure of the report may occur at the time of the MD review."
I am wandering well into the weeds. Basically what is required by the "duty of fairness" is that the "affected person is given an opportunity to make submissions and to know the case against them," that is in the process of the MD's review of the Report.
So, perhaps the way the rules are designed to work, the PR should be given a copy of the 44(1) Report by the officer who prepared it, but in actual practice it appears that sometimes, perhaps even commonly, the Report is prepared, referred to another officer (the "MD"), who interviews the PR, and whether the PR actually gets a copy of the Report depends on the outcome of the review, and in some cases (maybe more than some) a copy of the Report is only given to the PR if a Removal Order is being issued.
Which leads back to the OP's reference to being "hounded" about RO by one officer, and then further questioned by another. That description is very close to the standard two-step process at the PoE, first officer determining a RO breach and preparing the Report, second officer acting as MD reviewing it. OP reports the second officer "eventually let me in." It is not certain, but very possible, perhaps quite likely, this was indeed the two-step process, there was a 44(1) Report prepared, and upon review by the second officer an affirmative decision was made to allow the OP to keep PR status despite a breach of the RO.
That would be good news if the OP could be sure that is what happened. Without documentation confirming that is what happened, however, it would be risky to rely on that.
It might be possible to obtain confirmation through the ATIP process. In particular, an ATIP application, which probably needs to be a customized and carefully composed request, may reveal whether that happened, that there was a 44(1) Report prepared and then set aside by the reviewing officer. Would be good to know. There is some time left (since event abroad is not until next June) to do this. Getting the request right, however, making a request that will definitely reveal this information one way or the other, could be tricky.
But there is also the possibility that what happened during that PoE event was more or less informal. I came across one Federal Court decision describing what was close to the formal two-step process except it appeared the 44(1) Report was not properly executed BEFORE the referral to the second officer. While the FC could not adequately reconstruct what actually happened (thus the decision went in favour of the PR), it looks likely that the two officers involved were less than formal in how they handled the examination, and what they described in testimony at least suggested that was their common approach. It appeared that they both questioned the PR involved in that case, concluded the PR should be issued a Removal Order, and then proceeded to do the formal paperwork, except they failed to document the process consistent with the two-step formalities, the required formality of one officer making an independent decision and preparing the Report, and then referring that to the MD to make a separate independent determination reviewing the Report and considering the PR's input. That is, looks like they might typically make the decision, and if that is to issue a Removal Order, they then formalize the process . . . except this time they made mistakes revealing a failure to follow the formal process.
The point of the latter is that if the two officers who questioned the OP were more or less similarly, informally proceeding, and did not follow through with the formal paperwork because they decided to not issue a Removal Order, there might not be any documentation of a 44(1) Report being prepared. That is, just because it appears the two-step process was more or less what happened, given the outcome (no Removal Order) it might not have been formalized and there might not be documentation to confirm a formal adjudication of sufficient H&C reasons to allow the OP to keep PR status.
But if there was a 44(1) Report prepared, and that was set aside by the reviewing officer (even if rather hesitantly, with some trepidation), and the OP could recover this through the ATIP process, that could be the ticket to apply for a PR card sooner rather than waiting and being able to travel abroad for a short trip. Still not entirely risk free, in regards to both applying for a new PR card before getting into RO compliance, and for traveling abroad next summer, but if there was a positive H&C adjudication, and now that is followed by actually establishing a long-term physical residence in Canada, that would put the OP in a rather strong position relative to RO enforcement.
ALL THAT SAID . . . A CAUTION . . . among recent events making me aware that prepared 44(1) Reports are not always shared with the PR, copies not always given, is a discussion I have had here in the forum with a PR who had a 44(1) Report prepared against him, but was then allowed to enter Canada without being given a copy of the Report and advised he would be contacted by another officer for further questioning and review. This is not the usual procedure but it is not uncommon either. And I have recently seen cases where the Report was prepared after the PR entered Canada (typically a PR who is uncooperative with questioning, who must be allowed to enter anyway). In any event, there are other possible outcomes of the May PoE examination. If OP gave valid contact information and kept it current with IRCC, very unlikely there is an issue lurking here. But there is some possibility of a Report outstanding and that would be an entirely different ballgame.
Not sure this tangent is worth the OP's effort. Just in case the importance of making it to the festivities abroad would make it worthwhile for the OP to do the homework, take the time, invest the effort, just to find out, no guarantee it will work out positively . . . there is, perhaps, a path to insure keeping PR status and still make the trip . . . maybe a long shot, so, FWIW . . .
Until recently I would have echoed what @armoured responded back then, in May. In the meantime I have learned that the "how do I know" if Reported question is more complicated and has a less certain response than I anticipated until just a few months ago (and that is after following this particular issue very closely for more than a decade).
It may seem ironic, but it might actually be to the OP's benefit if there was a 44(1) Report prepared during the PoE examination last May.
What I have learned is that border officials do not necessarily give the PR a copy when a 44(1) Report is prepared or even clearly advise the PR such a report has been prepared, let alone explain what it means and why it has been prepared. This is INCONSISTENT with the Operational Manual guidelines.
ENF 5 "Writing 44(1) Reports" specifically says (section 14.1) that the officer preparing the Report must give a copy to the person concerned, and also "counsel" the person as to the reasons for the Report. But that is not how it always goes. (Reminder: while the manuals are good resources about how things work, they are not official, not binding, and they have been poorly updated for a long time now, and even to the extent they correctly specify what the law requires, that does not necessarily dictate how things are done in practice.)
In contrast, for inland procedures (such as where a PR applies for a PR card despite being in breach of the RO, triggering a formal inland residency determination), ENF 5 "Writing 44(1) Reports" says that where the MD (meaning an officer with Minister's Delegate authority) has jurisdiction to issue the removal order (which is precisely the situation for the "MD" attendant a PoE review of the 44(1) Report for a RO breach; noting, however, PoE examinations are not considered "Inland") then, ENF 5 states that "disclosure of the report may occur at the time of the MD review."
I am wandering well into the weeds. Basically what is required by the "duty of fairness" is that the "affected person is given an opportunity to make submissions and to know the case against them," that is in the process of the MD's review of the Report.
So, perhaps the way the rules are designed to work, the PR should be given a copy of the 44(1) Report by the officer who prepared it, but in actual practice it appears that sometimes, perhaps even commonly, the Report is prepared, referred to another officer (the "MD"), who interviews the PR, and whether the PR actually gets a copy of the Report depends on the outcome of the review, and in some cases (maybe more than some) a copy of the Report is only given to the PR if a Removal Order is being issued.
Which leads back to the OP's reference to being "hounded" about RO by one officer, and then further questioned by another. That description is very close to the standard two-step process at the PoE, first officer determining a RO breach and preparing the Report, second officer acting as MD reviewing it. OP reports the second officer "eventually let me in." It is not certain, but very possible, perhaps quite likely, this was indeed the two-step process, there was a 44(1) Report prepared, and upon review by the second officer an affirmative decision was made to allow the OP to keep PR status despite a breach of the RO.
That would be good news if the OP could be sure that is what happened. Without documentation confirming that is what happened, however, it would be risky to rely on that.
It might be possible to obtain confirmation through the ATIP process. In particular, an ATIP application, which probably needs to be a customized and carefully composed request, may reveal whether that happened, that there was a 44(1) Report prepared and then set aside by the reviewing officer. Would be good to know. There is some time left (since event abroad is not until next June) to do this. Getting the request right, however, making a request that will definitely reveal this information one way or the other, could be tricky.
But there is also the possibility that what happened during that PoE event was more or less informal. I came across one Federal Court decision describing what was close to the formal two-step process except it appeared the 44(1) Report was not properly executed BEFORE the referral to the second officer. While the FC could not adequately reconstruct what actually happened (thus the decision went in favour of the PR), it looks likely that the two officers involved were less than formal in how they handled the examination, and what they described in testimony at least suggested that was their common approach. It appeared that they both questioned the PR involved in that case, concluded the PR should be issued a Removal Order, and then proceeded to do the formal paperwork, except they failed to document the process consistent with the two-step formalities, the required formality of one officer making an independent decision and preparing the Report, and then referring that to the MD to make a separate independent determination reviewing the Report and considering the PR's input. That is, looks like they might typically make the decision, and if that is to issue a Removal Order, they then formalize the process . . . except this time they made mistakes revealing a failure to follow the formal process.
The point of the latter is that if the two officers who questioned the OP were more or less similarly, informally proceeding, and did not follow through with the formal paperwork because they decided to not issue a Removal Order, there might not be any documentation of a 44(1) Report being prepared. That is, just because it appears the two-step process was more or less what happened, given the outcome (no Removal Order) it might not have been formalized and there might not be documentation to confirm a formal adjudication of sufficient H&C reasons to allow the OP to keep PR status.
But if there was a 44(1) Report prepared, and that was set aside by the reviewing officer (even if rather hesitantly, with some trepidation), and the OP could recover this through the ATIP process, that could be the ticket to apply for a PR card sooner rather than waiting and being able to travel abroad for a short trip. Still not entirely risk free, in regards to both applying for a new PR card before getting into RO compliance, and for traveling abroad next summer, but if there was a positive H&C adjudication, and now that is followed by actually establishing a long-term physical residence in Canada, that would put the OP in a rather strong position relative to RO enforcement.
ALL THAT SAID . . . A CAUTION . . . among recent events making me aware that prepared 44(1) Reports are not always shared with the PR, copies not always given, is a discussion I have had here in the forum with a PR who had a 44(1) Report prepared against him, but was then allowed to enter Canada without being given a copy of the Report and advised he would be contacted by another officer for further questioning and review. This is not the usual procedure but it is not uncommon either. And I have recently seen cases where the Report was prepared after the PR entered Canada (typically a PR who is uncooperative with questioning, who must be allowed to enter anyway). In any event, there are other possible outcomes of the May PoE examination. If OP gave valid contact information and kept it current with IRCC, very unlikely there is an issue lurking here. But there is some possibility of a Report outstanding and that would be an entirely different ballgame.
OP is a poster child for advocates of RO. In breach of RO and contemplating a travel overseas because he wants to attend some fancy party,
Last edited:
The goal of immigration is to have people settle down per entry in Canada and become citizens. The goal isn’t to have PRs around the world who only call on Canada when in need of help.