Leaving with a two days buffer of PR obligation

[mira_johnson]

Would suggest you worry about that after you are in Canada. There are multiple options esp if your spouse from visa waiver country.



I don't know enough to say. My thinking was to avoid lengthier interaction with border officers since you are worried about RO compliance and being let in.

Once you are in country, seems extending visa for child would be easier, and you as parent in country - out of compliance but NOT residing in country illegally - would likely not be examined. But I don't know.

Sure, I can see your point too. I guess I'm also worried about lengthy application process due to the temporary "stall" during covid19. At the border there is immediate processing. All worth considering.

In travel information on CBSA website they do mention that PRs need to come to Canada to "settle" down over a period of more than one year unless they are returning PR's. Definitely need to look into this whether he might actually not be allowed in to "visit" even if its visiting an immediate family member that's a PR. In which case its probably best to renounce for him.

 

[mira_johnson]

The aim of this law is not to kick immigrants out but encourage new immigrants (like you) to move to Canada and settle permanently.
PR obligation is counted in 5 years rolling interval, i.e the 5 years before the examination and after being PR.
Your obligation compliance can change depending on when you are examined.
So it is not strange or illegal to allow people to stay in Canada and get back into compliance.
As I said before, even if you are seriously out of compliance and the officers at the border investigated you,
they have the discretion to waive you through if they think you are moving to Canada with the intent of settling down.

I think if a PR was found to be not in compliance with RO, he can be issued a removal order. The PR can appeal, but the appeal process can take over two years, and the days after the removal order will not be counted for PR obligation or citizenship until the appeal is won. Also, the PR who is issued a removal order can not sponsor anyone. So this is not the kind of reporting you to want to happen. Sometimes, officers at the borders warn people out of compliance verbally and let them know that they need to have two years of residency, but this not reporting, it just letting them know the danger.

Again, reporting people at the border/airport is not this common, especially with your PR card still valid and the covid situation.
Do not overthink it, just travel to Canada as soon as possible to avoid all these issues, especially when you are renewing your PR card.
PR card renewal is the time when they ask you to list all your trips, addresses, jobs, and examine your residency days closely.
Anything PR card renewal application with less than 730 days will require justification and they can ask for evidence that you lived in Canada if they are suspicious and your application requires secondary review.
Your husband's RO issues do not affect you. Your son can be sponsored (inland) from inside Canada and he can stay until his application is approved. Sponsoring immediate family members can be slow but does not require financial proofs, so just being inside Canada is enough.

Thanks amrelroby. I understand, the rolling starts after the first 5 yrs. Which means I am not under "rolling" rules yet, though. Perhaps it's somehow "less risky" once under rolling rules, although someone here stated otherwise. To me that would make the most sense.

If officers are known to warn people to reside for two years even after noticing a breach that must mean that it is an OK action if anything.

I actually called the CBSA to ask if they are providing exceptions at this time, don't think I was talking to the right person (immigration) but the person in contact didn't give much more info other than there are no such directives right now (that they are giving exemptions) and that it is a case to case basis. Things are operating as normal just slower.

 

[armoured]

In travel information on CBSA website they do mention that PRs need to come to Canada to "settle" down over a period of more than one year unless they are returning PR's. Definitely need to look into this whether he might actually not be allowed in to "visit" even if its visiting an immediate family member that's a PR. In which case its probably best to renounce for him.

Don't know who you're referring to. If it's the child and accompanying you, almost certainly not an issue - immediate family members are allowed in (subject to quarantine i.e. more than 15 days visit). If it's the spouse who is a PR, he is a PR and entry restrictions do not apply. Quarantine rules do, for all.

 

[armoured]

I actually called the CBSA to ask if they are providing exceptions at this time, don't think I was talking to the right person (immigration) but the person in contact didn't give much more info other than there are no such directives right now (that they are giving exemptions) and that it is a case to case basis. Things are operating as normal just slower.

I think others here have stated repeatedly, if not in this thread then in many others: there is no directive (as far as anyone is aware) that specifically provides an exemption.

BUT: the existing H&C rules - that they MUST take into consideration H&C factors - do apply, and they are broad enough to cover covid-related reasons.

That does not mean a guarantee of no issues, BUT border officers do not like to start paperwork and the whole process for cases that will be treated favourably on subsequent appeal. This does not mean a blanket "all covid reasons are fine", but a greater likelihood the border officers will be lenient right now (exercise their discretion to wave returning PRs through) if the case fits covid-related timelines.

 

[mira_johnson]

I don't know what this CIC News article says because the link you supplied earlier is broken.

First off, it's called a removal order and not a reporting order. And obviously, yes - it has serious consequences, but not sure how anyone could think otherwise?

Basically it works like this:

If you are found to be in non-compliance with your RO, you could be issued with a 44(1) report and subsequently referred to a minister's delegate. If the minister's delegate agrees with the finding, they will issue a removal order.

There are three types, as this page explains:

In the case mentioned above, you would first receive a departure order. This means you have to leave the country within 30 days and confirm your departure with CBSA.

If you do not, you will be issued with a deportation order, which means the Canadian government will seek to deport you (i.e. remove you by force).

The main difference in terms of consequences is that if you comply with the departure order, you can return to Canada (e.g. as a tourist or visitor), whereas if you don't comply with it (which obviously is a very bad idea), you are permanently barred from coming back to Canada. But again, this is avoidable if you comply with the departure order.

Note that you can appeal the departure order and you will be allowed to stay in the country until your appeal is decided.

Sorry, yes, removal order. Thanks for confirming, this is what I read also. Just wondering if even the deporting order could carry any future consequences (assuming you complied and it didn't turn into a deportation order) such as a "red flag" in your file, or making a serious application such as permanent residency application might be more difficult, etc. I wasn't able to find anything in the immigration act about this though. Probably overthinking again..

PS this link should work: https://www.cicnews.com/2017/01/number-canadian-immigrants-issued-removal-orders-more-than-doubled-between-2008-2014-018817.html

I also found this article from march where CBCA are holding off removal orders during covid19 (but probably more related to planned removal orders) and not in issuing removal orders per se:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cbsa-refugees-immigrants-deportations-1.5501334

 

[scylla]

Sorry, yes, removal order. Thanks for confirming, this is what I read also. Just wondering if even the deporting order could carry any future consequences (assuming you complied and it didn't turn into a deportation order) such as a "red flag" in your file, or making a serious application such as permanent residency application might be more difficult, etc. I wasn't able to find anything in the immigration act about this though. Probably overthinking again..

PS this link should work: https://www.cicnews.com/2017/01/number-canadian-immigrants-issued-removal-orders-more-than-doubled-between-2008-2014-018817.html

I also found this article from march where CBCA are holding off removal orders during covid19 (but probably more related to planned removal orders) and not in issuing removal orders per se:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cbsa-refugees-immigrants-deportations-1.5501334

Correct. The hold is on executing removals for individuals under removal orders, not issuing removal order. Removal orders are still being issued.

 

[mira_johnson]

Don't know who you're referring to. If it's the child and accompanying you, almost certainly not an issue - immediate family members are allowed in (subject to quarantine i.e. more than 15 days visit). If it's the spouse who is a PR, he is a PR and entry restrictions do not apply. Quarantine rules do, for all.

I meant my spouse who is a PR but would only be visiting (more than 15 days). I literally stumbled upon this page https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/cpr-crp-eng.html , I can't say I understood what it is in relation to, is it a covid19 condition?

 

[mira_johnson]

I think others here have stated repeatedly, if not in this thread then in many others: there is no directive (as far as anyone is aware) that specifically provides an exemption.

BUT: the existing H&C rules - that they MUST take into consideration H&C factors - do apply, and they are broad enough to cover covid-related reasons.

That does not mean a guarantee of no issues, BUT border officers do not like to start paperwork and the whole process for cases that will be treated favourably on subsequent appeal. This does not mean a blanket "all covid reasons are fine", but a greater likelihood the border officers will be lenient right now (exercise their discretion to wave returning PRs through) if the case fits covid-related timelines.

Indeed, but this obviously doesn't stop me from seeking expert advice on the exact same subject whether it be from a lawyer, CBSA or IRCC. I now have confirmation from both CBSA and IRCC that there are currently no covid19 exception in place for RO breaches but that it is at the discretion of the officer and that covid19 will be taken into consideration. Just as you said

 

[mira_johnson]

Correct. The hold is on executing removals for individuals under removal orders, not issuing removal order. Removal orders are still being issued.

Close! Thanks for confirming