my son spend only 2 months in canada in 2013. So, the degree of of establishment in canada:both initial and continuing, is the negative point of my son to get PRTD outside of canada,so its better way to enter canada via land border ,instead of to apply for PRTD at the age 17?. my son want study and retained his pr status and live in canada.
Left Canada when a minor
- Thread starter darl500
- Start date
Due to lots of abuse of the PRTD and left as a minor without ever really living in Canada, Canada has started cracking down on the loophole. If your family has never lived, worked, paid taxes in Canada and have not met your RO it is only fair that students are asked to pay foreign tuition like other international students.
Given what we've seen recently, he's probably best trying to enter at a US/Canada land border and hoping he's not reported. However he may have challenges attending school. Universities typically want to see a valid PR card and he won't be able to apply for one until he has lived in Canada for 2 years. So hard to say what the right solution will be.
I know we have seen an increase in the number of reports where young PRs are denied a PR TD despite applying for one soon after reaching the age of majority where the PR had a minimal history of presence and no real establishment in Canada while a minor.
Beyond that, however, beyond extrapolating the generalization "Due to lots of abuse of the PRTD and left as a minor without ever really living in Canada, Canada has started cracking down on the loophole" from those reports, are there any other sources this generalization is based on?
Please respond to this . . . this question is NOT about challenging the proposition, but is really about discerning as much as we can about policies and practices related to the viability of H&C cases for PRs removed as a minor, and what factors can influence how it actually goes.
Why I ask:
For one thing, I am not so sure this is markedly different from how Canada has approached these cases for a long while . . . in following PR issues in this and other forums, it is apparent to me that in the last few years the forums have seen a significant increase in the number of queries and reported experiences related to this . . . in comparison to common but not frequent posting over the years simply affirming that PRs removed from Canada as minors had very good odds of being granted a PR TD based on H&C reasons so long as they made a timely, reasonable effort to return to Canada . . . it seems to me those cases typically involved PRs who had at least some significant establishment in Canada before leaving.
That is, I wonder if the apparent trend in denying PR TD applications by PRs recently attaining majority is more about a trend in the number of applications being made by individuals who had very little or no establishment in Canada, than it is any change in IRCC policy or practice. (Recognizing that the nature and extent of establishment in Canada has long been one of the biggest factors in the H&C analysis for PRs seeking to keep status despite failing to comply with the RO.)
There are multiple reasons why this could be important:
The most salient, of course, is simply about whether there is much chance of keeping PR status. For a PR who has been totally absent from Canada for many years, the risk of being reported upon arrival at a PoE, after all, is still very high, so there is much to consider in deciding either way, that is if one will apply for a PR TD, or make a substantial investment in making a trip to Canada via the U.S.
Another huge difference it can make for the young person who wants to come to Canada (whether mostly to study or to settle permanently) is whether or not it is reasonably likely the young PR can obtain a favourable H&C decision which will provide them with proof of status (without having to wait two plus years). In the best circumstances, any such a move can be rather difficult for just about anyone other than the more affluent, and of course the amount of difficulty is dramatically greater if the PR does not have proof of status for the first two years. So making the decision, relying on H&C reasons related to removal as a minor, about whether to apply for a PR TD so as to get a formal decision as to status, or to soon apply for a PR card after coming to Canada to obtain a status card (PR card), that decision can be a very big decision the young person makes. (For many the difference in being able to obtain proof of status, or not, can make the difference in whether it is worth the try to come to Canada and keep PR status.)
And, should young PRs wait to AFTER reaching the age of majority? . . . this is a separate issue which I suspect may be important but as yet I have not seen enough reliable information, before now, to even raise it. Is it important for the young PR to actually wait until he or she is actually of majority age before applying for a PR TD, even if there was significant establishment in Canada prior to being removed as a minor? Some of the reports we are seeing seem to involve young PRs who have not yet reached the age of majority. For a long time known cases have shown that when a minor applies for a PR TD at the same time as a parent, and both have been absent from Canada well over three of the last five years, the minor's PR TD application is denied along with the parent's . . . terminating the minor's PR status (unless of course there is a successful appeal). As long as the PR is a dependent (a minor), with a parent abroad, to what extent might that negate how compelling the H&C case is for allowing the PR to keep status?
Whether or what other sources indicate:
Obviously, the more specific and detailed the information the better. Of course I am interested in any government source, official or unofficial, that in any way references a change in policy or practice "due to abuses," in particular, whether a Minister's statement or even commentary from a MP, or even a reliable IRCC source (help centre agents are of little use for questions like this, for example).
BUT more importantly is whether there is any formal, authoritative, or official source which specifically articulates the way in which the lack-of-establishment factor is considered in a PR-removed-as-a-minor case, where the PR is attempting to keep status soon after attaining the age of majority. And any citations to actual case decisions by the IAD, addressing this in particular, would be HUGELY appreciated.
Will MUCH APPRECIATE any and all source information.
Anectodally there have been more and more people planning on this forum to obtain PR but not to settle in Canada only to secure domestic tuition for their children. The origin purpose of the loophole was to welcome back PR children who had spent part of the childhood and schooling in Canada but had to move for parents job or other reasons. What we were and continue to see is children who may have spent a week in Canada 10 years ago or even a few days as an infant counting on the fact that they will be given access to domestic tuition rates. It is a huge cost savings to these families. There are examples on this forum of families applying for PR for their family with no intention to relocate to Canada their only intention is to secure domestic tuition. The aim of the PR program is to invite skilled workers and their family to move to Canada and participate in the Canadian economy and in exchange your family gets to benefit for the Canadian programs and services like Canadian citizens. Granting a family PR is not a way to allow people to avoid paying domestic fees when they have never settled in Canada like other international students. This year we did see a shift. Where as young adults from 18-22 were getting approved regularly many started being refused. Especially the older ones.
I grasp the analysis, the rationale. And it makes sense. So it is not as if I am challenging it.
And in just this forum alone there is clearly a recent escalation in the number of reports indicating removed-minors having PR TD applications denied/refused.
In particular, I agree with posts cautioning young PRs that their chances to keep PR status may be very limited if they spent rather little time in Canada and never were much established in Canada.
But the outcome of these cases could be consistent with IRCC Visa Offices giving the lack of establishment factor weight that offsets the lack-of-personal-choice (removed as a minor) factor, and not necessarily a significant policy or practice change, given the particular facts in these cases (the main fact being very little time in Canada). Especially if it is true, as you describe, there has been this trend by some Foreign Nationals to actually pursue the PR process to facilitate later educational opportunities for their children, and the recent reports of TD refusals is specifically in response to those cases in particular.
More importantly, it does not illuminate much about how other factors might influence the outcome, or for that matter much about what degree of establishment or presence might make the difference, let alone the very important question about whether or not, and if so what additional information the young PR might include in making a stronger H&C case.
Even a newspaper report describing what government officials have said about this could be informative and helpful. For sure, any formal decision articulating the reasons for not allowing the PR to retain PR status would be especially useful.
SO, TO BE CLEAR: REFERENCE TO ANY SOURCE OF INFORMATION ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
Obvious cases tend to be easy cases. Not my bailiwick. To my view it is important, helpful to some, to identify what factors influence how these things go. Even if it is impossible to quantify the probabilities, if we can identify how certain factors will typically influence things, which direction they might push the needle, that should be useful for some.
Example: what would make a difference in terms of establishment? Two months rather than two weeks? Six months rather than two? A year? Two years?
My estimation is that there will NOT be any direct correlation between a specific amount of time and the outcome, that other factors will have some influence, and that otherwise there are also bound to simply be variable outcomes depending on the Visa Office. But if there are actual policies and practices in play, what those are and the manner in which they are applied can be valuable information for many young PRs abroad trying to decide if it is worth trying to come to Canada. And if so, whether the young PR could provide additional information in their PR TD application which might make his or her H&C case stronger.
It is also worth noting, remembering, that at least among the more sober voices here there was NO guarantee that a PR removed-as-a-minor would be issued a PR TD on H&C grounds, and well before this recent trend of refusals more than a few here advised caution in applying for a new PR card for those who were able to come to Canada via the U.S. without getting reported, emphasizing that the safer approach was to stay the two years, thereby cure the breach of the RO, rather than relying on a positive H&C outcome. Personally I am not much surprised by the outcome in these recently reported cases, which it warrants emphasizing are largely about PRs with NO established life in Canada. If the child was not established in Canada, it is no stretch to distinguish that child's case from those given relief because they were "removed" from Canada.
A note about the apparent trend by some Foreign Nationals to actually pursue the PR process to facilitate later educational opportunities for their children, and the recent reports of TD refusals is specifically in response to those cases in particular:
While this may very well be where many of these recently refused cases, involving PRs who spent rather little time in Canada, are coming from, my sense is there are probably many cases also coming from situations in which the process of immigrating to Canada did not work out and then later, when the children approach university age, and they become familiar with reports that PRs removed-as-a-minor are easily given a chance to keep PR status, that simply appears to be an opportunity worth pursuing and one that many will pursue . . . note, after all, a large number of new PRs simply fail to actually settle in Canada, and I would anticipate that those with young families, in particular, might find making the actual move a lot more difficult than it looked on paper. Which is NOT to say that should give the children an anchor-right to come to Canada later in life, particularly to take advantage of Canada's educational opportunities for residents if they never have been in fact a resident.
THE MAIN THING: is to identify what is known about actual policies and practices, about the criteria employed and how that is applied given typical variables. Does a year in grade school in Canada before being "removed" make the difference? We know that the nature and degree of establishment is a big factor. We know that the lack-of-personal-choice (in the reason for being abroad) is a big factor. We know a big factor is how soon after attaining majority or emancipation as an adult the young PR attempts to return to Canada.
And, I have a strong apprehension that making the PR TD application prior to actually reaching the age of majority might HURT the young PR's chances. If this is the case, that is important for young PRs to know.
FINALLY, and importantly, can we still say, EXCEPT for these cases of minimal-establishment, that young PRs removed from Canada as a minor who seek to come to Canada soon after attaining the age of majority have a very good chance of being issued a PR TD, which would allow them to come to Canada and once in Canada apply for and be issued a PR card? Do the reports of recent refusals signal a tougher approach generally?
My sense is that there are more than a few young PRs around the world with some significant hopes hanging in the balance.
It should not be deduced that the young adult is pursuing the path of applying for the PRTD just to avail the educational fee subsidies.
The child was a minor when he/she has been removed from Canada, solely due to the decision of the parent/s. If now, after attaining the age of maturity (18), the young adult wants to relocate and make Canada their permanent residence - why should it be considered that it is done to only avail the subsidy in the fees.
How can one presume that the young adult, having completed the University will leave Canada to relocate to another country or would he/she rather find a job and settle in Canada? The young adult may very well eventually contribute to the society, work and pay taxes and may make Canada his/her home.
Can't the young adult decide on these lines? How does a young adult prove that this is the real intention without being given a chance to come to Canada and settle.
The child was a minor when he/she has been removed from Canada, solely due to the decision of the parent/s. If now, after attaining the age of maturity (18), the young adult wants to relocate and make Canada their permanent residence - why should it be considered that it is done to only avail the subsidy in the fees.
How can one presume that the young adult, having completed the University will leave Canada to relocate to another country or would he/she rather find a job and settle in Canada? The young adult may very well eventually contribute to the society, work and pay taxes and may make Canada his/her home.
Can't the young adult decide on these lines? How does a young adult prove that this is the real intention without being given a chance to come to Canada and settle.
Last edited:
I do not mean to speak for those who have specifically put forth the proposition that there is a recent change in policy or practice which explains denying H&C relief to young PRs based on apprehending a scheme to exploit the PR system so as to take advantage of educational opportunities in Canada.
Apart from that, indeed EVEN IF that is the rationale underlying a more strict approach to H&C cases in removed-as-a-minor cases, my impression is that is NOT what authorities are citing as their reasons (which is a large part of why it would be especially helpful if anyone can provide any source, any source at all, reflecting what government officials are in fact saying in or about these cases).
My strong impression is that the articulated reasons will be far more about the USUAL FACTORS at play in the H&C assessment, with particular attention given to balancing two:
-- young PR's lack-of-personal-choice in reason for going and remaining abroad (the "removed" as a minor element), versus
-- nature and extent of establishment in Canada
-- nature and extent of establishment in Canada
In particular, I do not anticipate such a severe approach to all removed-as-a-minor cases . . . rather I'd anticipate that there is a big difference between those who actually lived in Canada long enough to have established real-in-fact residence before being "removed," versus those who had rather little establishment. And as I mentioned previously, this would be consistent with how the H&C assessment has been done for a long while, recognizing the weight a lack of establishment has.
Additionally, I doubt the Visa Office's conclusions and reasons for denying a young PR's TD application will even mention anything about schemes to exploit the PR system so as to take advantage of educational opportunities in Canada.
That said, the young PR's plans and intentions are also a relevant factor. The purpose for a grant of PR is to enable a person to come to Canada to settle and LIVE in Canada PERMANENTLY. If the information the young PR provides in the application for a PR TD, in support of the H&C claim, indicates that the young PR's interest and intention is focused on coming to Canada to go to school rather than to settle and stay PERMANENTLY, obviously that can be a negative factor weighing against allowing the young PR to retain PR status. Even if the young PR's submissions are relatively silent as to this issue, the absence of the PR's expressed intent to come to Canada to settle PERMANENTLY can weigh against H&C relief.
Similarly in the context of a PoE examination. If the young PR explicitly says he or she wants to come to Canada for school, and in saying that does NOT express an intent and plan to settle permanently, obviously that will tend to be a negative factor.
BUT MOSTLY THE OUTCOME WILL PROBABLY DEPEND SIGNIFICANTLY ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PR's TIME AND ESTABLISHMENT IN CANADA. Little time in Canada will probably translate into higher odds of a negative decision.
As I also noted before, it is not much of a stretch to distinguish the minor who had minimal establishment or presence in Canada from the minor who was settled and living in Canada and THEN REMOVED, with no personal choice in the matter.
REMEMBER: H&C cases always involve BALANCING many factors. They are almost always tricky. They are quite often rather difficult. The grant of H&C relief is distinctly DISCRETIONARY, not required.
REMEMBER as well that a PR abroad is statutorily PRESUMED to not have valid PR status, so there is a real burden on the PR to affirmatively prove there are good and sufficient reasons why the PR should be allowed to retain status.
Well yes, but at the same time, it cannot be a blanket "Yes" or "No". The minor as such whether lived for a few years in Canada before being removed or stayed for a few weeks or months - still is in no position to make the choice. The minor has to move as per the choice of the parent/s. It cannot then be determined that the minor "had strong ties" or "establishment in Canada" - since he/she is a minor and cannot make that mature decision. How can a minor "establish strong ties"?
Now when the minor attains maturity and is able to decide for himself/herself that he/she wants to settle permanently in Canada. Then it becomes a valid reason to be considered while making the decision to give the PRTD.
The H&C assessment rarely is a "blanket 'Yes' or 'No' but rather is a complicated and delicate BALANCING process.
Some may quibble with the weight given this or that factor, but extent of actual establishment in Canada has long been a significant factor and it clearly relates directly to the purpose for the grant of PR: to facilitate settling and living in Canada permanently. And, after all, it is not as if the government of Canada precluded the PR from establishing a life in Canada.
Remember too that PRs do NOT have a Charter right to leave and return to Canada. The only Canadians with that right are Canadian citizens. Thus the government does not have a high hurdle in showing need for imposing the burden on PRs abroad to prove they deserve, based on H&C reasons, to keep PR status. Indeed, as I mentioned, there is a specific statutory PRESUMPTION that a PR abroad who does not have a valid status document does NOT have valid status. Here too one may quibble with the wisdom or fairness of such law, but this has been the law for a long while. (Note: while we often discuss the "right" of a PR to enter Canada, that is a *statutory* right which the law actually considers a PRIVILEGE not a "right" as such . . . overall, PR status is specifically considered a privilege; thus, PRs have a RIGHT to fair procedure before PR status is taken away, but NOT a RIGHT to PR status itself.)
Additionally, the reason for the absence is merely one factor. When the reason is virtually, totally a reason outside the individual's control . . . that is, if the PR lacked personal choice in the reason for being abroad . . . that is indeed given a lot of weight. It is the main reason why it has appeared, until recently, that the removed-as-a-minor PR who makes an effort to come to Canada soon after attaining the age of majority has had very, very good odds of being allowed to keep PR status on H&C grounds. But as sober voices here sometimes cautioned, there was NO guarantee. It was NOT a blanket "Yes" the removed-as-a-minor PR would be issued a PR TD or at a PoE allowed to enter Canada without being subject to a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility. Other factors could influence what would happen. As I personally have oft cautioned, even the strongest H&C cases tend to be tricky and most are more difficult to win than commonly apprehended.
As others have explained, it makes sense that the extent to which it appears there has been a trend among some Foreign Nationals to exploit the Canadian PR system may indeed be playing a significant role in the increased number of denied PR TD applications. "Crackdown" may be overstating the case some, but it makes sense, in particular, that the escalating number of young PRs who never really lived in Canada attempting to leverage the technicalities of status and a brief visit to Canada would trigger elevated scrutiny resulting in more negative outcomes based on balancing all the relevant factors.
But apart from that, it is not much of a surprise that the government might distinguish those who have some real roots in a life in Canada versus those who have virtually no roots at all.
Unfortunately the Internet, and oft times this forum as well, is rife with declarative generalizations which rather often are well off how things can go in individual cases. PR RO issues are particularly complex and subject to nuance, which is why I personally have stayed interested in the subject for so long, many years now since I went from being a PR to becoming a Canadian citizen. While one can find more than a few "blanket" yes or no propositions asserted here, and elsewhere, the practical reality rarely is anywhere near that cut-and-dried.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED, nonetheless, that it still appears PoE examinations are less strict than PR TD decision-making, and that indeed it appears some PRs long past compliance with the RO are still being waived into Canada without much of an examination . . . so for many, among those for whom traveling via the U.S. is an available option, attempting to come to Canada that way at least offers some the chance to come, stay, and in two years have cured the breach of the RO.
let me be a devil advocate for a bit.
Canada has currently huge amount applicants wanting to become PR (EE status is a very visible proof).
The real reason for accepting so many immigrants are much less for support of your or kind of other altruism, but is has much more to do with business.
And Canada for sure prefers business. So people who want to do strategic decisions regarding better labour market access in the future, are simply ask to either just survive in Canada for 4 year (if you have lot of savings), or to work and pay taxes, but not use them much. After that they can become citizens (3 years to have + 1 year for the application) and then they can move wherever they want.
Canada also likes to have people that have already studies somewhere else of have studied in Canada and paid full tuition fees (international students), as this solution is much cheaper for national budget.
So why would they want to grant blank return pass to those where monetary contribution was not very high (in these cases, it is all about their parents)? If they are really interested, then they surely can afford those international students fees.
Maybe in the past choices of good "citizen material" were more limited, so Canada was more eager to accept these young adults, but time has changed. With plenty to choose from that are still in good age (below 30), but already have everything including good work experience, choice is obvious.
So; and this is my assumption; In CIC offices they might got an internal memo, with some ratio of length stayed in Canada and the time that has passed (so I guess those that have stayed longer and or have were removed from Canada more recently stand higher chance to be approved).
Unlike in the case of parents, their options to plead H&C reasons is much more limited. (you cannot really expect of a minor to be legally capable to take care of their ill relative). So it is much easier to decide those cases, actually using some kind of hidden formula behind. And it is much more difficult to win appeal in those cases.
Canada has currently huge amount applicants wanting to become PR (EE status is a very visible proof).
The real reason for accepting so many immigrants are much less for support of your or kind of other altruism, but is has much more to do with business.
And Canada for sure prefers business. So people who want to do strategic decisions regarding better labour market access in the future, are simply ask to either just survive in Canada for 4 year (if you have lot of savings), or to work and pay taxes, but not use them much. After that they can become citizens (3 years to have + 1 year for the application) and then they can move wherever they want.
Canada also likes to have people that have already studies somewhere else of have studied in Canada and paid full tuition fees (international students), as this solution is much cheaper for national budget.
So why would they want to grant blank return pass to those where monetary contribution was not very high (in these cases, it is all about their parents)? If they are really interested, then they surely can afford those international students fees.
Maybe in the past choices of good "citizen material" were more limited, so Canada was more eager to accept these young adults, but time has changed. With plenty to choose from that are still in good age (below 30), but already have everything including good work experience, choice is obvious.
So; and this is my assumption; In CIC offices they might got an internal memo, with some ratio of length stayed in Canada and the time that has passed (so I guess those that have stayed longer and or have were removed from Canada more recently stand higher chance to be approved).
Unlike in the case of parents, their options to plead H&C reasons is much more limited. (you cannot really expect of a minor to be legally capable to take care of their ill relative). So it is much easier to decide those cases, actually using some kind of hidden formula behind. And it is much more difficult to win appeal in those cases.
Given that we have seen many questions from parents intending to apply for PR and wondering whether their offspring will be able to claim they were removed as minors when they want to go to university it is safe to say the secret is out and likely it has also spread throughout the consultant network and throughout all immigration forums. On top of that I have seen a new technique to secure domestic fees for your children without the parents moving to Canada: apply for PR the year before your eldest child wants to attend a Canadian university. Obviously this only works if you started having children in your early 20s or before.
I do hope that POE gets stricter on all their entries and that the government actually tracks RO with immigration at the POE so that anyone not meeting their RO get flagged. Or at least people trying to enter on other passports get flagged as PRs. The RO is very generous but it is not strictly enforced so many don’t take it seriously. In general we live in a much more global world where people move around much more easily so many will not stay after receiving citizenship. 15-20 years ago the majority of immigrants planned to move to Canada and be there for the rest of their lives. Canada really needs to decide if 3 years is worth 30+ years of healthcare and services during retirement, post secondary education for children and potentially other services. Canada used to need to attract talent but times have changed. Many have no interest in going to the UK or US we don’t have to give our citizenship away so easily. You can get citizenship while having already left Canada with no intention of returning which would seem crazy to most Canadian citizens living in Canada.
I do hope that POE gets stricter on all their entries and that the government actually tracks RO with immigration at the POE so that anyone not meeting their RO get flagged. Or at least people trying to enter on other passports get flagged as PRs. The RO is very generous but it is not strictly enforced so many don’t take it seriously. In general we live in a much more global world where people move around much more easily so many will not stay after receiving citizenship. 15-20 years ago the majority of immigrants planned to move to Canada and be there for the rest of their lives. Canada really needs to decide if 3 years is worth 30+ years of healthcare and services during retirement, post secondary education for children and potentially other services. Canada used to need to attract talent but times have changed. Many have no interest in going to the UK or US we don’t have to give our citizenship away so easily. You can get citizenship while having already left Canada with no intention of returning which would seem crazy to most Canadian citizens living in Canada.
Last edited:
Reminder: I am still BEGGING for SOME SOURCE, ANY OBJECTIVE SOURCE of information (obviously government source preferred, but at this juncture any objective report will help) describing reasons for denying H&C relief to a removed-as-a-minor PR.
The removed-as-a-minor PR has among the strongest possible positive reason-for-absence factors, given a total lack-of-personal-choice. And as long as the young PR makes the effort to return to Canada soon after attaining the age of majority, that reason covers the full period of absence. Perhaps an adult PR who was taken and held hostage, or illegally incarcerated in a foreign country, might be considered to have a more compelling justification for the absence, but other than some very extreme scenario the reason-for-absence factor weighs as much in favour of the removed-as-a-minor PR as it possibly can.
This factor, however, does NOT negate or totally override all the other factors. So it is indeed possible, as you suggest, that an internal memo or some sort of policy or practice directive has been circulated specifically addressing the weight to be given other factors . . . and if that is the case, the odds-on-most-likely bet is it references the importance of the nature-and-extent-of-establishment-in-Canada factor.
I disagree that any "secret" is out: we have always known that there was NO guarantee even for the removed-as-a-minor PR and all we know really know, unless and until someone shares a government SOURCE, or at least a report based on a government source, is the increase in number of these cases being denied a PR TD . . . in cases involving minimal establishment in Canada.
Overall, notwithstanding the reports of denied PR TD applications, the removed-as-a-minor PR who was in fact established and living in Canada, for some appreciable period of time prior to being removed, probably still has among the more likely to succeed H&C cases relative to the same amount of time absent from Canada, whether applying for a PR TD or seeking entry at a PoE (having traveled to land crossing from the U.S.), and including on appeal from either a denied PR TD application or from a PoE issued 44(1) Report.
Indeed, trying to get some sense of what the parameters or criteria are, in terms of distinguishing which removed-as-a-minor PRs still have a very good chance of keeping PR status versus the chances of being denied, is the reason I am BEGGING for SOME SOURCE, ANY SOURCE of information describing reasons for denying H&C relief to a removed-as-a-minor PR. It is not likely we can learn enough to definitely quantify probabilities for particular individuals, or even close, but any source of actually cited reasons should offer substantial insight into how certain salient factors (especially the establishment-in-Canada factor) are influencing the outcome.
Note, while the needed-to-care-for-severely-ill-parent reason for the absence appears to at least be a very common one presented by PRs who have breached the Residency Obligation, there is much reason to doubt the strength of cases depending on this factor . . . especially for PRs who similarly had minimal establishment in Canada prior to the absence. More than a few IAD decisions discuss the RO as intentionally liberal and flexible enough to accommodate these kinds of contingencies. These tend to be significantly weaker cases than many apprehend.
FOR EMPHASIS: There is NO reason to apprehend that the removed-as-a-minor PR H&C case, relative to a PR who actually was an in-fact resident in Canada, thus not merely one who had acquired the status of a PR, is much if any weaker now than it has been for many years. That is, to be clear, it still appears the removed-as-a-minor PR who was in fact established and living in Canada, for some appreciable period of time prior to being removed, probably still has among the more likely to succeed H&C cases for keeping PR . . . also dependent, of course, on how soon after emancipation or reaching the age of majority the young PR makes the effort to return to Canada.
NOTE: Still NO guarantees. Outcomes in individual cases can and almost certainly will continue to vary.
For clarification:
The removed-as-a-minor PR has among the strongest possible positive reason-for-absence factors, given a total lack-of-personal-choice. And as long as the young PR makes the effort to return to Canada soon after attaining the age of majority, that reason covers the full period of absence. Perhaps an adult PR who was taken and held hostage, or illegally incarcerated in a foreign country, might be considered to have a more compelling justification for the absence, but other than some very extreme scenario the reason-for-absence factor weighs as much in favour of the removed-as-a-minor PR as it possibly can.
This factor, however, does NOT negate or totally override all the other factors. So it is indeed possible, as you suggest, that an internal memo or some sort of policy or practice directive has been circulated specifically addressing the weight to be given other factors . . . and if that is the case, the odds-on-most-likely bet is it references the importance of the nature-and-extent-of-establishment-in-Canada factor.
I disagree that any "secret" is out: we have always known that there was NO guarantee even for the removed-as-a-minor PR and all we know really know, unless and until someone shares a government SOURCE, or at least a report based on a government source, is the increase in number of these cases being denied a PR TD . . . in cases involving minimal establishment in Canada.
Overall, notwithstanding the reports of denied PR TD applications, the removed-as-a-minor PR who was in fact established and living in Canada, for some appreciable period of time prior to being removed, probably still has among the more likely to succeed H&C cases relative to the same amount of time absent from Canada, whether applying for a PR TD or seeking entry at a PoE (having traveled to land crossing from the U.S.), and including on appeal from either a denied PR TD application or from a PoE issued 44(1) Report.
Indeed, trying to get some sense of what the parameters or criteria are, in terms of distinguishing which removed-as-a-minor PRs still have a very good chance of keeping PR status versus the chances of being denied, is the reason I am BEGGING for SOME SOURCE, ANY SOURCE of information describing reasons for denying H&C relief to a removed-as-a-minor PR. It is not likely we can learn enough to definitely quantify probabilities for particular individuals, or even close, but any source of actually cited reasons should offer substantial insight into how certain salient factors (especially the establishment-in-Canada factor) are influencing the outcome.
Note, while the needed-to-care-for-severely-ill-parent reason for the absence appears to at least be a very common one presented by PRs who have breached the Residency Obligation, there is much reason to doubt the strength of cases depending on this factor . . . especially for PRs who similarly had minimal establishment in Canada prior to the absence. More than a few IAD decisions discuss the RO as intentionally liberal and flexible enough to accommodate these kinds of contingencies. These tend to be significantly weaker cases than many apprehend.
FOR EMPHASIS: There is NO reason to apprehend that the removed-as-a-minor PR H&C case, relative to a PR who actually was an in-fact resident in Canada, thus not merely one who had acquired the status of a PR, is much if any weaker now than it has been for many years. That is, to be clear, it still appears the removed-as-a-minor PR who was in fact established and living in Canada, for some appreciable period of time prior to being removed, probably still has among the more likely to succeed H&C cases for keeping PR . . . also dependent, of course, on how soon after emancipation or reaching the age of majority the young PR makes the effort to return to Canada.
NOTE: Still NO guarantees. Outcomes in individual cases can and almost certainly will continue to vary.
ok
First of all just like many others I am drawing assumptions, simply because there is no proper statistics released to this topic.
Why?
Because there i no statistics released even regarding amount of PRTD or approved or rejected PRTD in general.
While there is some statistics released for H&C cases (and only those that decide to appeal PRTD decisions end up there), there is impossible to distinguish them from other cases.
However what we are lacking from statistics is given by some responses of amount of applicants reporting rejection. Of course people are much more eager to report success, rather than rejection (especially for the cases, where such outcome was predictable and he or she was just trying how much can they stretch the system). So the higher influx of rejection does indicate that something is happening (especially when after a bit digging, you might find similar cases that were approved in the past and now started to be rejected).
Logical thing did happen and CIC offices are finally starting to catch up, that forums and all kind of immi-groups on FB, TW and where else, are very usefull guide for more and more people. So if they want to draw line somewhere where it is rather clear, that minor removal is just a scape goat (like the case that is described in this thread), they need to send this message by starting consistently rejecting such cases.
If outcome would be still pure lottery (depending on how kindhearted the officer it) or even much more favourable, that would only attract attention of more and more "players".
But with budget that is not inflated (H&C are already getting heavily overloaded with other claimants), they need to find way how to discourage those cases that have little to no chance to succeed.
That is why I also think that such internal memo or direction does exist
Now for the part why I think removal as minor is much weaker H&C reason, than it would seem.
Your argument is well and good when it comes to being forced to leave. Unfortunately, that argument is much less valid for children, than for young adult.
Why?
Your parents or legal guardians are those that are doing the best long term decision for you while you are not objectively to do it yourself properly. A child can argue that he / she wants to play longer outside, while parent does know that rest is needed as well. Was the child removed against its will at that moment? Yes he / she was. But does it mean that play that day was really that important to override the need to sleep in a long term? No it was not. The desire to play was nothing but a spur of a moment. It was not the case where that pattern was well established and then denied without much of a better exchange.
The truth is also, that the younger the child in general, the more flexible to adapt to the new environment and the less capable to manifest his / her long term will, rather than impulsive desire. Which also means, that even longer stay will have little to no effect to really feel removed from somewhere (a kid that came as a baby and left 3-4 years later, was still pretty much happy to live with his / her family - it would be rather rare to see any kind of attachment to the society outside, that would be even close to his / her parents).
And yes it is very convenient years later to say, that he or she was removed against its will, where such feeling most likely did not exist at that time and were discovered only much later (around the age 17+).
Would you use that term in a strict sense of being removed against own will at that time (having long dislike of that act when it was happening and long after it happened), is not the same as discovering year later, that oh actually I did not like that (i just did not know it then).
So with that such situation would be really rare.
Of course removing a teenager (especially an older one) after spending in that place several years (and not 3-6 months or so), is a different story. That person is already in development its own life and is most likely heavily invested into society around.
And lastly,
Minors are in such cases first of all proving that they were removed against their own will and much less why did that happen (because unless it would be their direct family member as parent or a sibling; they cannot really claim to be restrained by illness of the other person, only by decision of their own parents).
Think we can all agree that we are speaking on cases similar to the one specified where there has been little establishment in Canada and the child has not been in Canada for a long time. Anecdotally we saw most young adults from 18-21 (even older) being approved when using H&C reason as being removed as a minor approved even last year. Very similar stories seem to be receiving rejections this year. Not 100% of the cases but every case posted was previously being accepted with very little time every spent in Canada. Not discouraging people from applying but it is far from the easy process it used to be.