As noted, the more pertinent question, about questioning at the Port-of-Entry, is:
what sort of questions might be expected for a PR returning to Canada when the PR is NOT in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation? and again that brings up:
4. What and when is the secondary inspection, what questions are asked and how to prepare for those answers.
4. What and when is the secondary inspection, what questions are asked and how to prepare for those answers?
Note: for returning PRs, a referral to "
Secondary" is usually, mostly, about customs. Not immigration. Obviously, your questions are oriented, rather, to questions about RO compliance, an immigration matter, given the fact you are a PR in RO breach.
"
Secondary" is exactly what the term signifies: a second level of screening, in the process of conducting a PoE examination, for a traveler applying for authorization to actually enter Canada. We tend to gloss over the fact that arriving at a PoE to enter Canada constitutes an "
application" for authorization to make an in fact entry into the country. For returning Canadians, and likewise many FNs (Foreign Nationals) with documentation clearly showing their legal status, under the immigration law, authorizing travel and entry into Canada, this is an almost casual and relatively minimal examination conducted at the PIL. If in the PIL inspection/examination, however, any reason for additional screening is identified, the traveler will be referred to "
Secondary," for a second level of screening.
Since it appears you were last in Canada more than three years ago, that is you will be arriving at the PoE after an absence of more than three years, it is apparent on the face of things that you are likely in breach of the PR RO. This alone significantly elevates the risk that instead of being given a pass at the PIL ("
waived" into Canada) you will be referred to Secondary for further screening.
That said, there have been scores of anecdotal reports from PRs who similarly were in RO breach when they returned to Canada during the last year or so, who were nonetheless waived through at the PIL. It seems obvious that Covid has played a big role in this. Without getting sidetracked in speculating about the way consideration is given relative to how PRs abroad were affected, or the weight it carries, the virtually universal impact of Covid on international travel has undoubtedly expanded the scope of leniency toward RO enforcement in PoE examinations. Even before Covid, however, a PR with a valid PR card returning to Canada more than a year prior to the fifth year anniversary of the date they landed (when they became a PR) had fairly good if not quite good odds of being waived through with NO referral to Secondary to question their RO compliance. Thus, the sooner you come, the better your odds, but if you at least arrive here a year and several months before the fifth year anniversary of your landing date, there should still be a good chance, perhaps a rather good chance, you will not be asked detailed questions about RO compliance or the reasons why you did not come sooner.
If asked, just tell your story, YOUR story, perhaps something like
well I was trying to get a career started, and there was Covid, so I pursued establishing my own business, got involved in a relationship, and the time went by faster than I expected, so I put off getting here to settle and make my life in Canada. Being simple, honest, brief, not much more than
I want to make my life in Canada but doing that got delayed, put off, but now here I am ready to settle down here. More specificity would be prudent in an appeal, but for purposes of the PoE examination, that's the gist of it, keeping it simple (different scenario for PRs with very particular H&C reasons explaining the delay), no need to elaborate much if at all.
In regards to the latter, I agree with
@armoured, that anyone and virtually everyone should be able to honestly say that during the pandemic there was little point in even considering trying to return to Canada, given Covid and the situation it was causing. And frankly, while I cannot say for sure, my sense is this is a general understanding underlying the approach of CBSA officers in examining returning PRs. After all, even when travel was not entirely precluded, the risks associated with Covid posed very significant hurdles to just traveling let alone trying to move and settle in another country.
Probably goes without saying, but just saying "
and, well, there was Covid," should say plenty for that to be a considerable factor, again without getting sidetracked into speculating about the way Covid factors into this, or the weight given to it, in particular situations for specific individuals (noting, after all, there are plenty of PRs in breach whose circumstances more or less broadcast that Covid was not a significant factor in their case, such as those who were in breach or close to being in breach before the pandemic even began).
Practical Aspects of Referral to Secondary:
The referral to Secondary does NOT always occur in a way that is obvious to the traveler.
Knowledgeable travelers more familiar with the procedures will recognize when it is this or that particular procedure, but for many, many PRs what they know about the actual procedures they encountered depends largely on the outcome. Hence the general description of the process often goes like this:
When you go to secondary inspection, they will ask you a lot of questions and will let you in the country irrespective if you are a PR. However, if they go ahead with paperwork to revoke your PR, you will get papers right there and will have a right to appeal within 30 days.
It is not as if the traveler is explicitly informed which procedure is being conducted . . . even if in Secondary that officer determines the PR is in breach of the RO and prepares a 44(1) Report, and the PR is then asked questions by another officer, which is a very formal procedure from the perspective of CBSA and immigration law, the anecdotal reporting suggests that many times the traveler/PR is not made aware of the formalities, not aware that the second officer in Secondary is actually a "Minister's Delegate" and is conducting a formal review of a 44(1) Report of Inadmissibility for breach of RO.
It is not as if the PIL officer says "
I am a PIL officer and . . . "
It is not as if the officer conducting the examination in Secondary says "
I am conducting a Secondary examination."
Note, it is not uncommon for more than one officer to be involved at any given stage of a PoE examination, and it probably is uncommon for any of them to specifically announce just what their status is or what type of examination they are conducting.
Moreover, it appears the officer acting as a Minister's Delegate (if and when it gets to that stage), likewise does not explain to the PR/traveler that they are a "Minister's Delegate," or that they are conducting a review, or that it is a review of a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility. They ask questions. They give the PR an opportunity to answer questions and to explain the reasons they did not return to Canada sooner, which is the PR's opportunity to explain any H&C considerations.
I do not know if it is always the case, but it appears that often, if not typically, when no Removal Order is issued, not only will the PR not be given any paperwork, the PR may proceed into Canada without even knowing there was a formal Report prepared. If a Removal Order is issued, the PR gets the "
paperwork," but otherwise it appears a PR is just told,
OK, you can go.
Is it a good idea to prepare a cover letter to show to the officer?
The exercise of preparing a "
cover letter" may help you organize your thoughts and be better prepared to explain your story, but that would not be something to present to an officer in the PoE. For a PR with specific H&C reasons, more extensive and detailed preparation is a good idea, including compiling documents supporting the H&C case (like medical letters or a physician's letter if the reason for a delayed return to Canada was due to a medical condition, either personal or say a parent). It appears your story is the common, simple one of a new PR whose move to settle in Canada took longer than three years, so you tell your story; keep it simple, honest, and brief.
Is it worth retaining an IRCC lawyer for this?
Save that for an appeal, if necessary, or at least a consultation to consider whether to make an appeal. Again, your story is a simple one, a common one, and the sooner you get here the better your odds of being "waived" through without being Reported (whether by the PIL or after some questioning or a lot of questioning). A lawyer is not likely to help much, in terms of your preparation, and travelers are not entitled to the assistance of a lawyer during a PoE examination.
