PNP - do you have to reside in Province of Nomination?

[mf4361]

I am delighted to see the responses in this thread and hope it will be helpful to others. It is interesting that the lawyer said there is no evidence of PN being taken to court for moving out of province after spending a period of time in that province. The fine line is the amount of time and effort made to settle. If 600 points are being given it makes the "intention" to reside BEFORE PR a lot stronger. As far as certain provinces requiring applicants to sign a document stating their intention to reside - the Charter of Rights guaranteeing freedom of movement applies to PR and Canadian Citizens. If the document is freely signed by the applicant before PR then it should not contravene the Charter. Correct?

I believe the argument for the government with the declaration is that if the immigrant leave the province before it expires, it is technically a misrepresentation. Canada did revoke PR and citizenships that involved frauds. Whether they can remove you as a PR because of that is up to the court.


I see the greatest unfairness over the granting of 600 points for PNP nominees is the lack of accountability. Would it be fairer to remove the 600 points completely. For PNP, as soon as medical/sec screening is done, provide work permits to expedite arrival in the province of nomination and to get established before PR is granted. Just An idea to level the playing field and decrease the massive advantage given to some
Who have no intention of staying in prov of nomination.

The problem is some provinces has streams that does not requires a job offer. (I am looking at you: SK) Yes, there are 20 points for those with relatives in SK but many qualifies 60 points anyway. If there is no real ties to the province (Jobs, mostly), you can't expect them to stay if a job comes up elsewhere. Not that SK has any large-ish city. As for granting WP for job offer backed PNP, it is already in place for SINP at least (IIRC, BC also). Except it's not the EE stream

 

[Voyager2014]

Hi Pippin,

Further to my post in the same thread, I also spoke to an immigration attorney in Canada who has good experience with appeals on PN cases. He agreed that an intention to settle in the nominated province is crucial, at the same he (the attorney) also mentioned however, that plans and intentions can change and are permitted to change after landing, based on real life experiences faced by immigrants in the province.

Also, there is no litigation in the past, not even one that he could find, where a province has taken a PN to court for having relocated to a different province after spending some time in the nominated. This means provinces are well aware of the charter of rights and know that there is no case that can be pursued. There is no guideline on the minimum amount of time but my personal opinion is that one has to provide sufficient time and work with the institutions of settlement in the nominated province, i.e. in summary make a genuine attempt at settling.

Hope this helps.

I also got another question clarified. It is okay to land and get immigration clearances done in some other province for PNs, in case where is no direct flight to any city, in the nominated. However, it is important to have a connecting flight booked, initial stay reserved etc i.e. to have made plans to settle and if required, also show the documentation pertaining to that plan to the CBSA officer at the port of entry.

Really a great info friend....Thank You..!

 

[Voyager2014]

Hi Folks

Indeed positive notes.

But I am wondering, if this relocation of PN from the nominated province can lead to any sort of complications during the later stage of PR renewal or Citizenship approval.

Do we have any experts or PN guys who had done like before and got their PR renewed and Citizenship filed.

Regards

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

Technically, one can move immediately after landing. Morally, it depends on the individual. Practically, anywhere between 6 months to a year.

Exactly. There is no legal binding as such - "Mobility Rights" as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allow a PR to move to, work and live in any province/territory in Canada.

The thing is the popular provinces like Ontario and BC have no problem retaining immigrants. Immigrants want to go there and IMO, these provinces don't even need an Immigrant Nominee program to get immigrants. Immigrants naturally want to settle down in these big provinces. The problem is with the less popular provinces.

People use these "small provinces" as a backdoor to enter Canada and ditch the province soon after which is not at all appreciated because the province nominated you believing that you will somehow help it meet its labor market needs. If you ditch the province, the province does NOT get ANY benefit from the nomination it provided you. Even though the onus of retaining the immigrants lies on the province, IMHO, it is morally incorrect to just leave without even trying. An applicant who has been nominated by a particular province, IMO, should make genuine efforts to establish him/herself there. Ditching the province without even trying is a shameful act and anyone with good morals wouldn't do such a thing.

If the applicant is not able to establish his/herself even after genuinely trying and decides to move to another province, then that's a different thing. If the province doesn't have any "suitable" job that the applicant is looking for, then, IMO, it is okay to move to another province where the applicant thinks he would get a more deserving job.

I'd say PNP applicants are abusing the Mobility Rights clause in the charter. "Conditional PR" might be an option but it challenges the constitutional right of Freedom of movement. Is there a way to stop this drain?

 

[mf4361]

I'd say PNP applicants are abusing the Mobility Rights clause in the charter. "Conditional PR" might be an option but it challenges the constitutional right of Freedom of movement. Is there a way to stop this drain?

Conditional PR with restrictions for mobility inevitably violates Section 6 in the Charter.

Stop nominations without job offer, or at least dramatically reduce the number. The only thing that will retain an immigrant in the province is job and family.

If CIC have the balls, they could go sue the people who left intentionally gaming the PNP. Even that doesn't affect those who showed genuine effort of staying.

 

[Asivad Anac]

A slightly different perspective.

Would you like to live in a country which restricts your movements outside the country? Restricts your immigration opportunities? Restricts your access to move to another country where you can live and work better? And is severely challenged by natural and/or man-made reasons thereby unable to provide it's citizens with a lifestyle that they think they deserve and can probably achieve elsewhere outside the country? North Korea comes to mind.

The PN dilemma is similar except that one cannot choose one's country of birth but one does have a choice of province while applying for immigration which is why this has a moral angle to it. CIC will never be able to do anything which will restrict mobility rights of PRs and citizens. They can tweak the program to bring in additional requirements thereby artificially limiting entry but they cannot force anyone to continue to live in the same province once PR is granted for whatever reasons.

 

[Voyager2014]

A slightly different perspective.

Would you like to live in a country which restricts your movements outside the country? Restricts your immigration opportunities? Restricts your access to move to another country where you can live and work better? And is severely challenged by natural and/or man-made reasons thereby unable to provide it's citizens with a lifestyle that they think they deserve and can probably achieve elsewhere outside the country? North Korea comes to mind.

The PN dilemma is similar except that one cannot choose one's country of birth but one does have a choice of province while applying for immigration which is why this has a moral angle to it. CIC will never be able to do anything which will restrict mobility rights of PRs and citizens. They can tweak the program to bring in additional requirements thereby artificially limiting entry but they cannot force anyone to continue to live in the same province once PR is granted for whatever reasons.

In agreement with Asiavad. CIC can tweak the program by adding additional requirements, same like what Aus do for state nominations (like a 2 year mandatory stay). May be CIC is not implementing this just to be make the country more approachable and of course humanitarian factors consideration.

 

[Pippin]

What has been lost in this discussion is the fact that applicants choose to "limit their mobility" in return for 600 points and guaranteed ITA. No one is forced to accept a PNP. If a person intends to settle in a province not offering PNP, how is it not misrepresentation to use any old PNP for back door access? Eliminate the 600 points advantage. Instead, why not make the "in need" provinces attractive choices by easing settlement with short term tax incentives, assisting employers to hire new immigrants, etc.

 

[Asivad Anac]

What has been lost in this discussion is the fact that applicants choose to "limit their mobility" in return for 600 points and guaranteed ITA. No one is forced to accept a PNP. If a person intends to settle in a province not offering PNP, how is it not misrepresentation to use any old PNP for back door access? Eliminate the 600 points advantage. Instead, why not make the "in need" provinces attractive choices by easing settlement with short term tax incentives, assisting employers to hire new immigrants, etc.

Limiting of a citizen's/PR's mobility by an external agency is unconstitutional. Applicants are definitely free to 'limit their mobility' and that is the best case outcome hoped for by CIC and the provinces. It isn't misrepresentation because an applicant might actually consider living in ,say, Nova Scotia while applying for PN/PR but then change their mind on the day of their arrival after stepping out of the airport - nothing wrong with that and absolutely no reasons required. They might genuinely change their mind shortly after landing - that isn't misrepresentation. Even if they had declared an intention to settle in the province as part of their PR application, that still isn't technically a misrepresentation because you cannot falsify a past assertion in the present. Also you cannot ask a 'fresh-off-the-boat' PR to sign an 'intention to settle' form on arrival because that is unconstitutional.

Bottom line, so-called 'unattractive' provinces can retain PRs out of ignorance, fear or a genuine reason including job, friends/family ties etc. No other legal way of forcibly retaining them in the province.

 

[Voyager2014]

Limiting of a citizen's/PR's mobility by an external agency is unconstitutional. Applicants are definitely free to 'limit their mobility' and that is the best case outcome hoped for by CIC and the provinces. It isn't misrepresentation because an applicant might actually consider living in ,say, Nova Scotia while applying for PN/PR but then change their mind on the day of their arrival after stepping out of the airport - nothing wrong with that and absolutely no reasons required. They might genuinely change their mind shortly after landing - that isn't misrepresentation. Even if they had declared an intention to settle in the province as part of their PR application, that still isn't technically a misrepresentation because you cannot falsify a past assertion in the present. Also you cannot ask a 'fresh-off-the-boat' PR to sign an 'intention to settle' form on arrival because that is unconstitutional.

Bottom line, so-called 'unattractive' provinces can retain PRs out of ignorance, fear or a genuine reason including job, friends/family ties etc. No other legal way of forcibly retaining them in the province.

Thanks to Asiavad and other who always says firmly on the mobility rights of Canadian PRs and citizen

One of my Whatsapp group member attended a Webinar yesterday. It was conducted by canadainternational.gc.ca. An official of Citizenship & Immigration Canada was present to answer the queries of participants. The exact same question raised up

" After getting provincial nominee, one have to reside in that province for specific time period or can move somewhere else for job "

The person replied that you can move freely, if u get job somewhere else, you can go there. Immigration people look from every angle. If the case is genuine there will be no danger to your immigration status even if you are away from your nominated province.

 

[mf4361]

What has been lost in this discussion is the fact that applicants choose to "limit their mobility" in return for 600 points and guaranteed ITA. No one is forced to accept a PNP. If a person intends to settle in a province not offering PNP, how is it not misrepresentation to use any old PNP for back door access? Eliminate the 600 points advantage. Instead, why not make the "in need" provinces attractive choices by easing settlement with short term tax incentives, assisting employers to hire new immigrants, etc.

The whole point of PNP is that the provincial government understands their demographics and economy better than federal. By forcing all provinces follows the same criteria and treat need of labour the same from sea to sea is ingenuine. They should actually put more quota in PNP because the federal programs are not doing its job. And there is no such thing as permanent "attractive" provinces. It is largely driven by job market. Alberta & SK was not attractive at all, until the oil booms in 2007 and on.

As for getting into trouble as PNP, the only logical case is when you show up at the border as PNP for one provinces, but shows all kinds signs of landing in a different province. (In cases like you show up in Vancouver airport for SINP, then they find out you have no connecting flights to SK, no reception in SK, but bought a house and landed a job in BC. Then you are in trouble)

 

[Voyager2014]

Movements between provinces are accepted after a track of genuine try of settlement.

But does that adversely affect during the PR renewal or Citizenship

Anythoughts

 

[mf4361]

Movements between provinces are accepted after a track of genuine try of settlement.

But does that adversely affect during the PR renewal or Citizenship

Anythoughts

No.

You don't even need a track record. As long as the governments don't have evidence against you, which need to be quite substantial, like house sales, job offer, perhaps fake documents if involved as such.

In Canada, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the government, not you.

 

[Voyager2014]

No.

You don't even need a track record. As long as the governments don't have evidence against you, which need to be quite substantial, like house sales, job offer, perhaps fake documents if involved as such.

In Canada, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the government, not you.

Thank You mf4361..Really appreciated !!

 

[Jkal]

After all this discussed, i am still not able to understand how would a province get benefited by PNP if a person is allowed to freely change his/her INTENTION immediately after landing (or say in a month) and call it genuine and consider his/her right.
How would a person be able to quantify his/her intention to stay in a province post landing if they simply want to move out of it by CHANGING the intention?
Don't you think that at the time of you applying for CITIZENSHIP, all this will be checked?