PR card 730 days obligation and entering to Canada
- Thread starter Elkhan
- Start date
You may not have to wait, you'll have to check the rules of the province in which you'll reside. Some of them may require a valid PR card or a recent COPR (i.e. recent landing).
But generally if you have a valid PR card and you will stay in Canada for ~153 days (check number), you are eligible to get health care coverage either immediately or after a three-month waiting period.
In other cases a relatively recently-expired PR card may be accepted, in some provinces more flexible.
There is no harm in checking this with the provincial authorities and applying, it is not reported to or related to IRCC.
Yes, there is an appeal process. ("Court" - depends, but before either a court or administrative tribunal; if you want details, look it up or engage a lawyer)
Yes, the fact you were warned during a previous entry into Canada does indicate there is a significantly higher risk of an inadmissibility report leading to a Removal Order. If issued a Removal Order that is a decision that terminates PR status subject to the right of appeal. Yes, there is a right of appeal.
Some Procedural Observations:
The reason for going into some detail about the procedure is that given the prior warning there is a significant risk (probability) of being subject to inadmissibility proceedings upon arrival, so you probably want to be at least a little prepared for how that goes. How it usually goes anyway; what actually happens can vary some.
It is worth noting that just because you were previously warned does not necessarily mean you will be subject to inadmissibility proceedings this next time. There are numerous examples of cases in which a PR has actually been warned multiple times before the time border officials proceed with processing a 44(1) Inadmissibility Report.
The sooner you come, the better chance you have of not getting what we, here in the forum, tend to call being "Reported."
Main thing, in addition to just plain getting here as soon as practically possible, is to be prepared to tell your story . . . just a simple, honest explanation, the what and why about what has been difficult or what has delayed the plan to come here to settle.
If despite telling your story the border officials issue a Removal Order you are still allowed to enter Canada and you have 30 days to initiate the appeal, which is not a difficult step. Then there will be time enough to more fully figure out what to do next, which can include obtaining the assistance of a lawyer (damn good idea to, so to say, lawyer-up).
Further Detail In Regards to Inadmissibility Proceedings Initiated at Port-of-Entry:
A PR in breach of the RO can and should be prepared to present what are called "H&C" factors to border officials on arrival. H&C factors can include the reasons why you have not come here to settle sooner as you described in your first post above. Most in this situation do best being simply prepared to honestly explain the what and why, to tell their story about what has been difficult, what has delayed their plan to come here to settle. It can help to have a FEW supporting documents (emphasis on not a lot; keep it simple) . For example, if your health, or a parent's illness, is part of the reason, have something like a doctor's letter summarizing the situation.
The same sort of case can be made in an appeal, if an appeal is necessary, and it is prudent to obtain the assistance of a lawyer to prepare and present the H&C case in the appeal (again, if necessary). But being prepared to tell your story, your reasons, to the Secondary officer at the Port-of-Entry (PoE) can influence an officer to waive you into Canada without preparing an Inadmissibility Report (a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a RO breach).
If the Secondary officer nonetheless prepares the Report, you will get another opportunity to make your case in more detail, to tell your story and the explain the reasons why your settlement in Canada was delayed, to another officer, the officer who will decide whether to set the Report aside based on H&C considerations, or decide to issue a Removal Order.
In particular, contrary to some reports in this forum, the second officer (acting in the capacity of a Minister's Delegate) can in effect "pardon" the RO breach. And indeed, this officer must legally consider H&C factors before a Removal Order can be issued. (One of the more common variations in how this goes is that this "review" by the Minister's Delegate is sometimes done later, after the PR has entered Canada.)
If a Report is prepared there are three ways it can go (the PR is allowed to enter Canada in all these cases):
Review Postponed (least likely, but common)
Report Set Aside
Removal Order Issued
Review Postponed: If there is no Removal Order because a second officer does not interview you, to review the Report, the border officials will give you a copy of the Report and say you will contacted later. BE SURE to keep your contact information up-to-date. And even though there is no Removal Order yet, this would be a good time to see a lawyer.
Report Set Aside: If the reviewing officer decides to NOT issue a Removal Order, you are good to stay.
Removal Order Issued: This is a decision terminating PR status. Again, the PR is still allowed to enter Canada. The PR has 30 days in which to start the appeal (not complicated, paperwork from officers should explain what to do well enough). If things get to this stage and you need to make an appeal, best to see a lawyer.
Brief Outline of Appeal Process:
The appeal of an Inadmissibility Report and Removal Order issued by CBSA border officers is made to the IAD, that is the Immigration Appeal Division. Technically it is independent of IRCC. This is what is called a "de novo" proceeding, meaning in effect a new trial/hearing. So it is not about whether the officers who prepared the Report and Removal Order did their job properly, but rather about whether:
(1) the Report is valid in law, which is about whether the PR was in breach of the RO as of the date the Report was prepared, and
(2) if the Report is valid in law (if the PR is in breach of the RO) whether as of the date of the hearing there are sufficient H&C reasons for allowing the PR to keep their status despite the breach.
Again, this is a new hearing/trial, so the decision will be based on the information and evidence before the IAD panel ("panel" being the term the IAD uses to refer to the tribunal's decision-maker, comparable to an administrative judge in other agencies). Not on the information and evidence the border officials considered (but of course the details should mostly be the same; main difference is the substance of the H&C case more thoroughly prepared for the IAD hearing).
The IAD will decide whether to dismiss the appeal (in which case PR status is terminated and the Removal Order will become enforceable), or to allow the appeal which means the Removal Order is set aside, the PR gets to keep status.
There may be a further appeal to a Federal Court in some cases, but this is pursuant to a request for leave and really is lawyer-stuff; not many of these cases actually make it into the Federal Court.
To be clear: there is no appeal to the Federal Court without first an appeal to the IAD.
Last edited:
