Overall:
@canadabound1234 . . . in regards to "
I am trying to figure out if I can still get back to Canada and keep my PR. So the effort is on."
Note: the only way to "
figure" it out is to come and see how it goes, make the move and settle here, hoping to avoid being Reported, and dealing with that if it happens.
You are 100% correct and stating a fact about my preference.
Nothing would have changed until my son is vaccinated, except covid outbreak levels and the severity of the existing covid variants.
I made my decisions for a reason. And I am trying to figure out if I can still get back to Canada and keep my PR. So the effort is on.
Levels have been pretty high and the omicron variant seems to have affected children more than other variants. During summer 2021 levels were very low, lower than current levels. If you’re going to use the argument I see some holes in the argument.
Mostly a reminder: if it comes down to making an "
argument," like a lawyer might present a defense to a judge or jury, that's more or less the long shot, not good odds. Moreover, just coming across as
making-an-argument rather often tends to put-off law enforcement officials, and CBSA border officials are law enforcement (note, for example, even though CBSA border officials engage in immigration they are part of the Ministry of Public Safety, as in
dey's da cops). Impressions matter.
It helps, and it can help a lot, to prepare and orient what a PR in breach will present (will say, and in some circumstances what supporting documents to be shown) if and when the situation at the border reaches a stage in which the traveler-PR needs to more specifically make the H&C case. And I realize it may not be clear that there is a difference between an approach that "
makes" the case versus an approach that "
argues" the case. But there is a real difference.
Better approach: more or less EXPLAINING one's situation, how and why the move to Canada was delayed, in simple terms focused on particular facts, and doing do so in the context of the plan to move to Canada and how it was delayed.
Save the strenuous arguments for the appeal and the IAD, if that becomes necessary, and this is better done by a lawyer who understands the art of persuasion at least as well as the lawyer understands the law, the rules, and how they work. But hope it does not go there. As I have oft reiterated, and emphasized, the best chance the PR in breach has, IF asked (no need to go into unless asked), is to be prepared to simply explain his or her story about planning to come to Canada and the reasons why that has been delayed, and
hope for a waive through without any formal RO compliance examination, without any need to "
make" a formal H&C case.
In this forum there is a lot of emphasis on the more or less formalities of making the H&C cases. For good reason, because ultimately that will determine the outcome if and when there is a formal RO compliance examination. So, for example, if the new, soft-landed PR whose move to Canada got delayed beyond the three year window the RO allows, was delayed because of personal financial or career decisions, the general consensus in the forum is that is not a good H&C reason (and quite a few here erroneous claim it is not a H&C reason at all). And that is true in a formal H&C assessment, and particularly so in the appeal before the IAD.
But for the PR in breach being asked questions at the Port-of-Entry regarding why they were abroad or why they did not come to Canada sooner, just honestly explaining what the plan was, how this financial or job situation affected when, in THEIR circumstances, they were ready to make the move, just saying, sort of,
just doing the best I could to make this move to get to Canada to settle here, nothing fancy,
just dealing with life to get here, that can go a long way (during PoE questioning) toward
making-the-case to be allowed to keep PR status . . . even though it will NOT work well as an "
argument."
Bringing this to Covid-19 and its variants. There seems to be some here hanging a lot on the distinction between what definitively precludes travel and what constitutes degrees of difficulty traveling. It's not just semantics.
CAN NOT travel, of course, is different from CHOOSING NOT to travel because of the difficulties of traveling. The former, something that definitively stops a person from traveling, something the person has no control over, is a for-sure H&C reason that will carry a lot of weight in determining if a PR should be allowed to keep PR status despite a breach of the RO. In contrast, what amounts to a personal choice tends to have a lot less influence. But the latter can and often will carry some positive weight in favour of allowing H&C relief, and how much positive weight is variable. And for some reason there are a number of forum participants who minimize this, and more than a few who occasionally outright dismiss it.
The more difficulty involved, even if well short of a firm block from traveling, will generally carry more positive H&C weight. H&C factors are NOT yes/no calculations. They are weighed with sliding gradations, ranging from a little positive weight to a lot of positive weight. They are relative. They are highly contextual. They are not just about being humane, but they are explicitly COMPASSIONATE.
The difficulty of relocating to Canada during the last two plus years given the situation with Covid and the global pandemic is overwhelmingly obvious. So obvious it appears that this has been a huge factor in why border officials have been remarkably more lenient toward returning Canadians who have failed to meet their PR Residency Obligation.
The shade side of this, of course, is that despite more variants and sub-variants, another wave of infection, the extent of this recent leniency is bound to be declining.
The sunny side, still, is that H&C relief, and border control decisions in effect allowing affected Canadians (PRs in breach of the RO) to remain Canadians, is oriented to what is COMPASSIONATE. The system is intentionally flexible and to a significant extent lenient. But this brings things back around to the difference between presenting/making a case versus an "
argument" for relief. Who deserves "
compassion," at least in an informal context (like PoE screening), is not readily measured by a checklist.
I do not mean to suggest anyone rely on H&C relief. Any PR in breach of the RO is at RISK. To reduce their risk, any PR in breach should make an effort to get to Canada to settle, and STAY, as soon as practically feasible. If keeping PR status is a priority. But in regards to how to approach border officials, just explaining how it is, how the plan to come was delayed, in straight, simple, honest terms, that is generally the best one can do.
