In regards to discussion about whether the lack of paperwork reveals what happened or did not happen at the PoE:
CAUTION: Speculating about what actually happened at the PoE here is probably a distraction. At least beyond recognizing that there are multiple things that could have happened, including a sequence of procedures which could result in decision-making terminating the OP's PR status. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, it was the equivalent of being waived through. But it is impossible to know for sure at this stage, and the possibility of the former looms with the risk of procedures leading to the loss of PR status.
There is a lot about the way things are done in actual practice I do not know. But I know enough to be quite sure NO ONE here can reliably or definitively say just what happened at the PoE in October when the OP was examined and an officer "
suggested" the OP "
may have to appeal on Humanitarian and compassionate grounds later."
Hopefully the OP will learn more soon, that it will be good news, and perhaps even be able to enlighten us more about what can happen at a PoE that we don't usually see.
Can the CBSA officer report OP without asking him to sign any paperwork? Or that's not possible if nothing is signed?
The officer can for sure make a referral to IRCC without the PR's signature on anything, and not give the PR any particular notice or warning that he or she is being "reported" in that sense. (Note previous description of the difference between the formal 44(1) Report and what might constitute a "report" to IRCC otherwise.)
Moreover, as
@Buletruck observed, the officer can do this by making an entry into the PR's GCMS (not sure, I think they stopped referring to "field" entries going into the "FOSS" database, which I believe may have been merged into GCMS, but the process is still largely the same), so no "paperwork" as such is necessary. Nothing for the PR to sign.
It is also important to recognize that in individual cases there can be irregularities or anomalies. Things do not always work precisely as the rules and practices prescribe. So it is always RISKY to infer what actually happened based on what should happen according to the rules and standard practices.
Thus, for example, even if the standard practice is to give the PR a copy of a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility, when it is issued (and the applicable Operational Manual does state that the officer is to provide the PR with a copy), the fact that the PR was not given a copy of such paperwork is NOT a guarantee no such report was issued. Sure, for many if not most occasions, other information may illuminate enough about the transaction to reasonably conclude it was NOT LIKELY a 44(1) Report was issued . . . and in most circumstances the fact that a PR was not given a copy of such paperwork is generally a very good sign the PR was "Not Reported," at least not reported in terms of a 44(1) Report being issued. But, among clues pointing the other direction, subsequent contact from CBSA or IRCC can signal otherwise.
In regards to the 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility due to a breach of the RO in particular, there is a two-step process, which USUALLY, but not always, takes place while the PR is still in the PoE. One officer, the examining officer, is the one who makes the 44(1) Report, and then a second officer reviews the report and allows the PR to further address matters related to RO compliance and, if relevant, H&C factors.
The operational manual and related information refer to the first officer delivering the 44(1) to the Minister's Delegate (who is typically just another officer, but acting in a reviewing role, is acting as the Minister's Delegate).
Section 14.1 in ENF 05 "Writing 44(1) Reports" (around page 43 in the pdf version) specifically states the officer's obligation to "
provide a copy of that report to the person concerned." But what it says in the Operational Manuals is not an official rule, not a mandatory practice, and is not enforceable. And we know of instances in which current practice substantially deviates from what is stated in the Operational Manuals (for example, see discussions about evaluating claims for RO credit based on accompanying a citizen spouse abroad).
In any event, there are times when, for whatever reason, the 44(1) Report is not then and there reviewed, but instead the PR is allowed to enter Canada pending further proceedings in regards to the Report.
This is not common. But it is a process described in the applicable Operational Manuals. And we have seen occasional, sporadic reports of this in the forum, and in a small number of IAD cases. Most of these result in a conference or hearing, basically a telephone interview, usually, later on with an officer acting in the role of the Minister's Delegate. This typically happens within days or weeks or at least a couple months or so. But reporting about this, both anecdotal and in IAD decisions, is too infrequent, and typically not sufficiently detailed, to allow us to get a clear understanding of what and how this process goes. Except as to the potential outcome, since some of these do show up in IAD cases, where the PR was issued a Removal Order a month or three months or so after the PoE examination. So we do know, for sure, that sometimes a PoE examination can be followed up by a later process leading to the issuance of a Removal Order for a breach of the RO.
Generally it is to be expected that in this process the officer writing the 44(1) Report will give the PR a copy. But it would not surprise me that this does not consistently happen where the process is disrupted due to not having a MD available then and there.
The Operational Manuals also describe the process in which a Minister's Delegate can proceed "
in absentia" if the PR does not appear as scheduled for a hearing with the Minister's Delegate. That gets even more complicated. Ultimately, it appears that at least usually the PR does himself no favours by avoiding IRCC.
