Returning PR - am I required PROOF OF FUNDS?

[onin_dxb]

Hello,
I am from Dubai, UAE. I first landed in Toronto on October 2012 and went back to Dubai after a week. Is there anyone here who knows if i will be required to show PROOF OF FUNDS when i re-enter Canada? Would there be any problem if i choose to settle in Vancouver, and not in Ontario where my PR application was processed? And lastly, am I correct in assuming that my PR Card is still valid?

Thank you in advance..

onin

 

[david1697]

If you have landed in October 12, 2012 then you should be in compliance with your RO until 10/15. Remember, you can't be out of Canada for more than 1095. The day you accumulate 1096 days out of Canada you will be in breach of RO and inadmissible to Canada.

Proof of Funds asked only when you land.

 

[orly]

The day you accumulate 1096 days out of Canada you will be in breach of RO and inadmissible to Canada.

Technically that's inaccurate. You won't magically become inadmissible if you show up at the border the day after.

 

[onin_dxb]

Hi david1697
Thank you for your reply. i need a few clarifications though.

•• Were you referring to the FIRST landing with this statement:
"Proof of Funds asked only when you land." ?

•• Choosing to settle in Vancouver (and not in Ontario where I first landed and had my PR card processed) wouldn't cause any problem?

•• Would i be "safe" given that i don't have any bank accounts opened, social security and other matters have not been worked on. I practically just landed and exited the country after a week.

•• will the immigration officer be asking about accommodation/ address /hotel booking etc?
I am planning to move there by end of May2015. I haven't started looking for a place to stay because I have given priority to searching for jobs. I'd want to live close by my work place.

Thank you!

 

[fdk511]

You don't have to show proof of funds after you complete your landing. This would have been required only for your first visit.

You can settle wherever you like - PR processing applications would have no bearing on this.

Not sure how we can answer to the validity of your PR card, since it is driven by the Expiry date on the front of your card AND your residency obligation.

I am also assuming that you have your PR card in hand, and don't need to apply for a travel document (PRTD).

I went back to Canada three months after our landing (we also returned to home country after 1 week). No questions were asked about bank accounts, SIN etc.

Landing in October 2012 and then returning in May would allow you to accumulate your days in Canada to maintain your residency obligation (RO). However, please do keep an eye on your total number of days in Canada vs those outside. When the time comes to renew your PR card, the last five years are taken into consideration and you are required to maintain 2 out of 5 years in Canada.

 

[onin_dxb]

Thank you, @fdk511 ..

Yes i do have my PR card with me..
So, by the time i land in Vancouver, i'll just show my PR card to the immigration officer then it's done? Would'nt he be asking any other documents aside from the PR CARD?

about the baggage, please advice on what i am allowed to bring with me when i land (aside from clothes, shoes, books, gadgets). I heard there is a chance they would impose taxes on jewelries, is this true?

Thanks again.

 

[fdk511]

In the few times I have traveled outside Canada and returned, I have only been asked for my PR card and passport by the immigration officer.

As far as taxes/duties etc, it would depend on whether or not the jewelry was declared on your initial B4 (goods accompanying/goods to follow) form. We had pictures of all jewelry items attached with our B4. My overall experience (and this is only my experience) has been that you don't really get a lot of scrutiny at customs.

 

[david1697]

Hi david1697
Thank you for your reply. i need a few clarifications though.

•• Were you referring to the FIRST landing with this statement:
"Proof of Funds asked only when you land." ?

•• Choosing to settle in Vancouver (and not in Ontario where I first landed and had my PR card processed) wouldn't cause any problem?

•• Would i be "safe" given that i don't have any bank accounts opened, social security and other matters have not been worked on. I practically just landed and exited the country after a week.

•• will the immigration officer be asking about accommodation/ address /hotel booking etc?
I am planning to move there by end of May2015. I haven't started looking for a place to stay because I have given priority to searching for jobs. I'd want to live close by my work place.

Thank you!

I don't know what CBSA will ask you, from my experience some of them are poorly trained and don't know regulations well. So, some may ask you inappropriate questions, depending on the officer on duty.

However, this shouldn't be your concern. Remember, these are officers in public service, they are there to serve us, we are their bosses because we pay (or will be paying) their salaries as taxpayers, and under the law they are there to protect and serve us. As long as you are not a wanted criminal and not in violation of existing laws, you should be confident in yourself.

Your main concern is to maintain a valid PR status (ex. don't stay out of Canada for more than 1095 days) and provide proof of status (PR card) along with truthful answers to relevant to your admission questions (such as dates you were present in Canada, if asked, and etc).
The rest is simply none of CBSA's business and you can remain silent to any questions which are irrelevant to determination of admissibility, and it won't play any role in your admission.

You are a PR of a free country (which is what makes it a great country), so be happy and just make sure you don't stay over 1095 days outside of Canada.


P.S. LANDING is a legal term , it means an act of officially becoming a Permanent Resident. It happens when you have COPR in your hand (but have not yet formally been admitted to Canada at POE as PR), and when CBSA examines you and your documents, funds and admits you to Canada as a PR.
It doesn't mean 'landing' in conventional meaning of the word (in a plane, parachute etc.), so you will not be "Landing' in legal terms when you return to Canada.

 

[Rob_TO]

Technically that's inaccurate. You won't magically become inadmissible if you show up at the border the day after.

Correct. A PR has a legal right to enter Canada. Simply staying outside Canada for more than 1095 days definitely does not automatically make one inadmissable by default. Even CBSA can't deny you entry into Canada as a PR if they think you are in default of your RO. That call can only be made by CIC, which would happen after being admitted to Canada. Only once a PR is found in violation of RO by CIC under a formal hearing, and the ruling is not appealed, does the individual then become inadmissible.

Even someone outside Canada more than 1095 days could meet one of the RO exemptions, or have a H&C reason for not meeting RO that they can explain to the CBSA officer who could then let the person enter. There is much more to it than simply the dates outside Canada.

•• Were you referring to the FIRST landing with this statement:
"Proof of Funds asked only when you land." ?

•• Choosing to settle in Vancouver (and not in Ontario where I first landed and had my PR card processed) wouldn't cause any problem?

•• Would i be "safe" given that i don't have any bank accounts opened, social security and other matters have not been worked on. I practically just landed and exited the country after a week.

•• will the immigration officer be asking about accommodation/ address /hotel booking etc?
I am planning to move there by end of May2015. I haven't started looking for a place to stay because I have given priority to searching for jobs. I'd want to live close by my work place.

You are already a PR of Canada, so none of those things you mentioned matters at all. You have a legal right to enter Canada no matter what province you're going, what your address is or how much money you have.

The only thing a CBSA officer may question you more carefully on, if your time spent outside Canada since it was a significant time. So could be a good idea to simply show proof you haven't been gone more than 3 years, and to have things ready like your previous airline tickets, entry/exit records, etc. But in the end since you satisfy the RO, you should be allowed to enter with no problems.

 

[david1697]

Technically that's inaccurate. You won't magically become inadmissible if you show up at the border the day after.

You are incorrect and evidently unaware of the existing law. 8)

You become 'inadmissible' if you fail RO. You fail RO if you stay out of Canada in excess of 1095 days , unless you can be exempted under one of the exceptions.

We had a long discussion about this topic on a separate thread and I myself was surprised that someone who has a right to enter Canada (such as PR in breach of RO) is considered 'inadmissible' under Canadian laws. Nevertheless, it is so.

So, I was accurate: technically, legally and anyway you can look at it.
You are not.

 

[Rob_TO]

You are incorrect and evidently unaware of the existing law. 8)

You become 'inadmissible' if you fail RO. You fail RO if you stay out of Canada in excess of 1095 days , unless you can be exempted under one of the exceptions.

We had a long discussion about this topic on a separate thread and I myself was surprised that someone who has a right to enter Canada (such as PR in breach of RO) is considered 'inadmissible' under Canadian laws. Nevertheless, it is so.

So, I was accurate: technically, legally and anyway you can look at it.
You are not.

This is of course completely wrong. Since there are exemptions and H&C reasons that could be considered in not meeting RO, a PR would not become inadmissable until they have formally been found in violation of the RO by CIC. Time alone does not dictate the RO criteria, so the statement:

The day you accumulate 1096 days out of Canada you will be in breach of RO and inadmissible to Canada.

... is legally and fundamentally wrong.

If a PR has spent over 3 years outside Canada but they feel they are still deserving of PR due to whatever H&C reason they can think of, then they are not yet inadmissable. Even if a CBSA officer doesn't agree with their reasons, they are still not inadmissable since CBSA does not have power to deny a PR entry to Canada due to RO or make a final decision on their case, all they can do is report the possible RO to CIC. A PR remains in compliance with the RO until such time as they voluntarily announce they do not meet RO, or CIC determines they don't meet RO after a proper investigation and resulting appeal (if pursued by the PR). And since exemptions or H&C or other reasons can give someone a positive RO decision, time alone definitely does not make one inadmissable.

One should be careful in following the wording found in CIC manuals and not applying common logic to them. i.e. in: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf02-eng.pdf , they state
"A27(2) applies to permanent residents who have not satisfied any of the conditions that may have been imposed under the Regulations. For example, the person may not have complied with the condition to marry a fiancé ".
Of course there is no such fiance class existing in Canada anymore, so the wording can be discarded as obsolete and outdated, and no longer applicable to case law today. A bit of logic and common sense is needed to separate what is written in the CIC manuals, to what is actually done by CIC and CBSA in real life.

 

[david1697]

This is of course completely wrong. Since there are exemptions and H&C reasons that could be considered in not meeting RO, a PR would not become inadmissable until they have formally been found in violation of the RO by CIC. Time alone does not dictate the RO criteria, so the statement: ... is legally and fundamentally wrong.

With all due respect you are wrong, Rob.
You struggle to comprehend sentences written in English, and I don't mean it as an offense, it is just an established fact by now.
I don't know if I can help you, but I will try once again.

"Exemptions" (which I, btw, mentioned) would place immigrant outside of 'breach of RO" category (since, by falling under exemptions, they would logically fall under 'compliant' category), and qualifying H&C factors would merely allow inadmissible PR to overcome the breach of RO.

But PR is in fact 'inadmissible' for breach of RO, and if PR's in breach of RO were not indeed inadmissible, then there wouldn't be a mandate for CBSA officers to not disregard the same: see our previous, and rather redundantly lengthy discussions, on a separate thread which specifically referenced ENF 04 and ENF 05 and PR Inadmissibility in the similar context.

Evidently, you failed to comprehend (or didn't retain in the memory) that under IRPA (as odd as it may sound) one , as a Canadian PR, can indeed be inadmissible while simultaneously have a right to be admitted. (such as PR in breach of RO).

Ergo, none of what I stated was wrong at all, but your interpretation of what was said is

TO OP: You are not required to "prove funds" as a returning Canadian PR.

 

[Rob_TO]

With all due respect you are wrong, Rob.
You struggle to comprehend sentences written in English, and I don't mean it as an offense, it is just an established fact by now.
I don't know if I can help you, but I will try once again.

"Exemptions" (which I, btw, mentioned) would place immigrant outside of 'breach of RO" category (since, by falling under exemptions, they would logically fall under 'compliant' category), and qualifying H&C factors would merely allow inadmissible PR to overcome the breach of RO.

But PR is in fact 'inadmissible' for breach of RO, and if PR's in breach of RO were not indeed inadmissible, then there wouldn't be a mandate for CBSA officers to not disregard the same: see our previous, and rather redundantly lengthy discussions, on a separate thread which specifically referenced ENF 04 and ENF 05 and PR Inadmissibility in the similar context.

Evidently, you failed to comprehend (or didn't retain in the memory) that under IRPA (as odd as it may sound) one , as a Canadian PR, can indeed be inadmissible while simultaneously have a right to be admitted. (such as PR in breach of RO).

Ergo, none of what I stated was wrong at all, but your interpretation of what was said is

TO OP: You are not required to "prove funds" as a returning Canadian PR.

You know how to read CIC manuals, but you don't know how to apply what you read to real life.

A PR needs to satisfy A28 rules surrounding RO. Part of A28 is having H&C reasons to overcome any other findings of not meeting RO, hence under a H&C claim one could be found in compliance of A28 no matter the time spent outside Canada.

ENF 02 simply states:
11.8. Non-compliance by permanent residents
A41: A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act

Since H&C considerations are part of A28 and the Act in general, you could interpret that to mean a PR would not become inadmissible until they have exhausted all opportunities within the Act to qualify.

I can also see your point of view where one would automatically be considered inadmissible, and then would need to make a special case to get back to admissible status (sort of a guilty until proven innocent). The problem is much of what CIC writes is open to interpretation, and CIC agents, laywers and random people will read something and have their own understanding of what CIC is trying to say. Other times CIC simply has wrong or irrelevant info in their own rules, such as where I pointed to the "fiance" reference above, even though that class and term was eliminated a long time ago by CIC. So I would simply leave that as a difference of opinion and move on.

However when looking at real life application of the rules, it is completely useless to try and state "The day you accumulate 1096 days out of Canada you will be in breach of RO and inadmissible to Canada" as a hard fact. All this will achieve is to confuse people, as this "odd" rule is irrelevant in everyday situations. Fact remains, a PR is guaranteed to be admitted to Canada as a PR, so in all practical and reasonable sense of the word, a PR can't be "inadmissible" due to RO no matter what the CIC manuals say. If a PR was truly inadmissible then by definition CBSA would be in their rights to not admit them to Canada. However in reality, this can only happen once a PR has failed A28 and that includes going through H&C considerations.

So by all means explain the rules surrounding what will possibly happen when a PR tries to return when not meeting the RO days, but refrain from posting irrelevant rules that to a casual reader will make it sound like a returning PR can be refused admittance into Canada for it, which is simply not true (and possibly harmful "advice").

 

[david1697]

You know how to read CIC manuals, but you don't know how to apply what you read to real life.

A PR needs to satisfy A28 rules surrounding RO. Part of A28 is having H&C reasons to overcome any other findings of not meeting RO, hence under a H&C claim one could be found in compliance of A28 no matter the time spent outside Canada.

ENF 02 simply states:
11.8. Non-compliance by permanent residents
A41: A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act

Since H&C considerations are part of A28 and the Act in general, you could interpret that to mean a PR would not become inadmissible until they have exhausted all opportunities within the Act to qualify.

I can also see your point of view where one would automatically be considered inadmissible, and then would need to make a special case to get back to admissible status (sort of a guilty until proven innocent). The problem is much of what CIC writes is open to interpretation, and CIC agents, laywers and random people will read something and have their own understanding of what CIC is trying to say. Other times CIC simply has wrong or irrelevant info in their own rules, such as where I pointed to the "fiance" reference above, even though that class and term was eliminated a long time ago by CIC. So I would simply leave that as a difference of opinion and move on.

However when looking at real life application of the rules, it is completely useless to try and state "The day you accumulate 1096 days out of Canada you will be in breach of RO and inadmissible to Canada" as a hard fact. All this will achieve is to confuse people, as this "odd" rule is irrelevant in everyday situations. Fact remains, a PR is guaranteed to be admitted to Canada as a PR, so in all practical and reasonable sense of the word, a PR can't be "inadmissible" due to RO no matter what the CIC manuals say. If a PR was truly inadmissible then by definition CBSA would be in their rights to not admit them to Canada. However in reality, this can only happen once a PR has failed A28 and that includes going through H&C considerations.

So by all means explain the rules surrounding what will possibly happen when a PR tries to return when not meeting the RO days, but refrain from posting irrelevant rules that to a casual reader will make it sound like a returning PR can be refused admittance into Canada for it, which is simply not true.

You engage in demagoguery with logical fallacy, and redundancy of your replies is your prime tool to manufacture a nonsense.
I operate by facts (where known) and apply logic and reason to known facts and laws.
I suspect you have a dim understanding of the subjects you undertake.

You can write a book-load of nonsense about any subject, including the definition of 'inadmissible', but the fact of the matter is: inadmissible people who hold valid PR status are entitled (have a right) to be admitted into Canada (as odd as it may sound, one can be considered inadmissible yet admitted to Canada by right at the same time). Those who fail RO (stayed 1096 days or more out of Canada) and don't fall under known exceptions are clearly inadmissible (although will be admitted as a matter of entitlement ,as PR's, if still in possession of valid PR status).

Short summary: people who are n breach of RO (1096 days out of Canada) are inadmissible. People who overcome breach under H&C are inadmissible as well, but are allowed to overcome breach for H&C considerations. People who fall under exceptions (accompany Can citizen abroad, etc.) are not in breach of RO and not inadmissible by default.

That's all to it. Now you can go ahead and write a lengthy, illogical, divorced from reality product of your fantasy and call it 'reality', but it will not change any of the facts I have stated over and over again.

 

[Rob_TO]

but the fact of the matter is: inadmissible people who hold valid PR status are entitled (have a right) to be admitted into Canada (as odd as it may sound, one can be considered inadmissible yet admitted to Canada by right at the same time).

You are missing the point.

When you post your "advice" that someone who has stayed outside Canada too long is "inadmissible", but don't follow that up with some context or explanation that the person is still guaranteed admission to Canada, and that the "inadmissible" status you are claiming is only semantics or terminology based on your interpretation of a CIC rule and nothing more... you are only confusing people and probably causing many to believe they could be denied entry to Canada. So it's possibly harmful "advice" to even bring up in the first place.

Stating someone not meeting RO is "inadmissible" serves no practical purpose or helps answer anyone's questions. It is not useful or relevant info to anyone. You should instead simply explain what actually happens when people not meeting RO try to enter Canada.

As I said you know how to read but don't know how to apply the rules to reality or to explain them properly to people, leading to harmful or misleading "advice". This is evident in many of your posts.