returning to country of origin after H&C

[andy_smith]

Hello

I do have a critical question in regards to my situation. Right now I'm a permanent resident of Canada (obtained it by skilled federal worker) and I'm within my PR obligation (+950day) and I'm going to apply for citizenship soon (I have to report my travel History for that). I was out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin ( severe physical injury ), unfortunately, my mother is an end-stage Cancer patient and lives back in my home country so this is my last chance for me to be on her side for the last time, unfortunately, the hardship still exists and I will face that if I go back. here is my question since my case was accepted because of H&C subjects if I return, am I breaking any immigration law in Canada? or am I going to lose my PR status?

 

[andy_smith]

Please! Somebody answer me

 

[jakklondon]

Hello

I do have a critical question in regards to my situation. Right now I'm a permanent resident of Canada (obtained it by skilled federal worker) and I'm within my PR obligation (+950day) and I'm going to apply for citizenship soon (I have to report my travel History for that). I was out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin ( severe physical injury ), unfortunately, my mother is an end-stage Cancer patient and lives back in my home country so this is my last chance for me to be on her side for the last time, unfortunately, the hardship still exists and I will face that if I go back. here is my question since my case was accepted because of H&C subjects if I return, am I breaking any immigration law in Canada? or am I going to lose my PR status?

When people face possibility of death or severe physical injury by state actors upon return to home country they do not return there, even when their parents are in death bed. If someone returns to their country of origin, it means their claim of physical injury and threat was not credible. Yes, by returning to your home country you will confirm that you had no real threat of injury or death (unless you get killed or horribly injured and somehow manage to escape). It's hard to say if you will loose the PR status. It depends on whether CIC will elect to prosecute you for false claim of H&C. You can research the subject and see if your type of cases are priority and are routinely prosecuted by CIC or not.

 

[jakklondon]

Hello

I do have a critical question in regards to my situation. Right now I'm a permanent resident of Canada (obtained it by skilled federal worker) and I'm within my PR obligation (+950day) and I'm going to apply for citizenship soon (I have to report my travel History for that). I was out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin ( severe physical injury ), unfortunately, my mother is an end-stage Cancer patient and lives back in my home country so this is my last chance for me to be on her side for the last time, unfortunately, the hardship still exists and I will face that if I go back. here is my question since my case was accepted because of H&C subjects if I return, am I breaking any immigration law in Canada? or am I going to lose my PR status?

On a second thought, I might be wrong and there might be exceptions, where your visit home can be considered allowable. It may include in particular the situations where one must see terminally ill parents or attend their funerals. In practice, people who face real threat of injury do not go back, even for funeral. I have known of such circumstances, of various people in the same predicament. I didn't know them personally, but they were known to be antagonists of the regimes from which they escaped and received protection from. I knew they had a genuine threat of violence and could be killed if returned home. And none returned to home countries, ever, even for funerals of parents. On the other hand, I have seen refugees and asylees who traveled to their home country on nearly regular basis, Some of them had critically ill parents (and could claim that seeing them was the sole reason of going back), but it was apparent that they did not have a true threat of death and violence at home. But that's just my impression. The law, it appears, may provide for an exception and you may qualify for it.

Below* is an article about refugees and home visits. Even though it's not about Canadian refugees (and you are not a refugee, just someone who was allowed to stay under H&C grounds following breach of RO), I believe most if not all Western countries have refugee protection laws under the same principles (rooted in UN Convention for refugee status and protection), and as someone who was allowed to stay under H&C grounds the similar logic could be applied to your case.

___________________________
* https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/18932/refugees-and-home-visits-what-you-need-to-know

 

[armoured]

unfortunately, the hardship still exists and I will face that if I go back. here is my question since my case was accepted because of H&C subjects if I return, am I breaking any immigration law in Canada? or am I going to lose my PR status?

Sorry to hear about your mother.

-You got your PR status as a skilled worker, not as a refugee - so any talk related to refugee status should just be ignored. Your status in Canada does not depend on that.

-You almost certainly benefitted from simple leniency at the border examination, which might have been noted in some short-form - but it wasn't some H&C determination that you had any part in the wording of. Or in simple terms, it's not subject to some retroactive decision about it later. Plus when you return, they're just going to see that you're now in compliance and you've nothing to fear in that respect.

That said: the potential hardship or fear of physical danger you face is the real concern. I'd underline a simple thing: when you are in your 'home country' (where you have or had citizenship - any country that can consider you a citizen, really), there is precious little Canada can do to assist (esp if only a PR, but also when you get Canadian citizenship). Canada has no 'rights' under international consular conventions.

So saying there does not seem to be - based on what you've shared - any issue related to your PR status/future citizenship, that doesn't mean it's a good idea and be careful.

 

[dpenabill]

Hello

I do have a critical question in regards to my situation. Right now I'm a permanent resident of Canada (obtained it by skilled federal worker) and I'm within my PR obligation (+950day) and I'm going to apply for citizenship soon (I have to report my travel History for that). I was out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin ( severe physical injury ), unfortunately, my mother is an end-stage Cancer patient and lives back in my home country so this is my last chance for me to be on her side for the last time, unfortunately, the hardship still exists and I will face that if I go back. here is my question since my case was accepted because of H&C subjects if I return, am I breaking any immigration law in Canada? or am I going to lose my PR status?

Sorry to hear about your mother.

-You got your PR status as a skilled worker, not as a refugee - so any talk related to refugee status should just be ignored. Your status in Canada does not depend on that.

-You almost certainly benefitted from simple leniency at the border examination, which might have been noted in some short-form - but it wasn't some H&C determination that you had any part in the wording of. Or in simple terms, it's not subject to some retroactive decision about it later. Plus when you return, they're just going to see that you're now in compliance and you've nothing to fear in that respect.

That said: the potential hardship or fear of physical danger you face is the real concern. I'd underline a simple thing: when you are in your 'home country' (where you have or had citizenship - any country that can consider you a citizen, really), there is precious little Canada can do to assist (esp if only a PR, but also when you get Canadian citizenship). Canada has no 'rights' under international consular conventions.

So saying there does not seem to be - based on what you've shared - any issue related to your PR status/future citizenship, that doesn't mean it's a good idea and be careful.

Largely concur with @armoured . . . although some aspects of your situation are not clear.

Main thing, as @armoured referenced, unless you actually lost PR status and reapplied for and obtained PR anew as a refugee or protected person, provisions or restrictions related to refugees and protected persons have no application to you, as someone who obtained their PR status in an economic class.

Other main thing is that if you leave Canada you should be sure to stay in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. That is, to avoid being abroad so long you no longer have been IN Canada at least 730 days within the five years preceding the date you actually return here.

The aspect of your situation that is not clear is what happened, and when, in regards to what you describe as:

". . . out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin . . . "​

But this too appears to no longer be relevant to you. In particular, if there was a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility prepared against you, and that was set aside for H&C reasons, and as of NOW you have been present in Canada for more than 730 days within the last five years, any previous failure to comply with the Residency Obligation is cured. Again, what matters, in regards to your PR status and the RO, is that you are currently in compliance and if you leave Canada you are still in compliance when you next return (and again, it warrants repetition for emphasis, that is that you do not go abroad for such a long period of time you have not been in Canada at least 730 days within the previous five years as of the date you arrive back here).

PoE CBSA officer Report and Minister's Delegate H&C Decision:

As just noted, as long as you are currently in compliance with the RO, that event is no longer relevant.

However, a couple clarifications in regards to that process are warranted.

As @armoured referenced, and as you report, the hardship you would have faced if you lost PR status and had to return to your home country was a H&C factor to be considered in deciding whether to uphold the 44(1) Report or to set it aside for H&C reasons. But not the only one. It appears that happened when you were still in the first five years after landing, and when you still had a valid PR card, and those too are factors that quite likely helped your case.

But for purposes of understanding how that process works, and in particular relating it to other anecdotal reports about PRs in breach and extrapolating what might happen for other PRs approaching a PoE while in breach of the RO, your experience appears to illustrate the more formal adjudication of status and NOT just the exercise of "simple leniency at the border examination" resulting in being waived through. The overriding net effect is roughly the same: allowed to keep PR status. And it is likely that leniency played a role in the MD's decision-making. But assuming the first CBSA officer prepared a 44(1) Report, which is what leads to a review by a MD (Minister's Delegate, as designated for that particular transaction, but in practice just another CBSA immigration officer), that constitutes the initiation of a formal adjudication of status. So the MD's decision had a more definitive force and effect, and meant that the breach of the RO was then and there mostly cured.

Nonetheless, the "pass" you got then does not indicate, let alone guarantee, you would get a similar pass the next time. Particularly if you return to the home country for a significant length of time, the likelihood of facing hardship there will not carry the same H&C weight as before. And even though there is no verifiable database or compilation of numbers, it is almost certain that new PRs (first five years) are often given more leeway. The latter might be offset if a PR for more than five years has otherwise been well established in Canada (ties in Canada being a significant H&C factor), but if in contrast the overall pattern is contrary to the purpose for which PR status was granted (so the person could establish actual residence PERMANENTLY in Canada) the scales tip in the negative direction. Meaning, avoid breaching the RO again going forward.

 

[jakklondon]

To OP:
There is extra stupid poster, who is blind and too illiterate, and states that you were granted leniency at the border. But it is clear from your original post that you were reported by border agent, and it was minister's delegate who decided to consider your H&C claims and allow you to stay in Canada. Please forgive the stupidity of illiterates and just permanently ignore whatever they say. Just remember: you were granted leniency on H&C grounds, and your claims to get it were similar to those of refugees. Therefore, if you go back to your country for holidays and shopping you will invalidate your own claim (of threat of violence and physical injury) , and it can be argued that your claim which allowed you to stay in Canada and retain your PR status was fraudulent. On those grounds, as a fraudster who retained PR status and avoided deportation on false grounds, you could be prosecuted, if Canada elected to doggedly pursue your case. Although I stated earlier that you are not a refugee, in fact your circumstances (granted stay of deportation on grounds that refugees use) are very similar to that of refugee, because of your last admission under H&C. So, beware. And please, never read and consider what stupid illiterates and delusional clowns have to say. None of them are attorneys and they have no clue about what they are pontificating about. Always read my posts and you will be safe. Good luck!

 

[Tubsmagee]

To OP:
There is extra stupid poster, who is blind and too illiterate, and states that you were granted leniency at the border. But it is clear from your original post that you were reported by border agent, and it was minister's delegate who decided to consider your H&C claims and allow you to stay in Canada. Please forgive the stupidity of illiterates and just permanently ignore whatever they say. Just remember: you were granted leniency on H&C grounds, and your claims to get it were similar to those of refugees. Therefore, if you go back to your country for holidays and shopping you will invalidate your own claim (of threat of violence and physical injury) , and it can be argued that your claim which allowed you to stay in Canada and retain your PR status was fraudulent. On those grounds, as a fraudster who who retained PR status and avoided deportation on false grounds, you could be prosecuted, if Canada elects to doggedly pursue your case. Although I stated earlier that you are not a refugee, in fact your circumstances (granted stay of deportation on grounds that refugees use) are very similar to that of refugee, because of your last admission under H&C. So, beware. And please, never read and consider what stupid illiterates and delusional clowns have to say. None of them are attorneys and they have no clue about what they are pontificating about. Always read my posts and you will be safe. Good luck!

Why the obsession with attacking other posters? Remind us again, did you actually ever settle in Canada, or was it that you made a couple trips, couldn’t even get a job at McDonalds, and left because the CBSA personnel hurt your feelings? Many posters on this board have actual experience with the processes being discussed or take the time to research issues, not just spout off what they think might be right.

 

[jakklondon]

Why the obsession with attacking other posters? Remind us again, did you actually ever settle in Canada, or was it that you made a couple trips, couldn’t even get a job at McDonalds, and left because the CBSA personnel hurt your feelings? Many posters on this board have actual experience with the processes being discussed or take the time to research issues, not just spout of what they think might be right.

I guess you are an alter-ego (another id) of one of the posters with whom you identify and constantly defend on this board? Otherwise, you must be blinded beyond recovery to miss all the personal attacks and ad hominems aimed at me that I have ignored (to no avail), ever since I registered on this forum, from those very posters whose cloned id you appear to be. Note also that , unlike them whose side you take with bias and who engaged in personal attacks and verbal abuses often directly referencing me by my screenname and by quoting my posts, I still do not respond in kind and make only general statements. It is not my fault if you, on your own, identify with or perceive yourself as one of the posters that my general statement applies to.

The rest I leave without comments, because it is , to say bluntly, none of your ducking guvmint business.

 

[andy_smith]

When people face possibility of death or severe physical injury by state actors upon return to home country they do not return there, even when their parents are in death bed. If someone returns to their country of origin, it means their claim of physical injury and threat was not credible. Yes, by returning to your home country you will confirm that you had no real threat of injury or death (unless you get killed or horribly injured and somehow manage to escape). It's hard to say if you will loose the PR status. It depends on whether CIC will elect to prosecute you for false claim of H&C. You can research the subject and see if your type of cases are priority and are routinely prosecuted by CIC or not.

Sorry to hear about your mother.

-You got your PR status as a skilled worker, not as a refugee - so any talk related to refugee status should just be ignored. Your status in Canada does not depend on that.

-You almost certainly benefitted from simple leniency at the border examination, which might have been noted in some short-form - but it wasn't some H&C determination that you had any part in the wording of. Or in simple terms, it's not subject to some retroactive decision about it later. Plus when you return, they're just going to see that you're now in compliance and you've nothing to fear in that respect.

That said: the potential hardship or fear of physical danger you face is the real concern. I'd underline a simple thing: when you are in your 'home country' (where you have or had citizenship - any country that can consider you a citizen, really), there is precious little Canada can do to assist (esp if only a PR, but also when you get Canadian citizenship). Canada has no 'rights' under international consular conventions.

So saying there does not seem to be - based on what you've shared - any issue related to your PR status/future citizenship, that doesn't mean it's a good idea and be careful.

Largely concur with @armoured . . . although some aspects of your situation are not clear.

Main thing, as @armoured referenced, unless you actually lost PR status and reapplied for and obtained PR anew as a refugee or protected person, provisions or restrictions related to refugees and protected persons have no application to you, as someone who obtained their PR status in an economic class.

Other main thing is that if you leave Canada you should be sure to stay in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. That is, to avoid being abroad so long you no longer have been IN Canada at least 730 days within the five years preceding the date you actually return here.

The aspect of your situation that is not clear is what happened, and when, in regards to what you describe as:

". . . out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin . . . "​

But this too appears to no longer be relevant to you. In particular, if there was a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility prepared against you, and that was set aside for H&C reasons, and as of NOW you have been present in Canada for more than 730 days within the last five years, any previous failure to comply with the Residency Obligation is cured. Again, what matters, in regards to your PR status and the RO, is that you are currently in compliance and if you leave Canada you are still in compliance when you next return (and again, it warrants repetition for emphasis, that is that you do not go abroad for such a long period of time you have not been in Canada at least 730 days within the previous five years as of the date you arrive back here).

PoE CBSA officer Report and Minister's Delegate H&C Decision:

As just noted, as long as you are currently in compliance with the RO, that event is no longer relevant.

However, a couple clarifications in regards to that process are warranted.

As @armoured referenced, and as you report, the hardship you would have faced if you lost PR status and had to return to your home country was a H&C factor to be considered in deciding whether to uphold the 44(1) Report or to set it aside for H&C reasons. But not the only one. It appears that happened when you were still in the first five years after landing, and when you still had a valid PR card, and those too are factors that quite likely helped your case.

But for purposes of understanding how that process works, and in particular relating it to other anecdotal reports about PRs in breach and extrapolating what might happen for other PRs approaching a PoE while in breach of the RO, your experience appears to illustrate the more formal adjudication of status and NOT just the exercise of "simple leniency at the border examination" resulting in being waived through. The overriding net effect is roughly the same: allowed to keep PR status. And it is likely that leniency played a role in the MD's decision-making. But assuming the first CBSA officer prepared a 44(1) Report, which is what leads to a review by a MD (Minister's Delegate, as designated for that particular transaction, but in practice just another CBSA immigration officer), that constitutes the initiation of a formal adjudication of status. So the MD's decision had a more definitive force and effect, and meant that the breach of the RO was then and there mostly cured.

Nonetheless, the "pass" you got then does not indicate, let alone guarantee, you would get a similar pass the next time. Particularly if you return to the home country for a significant length of time, the likelihood of facing hardship there will not carry the same H&C weight as before. And even though there is no verifiable database or compilation of numbers, it is almost certain that new PRs (first five years) are often given more leeway. The latter might be offset if a PR for more than five years has otherwise been well established in Canada (ties in Canada being a significant H&C factor), but if in contrast the overall pattern is contrary to the purpose for which PR status was granted (so the person could establish actual residence PERMANENTLY in Canada) the scales tip in the negative direction. Meaning, avoid breaching the RO again going forward.

First,thank you all for your answers( @jakklondon @dpenabill @armoured ). I know that some of you may not agree with each other but I appreciate you all.
I just want to make some clarification here.
I entered Canada with a valid PR card (not expired) but it had less than a year till the expiry date. the first CBSA officer wrote a section 44(1) Report against me. the report had an application# and UCI on top of it and after few weeks I got an invitation from CBSA to attend a ministers delegate review session at a later time, in the final session, I brought my H&C reasons and at the end officer considered my H&C but noticed some things.
1- if I apply for a new PR card before meeting my residency obligation my case will be reviewed again
2- if I go back to **** (my home country) this matter can come up again AND at the end, he/she handed over my passport to me!!
I asked some lawyers about my situation one of them told me nothing is going to happen and the other one told me the risk is there but it's highly unlikely and he "never saw that happen" and the officer's point about returning to my home country was about going outside of Canada and not meeting residency obligation again (regardless of my destination).
here is my question: let's say that @jakklondon is right and if I go back I'm at risk of losing my PR status at POE or citizenship application, why the ministers delegate himself/herself handed my passport to me?! I know that CBSA seizes the passports of refugees or let's imagine I go on a trip to Mexico and for whatever reason Mexico decides to deport me to my home country? that's why they seize the passport. have any idea about it guys? I can't understand not going back to my country of origin but letting me have my passport and traveling with it! am I missing somthing here?

 

[jakklondon]

Hello

I do have a critical question in regards to my situation. Right now I'm a permanent resident of Canada (obtained it by skilled federal worker) and I'm within my PR obligation (+950day) and I'm going to apply for citizenship soon (I have to report my travel History for that). I was out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin ( severe physical injury ), unfortunately, my mother is an end-stage Cancer patient and lives back in my home country so this is my last chance for me to be on her side for the last time, unfortunately, the hardship still exists and I will face that if I go back. here is my question since my case was accepted because of H&C subjects if I return, am I breaking any immigration law in Canada? or am I going to lose my PR status?

Andy-smith, I saw your response the other day, where you described what Minister's Delegate told you and how your leniency under H&C might affect you in future if you return to your home country or leave Canada just for any kind of trip, and you were asking "what if jakklondon is correct". Unfortunately, by the time I wanted to reply you deleted your third post on this forum. In any event, here is my advise to you: this forum is populated by dilettantes, some of them Ego driven and bitter, others well meaning but not qualified to advise on matters involving complex legal questions. Therefore, it's best for you if you seek consultation of the licensed immigration attorney in Canada. A lot of people think that consulting an attorney immediately depletes one's checking account and costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. While hiring an attorney may cost a lot, especially if he will be representing one in the immigration court, it's not necessary to just pick up the phone and hire the first attorney whose number you dial to wire him money. Remember, attorney (just like a plumber, roofer, home designer) is a man of the trade, and can be interviewed for a job like everyone else to consider for a position, with no obligation to hire. For this reason, many attorneys offer free consultations, where you can ask the question you have and once they provide an answer decide what your next move will be. An honest attorney (and there ARE such) will even tell you "Don't hire me, you don't need me because...." and explain why you don't need one (sometimes it's because your case is so simple, you can handle it on your own. At others, because it's pointless and no attorney can help).
And a lot of the times they can set your mind at ease, by explaining you what the actual (not imagined by forum trolls) law is and how it applies in your individual case. Wish you good luck. Sorry to hear that you lost your mother.

 

[andy_smith]

Andy-smith, I saw your response the other day, where you described what Minister's Delegate told you and how your leniency under H&C might affect you in future if you return to your home country or leave Canada just for any kind of trip, and you were asking "what if jakklondon is correct". Unfortunately, by the time I wanted to reply you deleted your third post on this forum. In any event, here is my advise to you: this forum is populated by dilettantes, some of them Ego driven and bitter, others well meaning but not qualified to advise on matters involving complex legal questions. Therefore, it's best for you if you seek consultation of the licensed immigration attorney in Canada. A lot of people think that consulting an attorney immediately depletes one's checking account and costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. While hiring an attorney may cost a lot, especially if he will be representing one in the immigration court, it's not necessary to just pick up the phone and hire the first attorney whose number you dial to wire him money. Remember, attorney (just like a plumber, roofer, home designer) is a man of the trade, and can be interviewed for a job like everyone else to consider for a position, with no obligation to hire. For this reason, many attorneys offer free consultations, where you can ask the question you have and once they provide an answer decide what your next move will be. An honest attorney (and there ARE such) will even tell you "Don't hire me, you don't need me because...." and explain why you don't need one (sometimes it's because your case is so simple, you can handle it on your own. At others, because it's pointless and no attorney can help).
And a lot of the times they can set your mind at ease, by explaining you what the actual (not imagined by forum trolls) law is and how it applies in your individual case. Wish you good luck. Sorry to hear that you lost your mother.

Largely concur with @armoured . . . although some aspects of your situation are not clear.

Main thing, as @armoured referenced, unless you actually lost PR status and reapplied for and obtained PR anew as a refugee or protected person, provisions or restrictions related to refugees and protected persons have no application to you, as someone who obtained their PR status in an economic class.

Other main thing is that if you leave Canada you should be sure to stay in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. That is, to avoid being abroad so long you no longer have been IN Canada at least 730 days within the five years preceding the date you actually return here.

The aspect of your situation that is not clear is what happened, and when, in regards to what you describe as:

". . . out of my PR obligation in 2018 and the CBSA officer reported me on the port of entry for not meeting the residency obligation(730) until the end of the PR Card Expiry date, but the minister's delegate decided to do not proceed and consider H&C in my case due to severe hardship I would face if I return to my country of origin . . . "​

But this too appears to no longer be relevant to you. In particular, if there was a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility prepared against you, and that was set aside for H&C reasons, and as of NOW you have been present in Canada for more than 730 days within the last five years, any previous failure to comply with the Residency Obligation is cured. Again, what matters, in regards to your PR status and the RO, is that you are currently in compliance and if you leave Canada you are still in compliance when you next return (and again, it warrants repetition for emphasis, that is that you do not go abroad for such a long period of time you have not been in Canada at least 730 days within the previous five years as of the date you arrive back here).

PoE CBSA officer Report and Minister's Delegate H&C Decision:

As just noted, as long as you are currently in compliance with the RO, that event is no longer relevant.

However, a couple clarifications in regards to that process are warranted.

As @armoured referenced, and as you report, the hardship you would have faced if you lost PR status and had to return to your home country was a H&C factor to be considered in deciding whether to uphold the 44(1) Report or to set it aside for H&C reasons. But not the only one. It appears that happened when you were still in the first five years after landing, and when you still had a valid PR card, and those too are factors that quite likely helped your case.

But for purposes of understanding how that process works, and in particular relating it to other anecdotal reports about PRs in breach and extrapolating what might happen for other PRs approaching a PoE while in breach of the RO, your experience appears to illustrate the more formal adjudication of status and NOT just the exercise of "simple leniency at the border examination" resulting in being waived through. The overriding net effect is roughly the same: allowed to keep PR status. And it is likely that leniency played a role in the MD's decision-making. But assuming the first CBSA officer prepared a 44(1) Report, which is what leads to a review by a MD (Minister's Delegate, as designated for that particular transaction, but in practice just another CBSA immigration officer), that constitutes the initiation of a formal adjudication of status. So the MD's decision had a more definitive force and effect, and meant that the breach of the RO was then and there mostly cured.

Nonetheless, the "pass" you got then does not indicate, let alone guarantee, you would get a similar pass the next time. Particularly if you return to the home country for a significant length of time, the likelihood of facing hardship there will not carry the same H&C weight as before. And even though there is no verifiable database or compilation of numbers, it is almost certain that new PRs (first five years) are often given more leeway. The latter might be offset if a PR for more than five years has otherwise been well established in Canada (ties in Canada being a significant H&C factor), but if in contrast the overall pattern is contrary to the purpose for which PR status was granted (so the person could establish actual residence PERMANENTLY in Canada) the scales tip in the negative direction. Meaning, avoid breaching the RO again going forward.

Sorry to hear about your mother.

-You got your PR status as a skilled worker, not as a refugee - so any talk related to refugee status should just be ignored. Your status in Canada does not depend on that.

-You almost certainly benefitted from simple leniency at the border examination, which might have been noted in some short-form - but it wasn't some H&C determination that you had any part in the wording of. Or in simple terms, it's not subject to some retroactive decision about it later. Plus when you return, they're just going to see that you're now in compliance and you've nothing to fear in that respect.

That said: the potential hardship or fear of physical danger you face is the real concern. I'd underline a simple thing: when you are in your 'home country' (where you have or had citizenship - any country that can consider you a citizen, really), there is precious little Canada can do to assist (esp if only a PR, but also when you get Canadian citizenship). Canada has no 'rights' under international consular conventions.

So saying there does not seem to be - based on what you've shared - any issue related to your PR status/future citizenship, that doesn't mean it's a good idea and be careful.

First,thank you all for your answers( @jakklondon @dpenabill @armoured ). I know that some of you may not agree with each other but I appreciate you all.
I just want to make some clarification here.
I entered Canada with a valid PR card (not expired) but it had less than a year till the expiry date. the first CBSA officer wrote a section 44(1) Report against me. the report had an application# and UCI on top of it and after few weeks I got an invitation from CBSA to attend a ministers delegate review session at a later time, in the final session, I brought my H&C reasons and at the end officer considered my H&C but noticed some things.
1- if I apply for a new PR card before meeting my residency obligation my case will be reviewed again
2- if I go back to **** (my home country) this matter can come up again AND at the end, he/she handed over my passport to me!!
I asked some lawyers about my situation one of them told me nothing is going to happen and the other one told me the risk is there but it's highly unlikely and he "never saw that happen" and the officer's point about returning to my home country was about going outside of Canada and not meeting residency obligation again (regardless of my destination).
here is my question: let's say that @jakklondon is right and if I go back I'm at risk of losing my PR status at POE or citizenship application, why the ministers delegate himself/herself handed my passport to me?! I know that CBSA seizes the passports of refugees or let's imagine I go on a trip to Mexico and for whatever reason Mexico decides to deport me to my home country? that's why they seize the passport. have any idea about it guys? I can't understand not going back to my country of origin but letting me have my passport and traveling with it! am I missing somthing here?

 

[andy_smith]

Andy-smith, I saw your response the other day, where you described what Minister's Delegate told you and how your leniency under H&C might affect you in future if you return to your home country or leave Canada just for any kind of trip, and you were asking "what if jakklondon is correct". Unfortunately, by the time I wanted to reply you deleted your third post on this forum. In any event, here is my advise to you: this forum is populated by dilettantes, some of them Ego driven and bitter, others well meaning but not qualified to advise on matters involving complex legal questions. Therefore, it's best for you if you seek consultation of the licensed immigration attorney in Canada. A lot of people think that consulting an attorney immediately depletes one's checking account and costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. While hiring an attorney may cost a lot, especially if he will be representing one in the immigration court, it's not necessary to just pick up the phone and hire the first attorney whose number you dial to wire him money. Remember, attorney (just like a plumber, roofer, home designer) is a man of the trade, and can be interviewed for a job like everyone else to consider for a position, with no obligation to hire. For this reason, many attorneys offer free consultations, where you can ask the question you have and once they provide an answer decide what your next move will be. An honest attorney (and there ARE such) will even tell you "Don't hire me, you don't need me because...." and explain why you don't need one (sometimes it's because your case is so simple, you can handle it on your own. At others, because it's pointless and no attorney can help).
And a lot of the times they can set your mind at ease, by explaining you what the actual (not imagined by forum trolls) law is and how it applies in your individual case. Wish you good luck. Sorry to hear that you lost your mother.

I didn't delete that, it seems it's pending approval from the moderator, thanks for letting me know that it was not visible. I have almost spent 1K till now for consultation fees with 3 of top tier attorneys

 

[jakklondon]

First,thank you all for your answers( @jakklondon @dpenabill @armoured ). I know that some of you may not agree with each other but I appreciate you all.
I just want to make some clarification here.
I entered Canada with a valid PR card (not expired) but it had less than a year till the expiry date. the first CBSA officer wrote a section 44(1) Report against me. the report had an application# and UCI on top of it and after few weeks I got an invitation from CBSA to attend a ministers delegate review session at a later time, in the final session, I brought my H&C reasons and at the end officer considered my H&C but noticed some things.
1- if I apply for a new PR card before meeting my residency obligation my case will be reviewed again
2- if I go back to **** (my home country) this matter can come up again AND at the end, he/she handed over my passport to me!!

I asked some lawyers about my situation one of them told me nothing is going to happen and the other one told me the risk is there but it's highly unlikely and he "never saw that happen" and the officer's point about returning to my home country was about going outside of Canada and not meeting residency obligation again (regardless of my destination).

If you do not meet RO, the risk to be reported again (and undergoing removal procedure) is always there. When I was brand new PR, the CBSA was still sending me to secondary (on land POE) and grilling on residence. If I was not a new PR and stayed out of Canada one day beyond the limit, I am sure I would be reported for removal. On the other hand, there are a lot of reports (especially lately, since pandemic started) where people in serious breach of RO are waived in without any questions asked about their residence. Who knows what will happen in your case, but if breach of RO is the only concern, then the risk to be reported will exist as long as law for RO exists.

If I were you I would ask those two attorneys what they were referring to when they said "nothing is going to happen", or that "risk is there but it's highly unlikely" and never seen happening. If they were referring to RO per se, then they are wrong, even this forum (if you search) has number of comments of people who were reported for breach of RO. It is not unheard of or truly rare thing. Ask them if they were referring to something other than the breach of RO.

here is my question: let's say that @jakklondon is right and if I go back I'm at risk of losing my PR status at POE or citizenship application, why the ministers delegate himself/herself handed my passport to me?! I know that CBSA seizes the passports of refugees or let's imagine I go on a trip to Mexico and for whatever reason Mexico decides to deport me to my home country? that's why they seize the passport. have any idea about it guys? I can't understand not going back to my country of origin but letting me have my passport and traveling with it! am I missing somthing here?

You are not a refugee, you are PR. They can not confiscate your passport as a regular PR, the only passport you are entitled to at this time, and prevent you from future travel. And I never suggested you were a refugee. I said the same logic which immigration officials apply to refugees could be applied to you. Note that "the same logic" does not mean "the same law", and "could be" or "possible" does not mean "will happen", "certainly will". Some angry and bitter people with no understanding of basic English love to attack and argue against things that they don't even understand, and I am obliged to make the emphasis on words "logic" and "could", so they don't confuse and derail you with their loud noise.

When I say the same logic could apply, I mean it's possible for someone who was granted leniency under H&C due to threat of harm and violence back home to be treated similarly to a refugee, if after getting the leniency they return back home. The argument of immigration officials in those cases would be "if you were so afraid of going back home, why did you go now? If you did, it means you have no fear. If you have no fear it means you lied to us to get H&C. Lying to us is a major immigration violation, and for that we will deport you".

I must add two things in this regard:
#1. A lot of refugees and asylees do return back to their country of origin, some spend holidays and summers there and benefit from low cost of life. This is such a widely spread occurrence worldwide that articles on this subject appear from time to time in various countries (including the one I linked).
But despite wide spread of this occurrence (and immigration officials are well aware of it), I have yet to see anyone to be prosecuted and deported for it. Perhaps it does happen somewhere to someone, I just never heard of it.

#2. Even if we assumed that the same logic applicable to refugees was applicable to PRs admitted under H&C, it seems like you would still get a waiver for it. Mainly because (and I found out about it after I posted my first reply) there appear to exist exceptions to above rule, and one of them is going back to home country to visit a parent in death bed, or to attend their funeral.

I think your main concern should be RO, and if you are in compliance with RO at this time nothing else should worry you with the exception of your personal safety when you go back home. Just make sure you have all the paperwork and documents with you and should you be questioned on your way back, you will be able to explain what happened and why you went back.

But having said it all, I would still recommend you double checking with reputed and licensed immigration attorney. I am not a Canadian immigration attorney (neither are other posters on this forum), and you shouldn't bet your future on speculations of the laymen.

Good luck!

 

[jakklondon]

I didn't delete that, it seems it's pending approval from the moderator, thanks for letting me know that it was not visible. I have almost spent 1K till now for consultation fees with 3 of top tier attorneys

It's strange that it is pending approval, because I saw it for a brief moment. May be you made edits to it. If your account is new, they remove edited posts pending mod approval.

Re: spending 1K, NEVER EVER PAY FOR CONSULTAITON. Some unscrupulous attorneys make money just by charging $350-$450 fees for 15 minutes of conversation, and when you ask them a questions they still don't answer, instead they say "Pay me $1000 more and I will take your case and tell you what to do". Those are not good attorneys. Good attorneys do not charge for initial consultation, they tell you honestly what your options are. And you hire them if you believe you have to (there are some cases where you better do so, or you may later pay much higher cost). Hopefully in your case you don't need to hire anyone, they should simply confirm that it's OK for you to go back and see your mother while she is alive.