Supri_Niski said:
I am NOT convinced by your statement "but my sense is that an application for a PR card on an urgent basis, by an applicant who has spent less than half his or her time in Canada in the last five years, has a substantially elevated risk for secondary review" . This could be true ONLY if applicants are stupid to think that under URGENT processing CIC will NOT scrutinize their application in depth and likewise CIC is thinking that applicants are putting their application under URGENT processing who has definite flaw in their application. I believe we have too small sample size to make a statement like that. To me (unless CIC really think that applicant make URGENT processing to get away from being caught for not meeting RO) URGENT processing and Regular Processing goes under same level of scrutiny by CIC except URGENT processing is reviewed earlier than Normal processing. But this is my view and I may be wrong.
I have my Utility Bills as well as Credit Card Statements. For Brevity, I want to attach only one of them. Which one I should attach?
Again, I think the previous H&C determination is probably your
trump card, a key factor in whether or not you will get urgent processing.
Regarding the inclusion of additional supporting documentation, such as utility bills or banking statements, I do not think including these will make a difference, so I doubt choosing one versus the other will make a difference.
This is of course my
opinion, merely my opinion.
To explain this probably involves a lot, lot more discussion than you would like. But, in case you are interested, I will offer the long explanation:
FWIW, the long explanation:
CIC is likely to consider additional documentation if and when there is a secondary level of review. But there are no indications CIC considers additional proof in screening for risk indicators or for any
reason-to-question residency. The latter is what determines whether an application is given urgent processing, or even routine processing. The application either passes this screening or goes to a higher level of review.
That is to say:
Generally, if you meet the criteria for urgent processing and your case (application plus history) does
NOT check off any of the risk indicators, does not have any identified
reason-to-question residency, your application is likely to be processed on an urgent basis and the PR card issued and delivered (by mail or pick-up).
BUT, if anything in your application, or more likely in your history itself, checks off any of the risk indicators, anything identified as a
reason-to-question residency, then your application will not be processed on an urgent basis and most likely will be subject to secondary review.
Just as I doubt that ten or twenty days more will make much, if any of a difference, I doubt that including additional supporting documentation (beyond that required per the checklist and instructions) as proof of residency will make much if any difference at this level of assessment.
I am not certain that an application for urgent processing in conjunction with barely meeting the residency obligation constitutes a
reason-to-question residency any more than barely meeting the residency obligation itself might. But given CIC's paranoia about PRs living abroad, and about PRs who in particular only come to Canada long enough to get a renewed PR card and then go back home, so to say, I have a strong sense that at the least the conjunction invites questions. While the anecdotal reports have been sporadic (thus constituting a small sample), they have been consistent for many years (I have been following PR RO matters since 2008 in multiple forums, and including since 2010 or 2011 in this forum; moreover, my sense of these things is drawn from following the evolution of CIC practices and polices as reflected in numerous operational manuals, operation bulletins, more recently the Program Delivery Instructions, and some other sources of information obtained via ATI requests, including memos regarding some risk indicator criteria -- despite CIC attempts to minimize the extent to which its investigatory criteria, like risk indicators, are publicly disclosed).
Sure, a definite flaw will trigger secondary review (for a routine application as well as one asking for urgent processing). But remember, secondary review is not triggered only by definite flaws in an application, but may be triggered by any identified
reason-to-question residency.
In particular, the screening criteria for a
reason-to-question residency, as employed by CIC, is much broader than definite flaws.
Moreover, I am fairly confident that in most scenarios a PR whose situation checks off criteria for a secondary review cannot, and will not, avoid the secondary review by submitting proof that will ultimately show compliance with the PR RO. Thus, again and for example, I doubt that that the inclusion of utility bills, or bank statements, or both, will make a difference in whether the application is processed on an urgent basis or is subjected to secondary review. (If there is a secondary review, and CIC requests additional documentation, such as issuing a Residency Determination, then sure these documents will be considered.)
It comes down to this: either CIC trusts the applicant's information in the application as submitted, together with the documentation provided
per the checklist (including NoAs for example) . . . or CIC does not. In the latter instance, there will be a secondary review, if not a full blown Residency Determination.
Effect of determination there were sufficient H&C grounds, in a PR Travel Document application, to justify retention of PR status despite falling short of the PR RO:
Like most things at CIC these days, the older operational bulletins and operation manuals do not tell the current story, and even when they did the information about the effect of the H&C determination in a PR TD application was a bit fuzzy.
One thing was clear, and I believe this is still true: that as of the date such a determination was made, that decision constituted a final adjudication the PR's status was good . . . which I understood to mean that the PR was in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. At the least, absences prior to that date could not be reconsidered in assessing the PR's compliance with the PR RO.
To be clear, the decision in a PR TD application is an adjudicated determination and is binding. (Many a PR has failed to understand the import of this and suffered the impact of an outcome going the other way.)
My sense is that such a PR should be entitled to a replacement or new PR card once he or she has returned to Canada. BUT I am far from confident about this (it may be worth your while to consult with a lawyer and ask just this specific question). And in particular, I am not sure to what extent CIC's approach about this may have changed. (For several years now, CIC has continually trended toward more and more strict enforcement of the PR RO.)
I really think that decision, even though based on H&C reasons, is the strongest card in your hand, perhaps your
ace-in-the-hole, your
trump card. Even if it alone does not make you eligible for a new PR card, I still think this is the one factor most likely to make a difference that allows your application to actually get urgent processing (and I realize you disagree, but without this I think the request for urgent processing in conjunction with barely meeting the minimum threshold would almost certainly trigger a delay in processing).
As for the extent to which the information about your PR TD application is accessible to CIC in assessing a PR card application, the key elements (decision and basis for the decision at minimum) are for sure readily accessible and will most likely be considered . . . all the visa offices are connected into the same system, GCMS and FOSS, as are the CIC offices in Canada. Moreover, a PR TD application involves some level of a residency determination and that information goes into a specific database. Whether that will be routinely accessed in processing the PR card application, or not, I do not know . . . but the information is kept in that database and maintained for . . . I do not recall, but many years at the least.
Unfortunately, the CIC call centre is unreliable for a question like this, that is whether the H&C determination suffices to make a PR who has returned to Canada eligible for a new PR card.
Overall, though, I would note that since it has been less than two years since the PR TD was granted, I don't think CIC could conduct a Residency Determination in your case . . . the outcome dictated by the adjudication of the PR TD application, you are in compliance. If you were absent from Canada most of the last two years, or there was some other dramatic change in circumstances, maybe they could, I am not sure. But generally CIC is obligated to consider you in compliance as of the date the PR TD was issued. Whether that goes so far as to also make you eligible for a new PR card, I am not at all sure . . . but again, I think this is the best card in your hand.
Note: the contrast between the PR TD application and an application for a new PR card is significant.
An application for a new PR card does
NOT necessarily entail a
Residency Determination, unless CIC specifically conducts a Residency Determination . . . so the fact a PR has been issued a new PR card does not entitle the PR to any presumption about compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. PRs with very recently issued new PR cards have been issued Removal Orders at a POE, and those have been upheld on appeal (where of course the facts show the failure to comply with the PR RO).
Thus, the application for the PR card only calls for a few specific documents supporting proof of residency . . . unless the applicant has been outside Canada for 1095 or more days within the preceding five years (in this case, proof of residency is to be submitted with the application). As I noted above, I doubt the inclusion of any additional proof will make a difference . . . except, of course, if a secondary review is conducted, then the addtional documentation will be considered.
In contrast, the application for a PR Travel Document overtly involves a residency determination. A PR abroad without a currently valid PR card is
presumed to not have valid PR status. So the PR must prove either compliance with the PR RO or H&C grounds sufficient to justify retention of PR status, and if the PR fails to submit sufficient proof, the PR TD is denied . . . and that becomes a final adjudication of status unless appealed. If the PR TD is granted, and particularly if it is granted for H&C grounds, it is also a final adjudication on these issues and if not appealed cannot be re-questioned. (I say this is particularly so for a PR TD granted for H&C grounds because these are the cases that have come up in IAD and Federal Court decisions, those decisions affirming that once the H&C determination is made, it is binding and the PR cannot be re-questioned about failing to meet the PR RO due to previous absences.)
