RO not met + card expired = Trouble

[armoured]

“to say Canada is far left is ridiculous”

That would be your opinion

There are, in fact, definitions of these things (what is considered 'far left' and 'far right'), and yes, it is my opinion that to so misuse/abuse the terminology and definitions as to attempt to put Canada overall in 'far left' can only be termed ridiculous. Canada is, at most, center-left/social democratic, even allowing for comparison to USA, but probably more aptly closer to neutral, some classification systems would put as center-right.

 

[dpenabill]

Thank you so much for this impressive piece of arguments. I was optimistic at the begining of your text and pessimistic at the end ;-) Your arguments on the 3 main reasons are strong and convincing. Impressive. I understand that H&C is random and perhaps doing an appeal makes more sense with a consultants in immigration because the process is complex. But as you said, i agree, i must be prepared to be ousted from the country and thats life; in this case, i will try to re apply again (hopefully, ircc will not consider that losing my PR is a reason for not accepting my application). So many thanks really !

At the risk of over-thinking language, while in contrast seeing the back-and-forth with others, including @armoured in particular, in which it seemed obvious you were misunderstanding more than a little which in turn required efforts to clarify and better explain what had been said --

You have obtained about as much input here as it is possible to get in a forum like this. To get more you need the in-depth assistance of competent professional services, from a LAWYER rather than a consultant.

So, some clarifications:

I made NO arguments in my post. H&C is NOT random (not even close).

There is a difference, a huge difference, between "consultants" and "lawyers." Especially when it comes to providing services in litigation, even administrative litigation such as appealing a Removal Order to the IAD. Consultants may be fine for persons who need assistance making applications, but lawyers are far better in matters requiring advocacy and applying law. There is a huge difference between following administrative instructions (what consultants do) versus applying the law in difficult cases, especially contested cases. There is no substitute for a good and experienced lawyer in regards to the latter.

While my description

(again, NOT argument)​

of the three main reasons why an inadmissible PR

(that is, a PR who meets the statutory definition of "inadmissible" due to a RO breach, which applies to you)​

has better odds of saving their PR status by returning to Canada via the U.S., rather than making a PR TD application, consists of conclusions, to be clear these conclusions are rooted in the actual procedures followed. For example, there is no question, no need for argument, no competing opinions (none that are credible anyway), in regards to the biggest differences between the process involved in PoE examinations versus visa office decision-making for PR TD applications. Others had already amply explained the advantages. I offered those three observations about this to help explain the PROCEDURE involved, because generally understanding the procedure makes it easier to navigate the process.

H&C is NOT Random:

There are scores of topics in this forum where H&C cases are discussed at length, including detailed descriptions of the most influential factors, and detailed descriptions of particular issues, ranging from the most influential (which do not appear applicable for you) to discussions about particular factors, like how employment issues can influence the H&C assessment. When I mentioned, for example, that employment related issues and reasons can have a positive influence in some cases, or have no influence one way or the other in a lot of cases, or be a negative factor in the assessment of H&C reasons, I was not suggesting this is random or a matter of chance; I was referring to variable effects depending on the particular circumstances in a specific individual case.

That brings this to preparing to make your H&C case upon arrival at the PoE,

(noting that your odds are better if you do not need to make the H&C case at the PoE, if upon presentation of your European passport at the PoE you are waived into Canada without being questioned as to RO compliance) ​

and figuring out how much you want to prepare for that. You can, for example, do the homework and read and study some of the more extensive and detailed discussions about H&C here,

(for PRs in RO breach; this is very different from H&C cases in other contexts)​

and figure out how to best make your H&C case, applying what you can learn here, in other topics, to YOUR situation. The problem with that is how complex making the H&C case often is,

(except in certain situations, like a minor removed from Canada attempting to return to Canada upon reaching majority)​

while in contrast, for most PRs in these situations, the best they can realistically and practically do is to simply be prepared to tell their story, to explain why they delayed coming to Canada despite fully intending to move and PERMANENTLY settle here. To do this in their own words, just an honest and genuine telling of their story.

I do not mean to speak for @armoured or anyone else, but I think this is very similar to what @armoured was saying. Sure, good idea to prepare for presenting your case, including putting together a small number of supporting documents that are directly relevant to a reason for not coming to Canada sooner

(prime example would be a letter from a doctor verifying a medical matter if that is part of the explanation for not coming here sooner)​

but most people do better if they focus on honestly telling their story. And, if that does not work, if a Removal Order is issued at the PoE, get a LAWYER (not a consultant) to assist in making an appeal.

I disagree, for example, with how @canuck78 frames what is or is not "typically an H&C reason," but in contrast am quite confident the approach to assessing H&C factors is more like that described by @armoured in post #63 above. And it is worth emphasizing, as @armoured observed:

Reasons are not considered individually and thrown out. They're looked at together. Several individually not compelling reasons may look differently as a whole, esp at a port of entry interview where a judgment is being made quickly.

So, going back to employment related issues in particular. It is NOT likely to be worth trying to structure your explanation around what in other cases, as discussed in other topics, will have a positive H&C influence. Rather, your best shot is probably giving a sincere and honest explanation in your own words, explaining how and why employment related factors affected your decisions about when you could actually make the move to settle here permanently. Again, it is a lot easier to present a sympathetic case being honest and sincere. Again, if that does not work at the PoE, you can appeal, see a LAWYER and with the lawyer's help put together your H&C case for the IAD.

"I was optimistic at the begining of your text and pessimistic at the end ;-) "

Sorry. I did not mean to comment on the odds other than to avoid unrealistic expectations. For a PR with a European passport who is in breach of the RO, in breach by a lot, their best chance is getting waived through the primary examination at the PoE, not getting tangled in detailed questioning about their RO compliance. We do not know what the odds are but we know that there many anecdotal reports from PRs who have benefitted this way and saved their PR status.

 

[armoured]

while in contrast, for most PRs in these situations, the best they can realistically and practically do is to simply be prepared to tell their story, to explain why they delayed coming to Canada despite fully intending to move and PERMANENTLY settle here. To do this in their own words, just an honest and genuine telling of their story.

I do not mean to speak for @armoured or anyone else, but I think this is very similar to what @armoured was saying.
...
but most people do better if they focus on honestly telling their story.
...
It is NOT likely to be worth trying to structure your explanation around what in other cases, as discussed in other topics, will have a positive H&C influence. Rather, your best shot is probably giving a sincere and honest explanation in your own words, explaining how and why employment related factors affected your decisions ...
Again, it is a lot easier to present a sympathetic case being honest and sincere.

These points are a far better summary and statement of what I was attempting to get across, and worth repeating, in simple terms: give your best honest and sincere explanation. Without speaking for an hour, and without a lot of embellishment. Answer questions truthfully.

It is very much my view that in an examination of this sort, at the port of entry, examining officers do not wish to spend a lot of time writing up 44(1) reports that (in their estimation) have a likelihood of being reversed. A fair bit of the time, it's not a lot more complicated than that.

A simple, sincerely presented case will have some chance of reaching that bar if the reasons have some credibility.

For a PR with a European passport who is in breach of the RO, in breach by a lot, their best chance is getting waived through the primary examination at the PoE, not getting tangled in detailed questioning about their RO compliance. We do not know what the odds are but we know that there many anecdotal reports from PRs who have benefitted this way and saved their PR status.

Also a good point.

 

[SuperMarco]

Having to care financially for older family members is not typically an H&C reason. You would be leaving a stable job where you live close to those older family members to come to uncertainty in Canada. Unless you have extremely rare skills or get transferred by an employer it is extremely difficult to secure a first job in Canada in your mid 40s. For many who have worked in Canada their whole lives the job market is very hard at the moment and is likely to get worse. Getting hired from abroad also likely not realistic although there are some exceptions. You really need to look at cost of living in Canada. You may get paid slightly more but the cost of living can be much higher which may actually leave you with less money in the end.

Thank you very much. True, it is to avoid uncertainty that i decided to keep here instead of remaining unemployed in a country where i received dozens of negative responses despite some skills. This is why i decided to do a new degree to prove my intentions. You said caring about old family people is no, H&C: it is possible, but this is what happened. I know that my case is difficult but i thought that canada was still looking for immigrants, this is why i decided to do a try after graduating.

"it is extremely difficult to secure a first job in Canada in your mid 40s. ": so sad to read this. i wonder if it is the same in the US? it would imply that skills decrease with age? not in my case, i always learn new skills like coding. I feld sad but i agree with you and i add that networking seem very very very important in this country.

 

[SuperMarco]

-You don't need to state that these are H&C reasons, you'll just get asked what reasons you had - give them.

-Ignore comments telling you your reasons don't count. Give the reasons you have. (I would rephrase slightly however to put emphasis on caring for family, not just funding them - funding is however part of it).

-I am stating this as if you have decided to do so; I do however agree that the challenges of settling can be substantial.

Thanks a lot, all you said is important to me because they clarify reality:
-"You don't need to state that these are H&C reasons": You are right, thank you because it makes clear how i must defend myself at the border
-"Give the reasons you have.": Exact, what i have to do is tell my story (only my story no blabla) and let him decide: alea jacta est. Exact, i fund and care for old and sick people that are alone in life: it was no a choice from me. Of course i could fund them from abroad with a risk...

 

[SuperMarco]

At the risk of over-thinking language, while in contrast seeing the back-and-forth with others, including @armoured in particular, in which it seemed obvious you were misunderstanding more than a little which in turn required efforts to clarify and better explain what had been said --

You have obtained about as much input here as it is possible to get in a forum like this. To get more you need the in-depth assistance of competent professional services, from a LAWYER rather than a consultant.

So, some clarifications:

I made NO arguments in my post. H&C is NOT random (not even close).

There is a difference, a huge difference, between "consultants" and "lawyers." Especially when it comes to providing services in litigation, even administrative litigation such as appealing a Removal Order to the IAD. Consultants may be fine for persons who need assistance making applications, but lawyers are far better in matters requiring advocacy and applying law. There is a huge difference between following administrative instructions (what consultants do) versus applying the law in difficult cases, especially contested cases. There is no substitute for a good and experienced lawyer in regards to the latter.

While my description

(again, NOT argument)​

of the three main reasons why an inadmissible PR

(that is, a PR who meets the statutory definition of "inadmissible" due to a RO breach, which applies to you)​

has better odds of saving their PR status by returning to Canada via the U.S., rather than making a PR TD application, consists of conclusions, to be clear these conclusions are rooted in the actual procedures followed. For example, there is no question, no need for argument, no competing opinions (none that are credible anyway), in regards to the biggest differences between the process involved in PoE examinations versus visa office decision-making for PR TD applications. Others had already amply explained the advantages. I offered those three observations about this to help explain the PROCEDURE involved, because generally understanding the procedure makes it easier to navigate the process.

H&C is NOT Random:

There are scores of topics in this forum where H&C cases are discussed at length, including detailed descriptions of the most influential factors, and detailed descriptions of particular issues, ranging from the most influential (which do not appear applicable for you) to discussions about particular factors, like how employment issues can influence the H&C assessment. When I mentioned, for example, that employment related issues and reasons can have a positive influence in some cases, or have no influence one way or the other in a lot of cases, or be a negative factor in the assessment of H&C reasons, I was not suggesting this is random or a matter of chance; I was referring to variable effects depending on the particular circumstances in a specific individual case.

That brings this to preparing to make your H&C case upon arrival at the PoE,

(noting that your odds are better if you do not need to make the H&C case at the PoE, if upon presentation of your European passport at the PoE you are waived into Canada without being questioned as to RO compliance) ​

and figuring out how much you want to prepare for that. You can, for example, do the homework and read and study some of the more extensive and detailed discussions about H&C here,

(for PRs in RO breach; this is very different from H&C cases in other contexts)​

and figure out how to best make your H&C case, applying what you can learn here, in other topics, to YOUR situation. The problem with that is how complex making the H&C case often is,

(except in certain situations, like a minor removed from Canada attempting to return to Canada upon reaching majority)​

while in contrast, for most PRs in these situations, the best they can realistically and practically do is to simply be prepared to tell their story, to explain why they delayed coming to Canada despite fully intending to move and PERMANENTLY settle here. To do this in their own words, just an honest and genuine telling of their story.

I do not mean to speak for @armoured or anyone else, but I think this is very similar to what @armoured was saying. Sure, good idea to prepare for presenting your case, including putting together a small number of supporting documents that are directly relevant to a reason for not coming to Canada sooner

(prime example would be a letter from a doctor verifying a medical matter if that is part of the explanation for not coming here sooner)​

but most people do better if they focus on honestly telling their story. And, if that does not work, if a Removal Order is issued at the PoE, get a LAWYER (not a consultant) to assist in making an appeal.

I disagree, for example, with how @canuck78 frames what is or is not "typically an H&C reason," but in contrast am quite confident the approach to assessing H&C factors is more like that described by @armoured in post #63 above. And it is worth emphasizing, as @armoured observed:

So, going back to employment related issues in particular. It is NOT likely to be worth trying to structure your explanation around what in other cases, as discussed in other topics, will have a positive H&C influence. Rather, your best shot is probably giving a sincere and honest explanation in your own words, explaining how and why employment related factors affected your decisions about when you could actually make the move to settle here permanently. Again, it is a lot easier to present a sympathetic case being honest and sincere. Again, if that does not work at the PoE, you can appeal, see a LAWYER and with the lawyer's help put together your H&C case for the IAD.

"I was optimistic at the begining of your text and pessimistic at the end ;-) "

Sorry. I did not mean to comment on the odds other than to avoid unrealistic expectations. For a PR with a European passport who is in breach of the RO, in breach by a lot, their best chance is getting waived through the primary examination at the PoE, not getting tangled in detailed questioning about their RO compliance. We do not know what the odds are but we know that there many anecdotal reports from PRs who have benefitted this way and saved their PR status.

Thank you very much for this extensive explanation. I agree with you that i have the chance to meet you all of you guys in this forum and i admit that the level of your discussion/arguments is far far above what is expected in a forum and what we can find in other forums.
- You are absolutely clear and right about the lawyer although the odds ot do an appeal after a removal order seem to me tiny and stressful.
- I see that indeed i was wrong saying H&C are random. As you write, i need to tell my story simply, honestly, sympathetic, concisely, and after reading part of this forum to understand the procedure. My story is about a failed attempt : job issue (proof) + family issue (proof) + new degree (proof) to tempt to reverse the odd to find a job.
- you refer to the passport: i believe the agent will ask passport + PR (or visa or equivalent like ESTA), not only passport....
Your explanations are strong and convicing, many thanks.

 

[armoured]

My story is about a failed attempt : job issue (proof) + family issue (proof) + new degree (proof) to tempt to reverse the odd to find a job.
- you refer to the passport: i believe the agent will ask passport + PR (or visa or equivalent like ESTA), not only passport....

-Proof / evidence: it's hard to prove some things - so it's better to say evidence. And it's my belief that most of the time at port of entry (for this type of examination) they do not require/may not ask for physical/documentary evidence. BUT: it may be helpful to show what you have, or indicate that you HAVE some evidence. That evidence could be very strong and specific (eg letter from doctor / authorities that so-and-so was in a coma for three years, unable to travel, infirm, etc), or it could be much less strong (timeline or notes/letters from unknown people). The border officers may or may not look at it, they may or may not read it in detail, or they might simply glance at the fact that you have a folder of what looks like documents.

-You will show passport. As an EU citizen, you won't need ETA at land entry (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/visit-canada/entry-requirements-country.html#visaExempt). If they look you up in the database/scan your passport, the system SHOULD throw up a comment that you're a PR. If it does, they PROBABLY will ask you if you're a PR; that MIGHT lead to questions about how much time you've spent in Canada / compliance; and that MIGHT send you to secondary where they'd ask more questions. And on and on with might/maybe/possibly/probably.

Note that sometimes they may ask questions to see if it matches what info they have ('when were you last in Canada'), and if the answers seem to match, just let you go through (because you seem to be telling the truth - not because the answers prove you are in compliance with the RO). Because the priority for the border officers might be (and often is) identifying dangerous or criminal schemes (overlaps with liars), not RO compliance.

And at each stage, the probability MIGHT be 'go on through, we have other problems today.' It might go the other way - but as @dpenabill said, it's not 'random.'

That's the relevance of the EU passport: one more 'tick' in your favour (ETA not required, good info-sharing / police data so if the system doesn't show 'red' [eg criminality/security issue], some % chance higher they just wave you through.) Plus all visa waiver countries effectively benefit from assumption that most visitors are 'not problematic' on a range of issues (that's why no visa is required, after all).

 

[SuperMarco]

-Proof / evidence: it's hard to prove some things - so it's better to say evidence. And it's my belief that most of the time at port of entry (for this type of examination) they do not require/may not ask for physical/documentary evidence. BUT: it may be helpful to show what you have, or indicate that you HAVE some evidence. That evidence could be very strong and specific (eg letter from doctor / authorities that so-and-so was in a coma for three years, unable to travel, infirm, etc), or it could be much less strong (timeline or notes/letters from unknown people). The border officers may or may not look at it, they may or may not read it in detail, or they might simply glance at the fact that you have a folder of what looks like documents.

-You will show passport. As an EU citizen, you won't need ETA at land entry (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/visit-canada/entry-requirements-country.html#visaExempt). If they look you up in the database/scan your passport, the system SHOULD throw up a comment that you're a PR. If it does, they PROBABLY will ask you if you're a PR; that MIGHT lead to questions about how much time you've spent in Canada / compliance; and that MIGHT send you to secondary where they'd ask more questions. And on and on with might/maybe/possibly/probably.

Note that sometimes they may ask questions to see if it matches what info they have ('when were you last in Canada'), and if the answers seem to match, just let you go through (because you seem to be telling the truth - not because the answers prove you are in compliance with the RO). Because the priority for the border officers might be (and often is) identifying dangerous or criminal schemes (overlaps with liars), not RO compliance.

And at each stage, the probability MIGHT be 'go on through, we have other problems today.' It might go the other way - but as @dpenabill said, it's not 'random.'

That's the relevance of the EU passport: one more 'tick' in your favour (ETA not required, good info-sharing / police data so if the system doesn't show 'red' [eg criminality/security issue], some % chance higher they just wave you through.) Plus all visa waiver countries effectively benefit from assumption that most visitors are 'not problematic' on a range of issues (that's why no visa is required, after all).

Hello, Again a great thanks for your strong argumentation. I like and learn a lot. Sorry, when i said "random" i meant overall "chance/odds for me. I know my case is hard, but i will take some documents as evidence + hopefully i will succeed to my can exam to say "look, i did my best despite i do not conform with rules".

I agree with all. Please one precision on the border if possible:
-ETA: for US, i need an equivalent of ETA, and what happens if they understand that i went to the US to come back to their country? (like staying one day in us and moving forward to the border)?
-Also, please what is your view on how to cross the border (i'm not jokking): greyhound, taxi, walk.
-From which province? ON or QC?

Great thank.

 

[steaky]

Hello, Again a great thanks for your strong argumentation. I like and learn a lot. Sorry, when i said "random" i meant overall "chance/odds for me. I know my case is hard, but i will take some documents as evidence + hopefully i will succeed to my can exam to say "look, i did my best despite i do not conform with rules".

I agree with all. Please one precision on the border if possible:
-ETA: for US, i need an equivalent of ETA, and what happens if they understand that i went to the US to come back to their country? (like staying one day in us and moving forward to the border)?
-Also, please what is your view on how to cross the border (i'm not jokking): greyhound, taxi, walk.
-From which province? ON or QC?

Great thank.

Which border crossing do you intend to cross? You can also take a ferry like NS to ME.

 

[armoured]

I agree with all. Please one precision on the border if possible:
-ETA: for US, i need an equivalent of ETA, and what happens if they understand that i went to the US to come back to their country? (like staying one day in us and moving forward to the border)?
-Also, please what is your view on how to cross the border (i'm not jokking): greyhound, taxi, walk.
-From which province? ON or QC?

I don't have definitive answer to any of these. I doubt the USA cares much if you say you're entering for a short visit on way to Canada, not uncommon.

The rest, I just don't know.

 

[SuperMarco]

I don't have definitive answer to any of these. I doubt the USA cares much if you say you're entering for a short visit on way to Canada, not uncommon.

The rest, I just don't know.

Thank you, no worry, it was just a precision. Good if they don't care.

 

[SuperMarco]

Which border crossing do you intend to cross? You can also take a ferry like NS to ME.

Thank you. I didn't know about the ferry (i then notice that it is not like ariplane in terms of PR requirement). Sorry i don't know where is NS/ME ,-)

 

[steaky]

Thank you. I didn't know about the ferry (i then notice that it is not like ariplane in terms of PR requirement). Sorry i don't know where is NS/ME ,-)

NS = Nova Scotia - another province of Canada. Other than ON / QC, which other provinces do you know?

 

[SuperMarco]

NS = Nova Scotia - another province of Canada. Other than ON / QC, which other provinces do you know?

Thank you ! I know ON/QC a bit NS ! but i'm open to go anywhere, i love this country. I search about the place more favorable and the transportation more adequate.