A tangent not relevant to the OP's query . . .
Tangent Re: Post-landing Mobility Rights Versus Conduct Triggering Suspicion of Misrepresentation:
. . . addressing the tangent raised by the
@akbardxb response to part of the response by
@scylla regarding a PR's right to relocate, including those who obtained PR via a provincial nomination. In particular:
Landing certainly be denied if it looks to CBSA like you are not planning to live in the nominating province and/or you give an address for the mailing of the PR card that is not in the nominating province. Besides that, there's really nothing stopping someone from moving right away after landing. Tons of people here have done that. Once you've landed, you're good.
After landing, it is correct that the PR has the same rights of mobility as any other PR, and there is no prohibition against relocating to another province. There is no penalty that can be imposed for relocating.
(Caveat: historically some particular programs, a very few special programs, have had ongoing requirements which, if not complied with, could result in various kinds of penalties, but these do not affect immigration status.)
However, at least in regards to referencing my discussion of this subject, I believe
@akbardxb is referring to discussions about potential prosecution for
misrepresentation made in the process of obtaining PR status, triggered by suspicions raised by how soon after landing the PR abandoned the nominating province. Thus, the question is to what extent might a nominated PR's conduct AFTER landing raise suspicion and trigger an investigation into possible misrepresentations made in the process of obtaining PR status (which can include statements made attendant the landing itself). That is, can a move out of province soon after landing trigger proceedings to terminate PR status for misrepresentation as to the individual's intent to live and work in the nominating province?
There is no doubt, any PR who makes misrepresentations during the process of obtaining PR status can be subject to inadmissibility proceedings leading to loss of PR status and deportation, and if the misrepresentation is discovered while a citizenship application is in progress, that is grounds for denying the citizenship application and terminating PR status, and even if not discovered until after the individual has become a citizen, it is then grounds to revoke citizenship without reversion to PR status, leading to deportation.
As I have previously posted:
Misrepresentation, including misrepresentation as to intent to settle in a particular province attendant a PNP PR application, is grounds to deny citizenship, revoke citizenship, and terminate PR status.
The difference, then, is whether or not the circumstances attendant relocating outside the nominating province triggers inquiry and investigation into whether the nominated PR made misrepresentations, during the process of becoming a PR, regarding their intent to settle and work in the nominating province. And whether or not the investigation turns up facts and circumstances that might tip the scales to trigger 44(1) Inadmissibility proceedings on the grounds of misrepresentation. (Accepting, before landing, an out-of-province job offer, or apartment hunting out-of-province, could be enough to prove misrepresentation of intent.)
This has been discussed at-length and in-depth, including in the topic referenced in the quote from my observations above: "
A rejected citizenship application case spread online" which is here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/a-rejected-citizenship-application-case-spread-online.747619/
Is There Much Risk, Practically? . . . If Nominated PR Misrepresented Intent? Or Appears Likely to Have Misrepresented Intent As Evidenced By Immediately Settling or Working Outside the Nominating Province?
Risk-assessment questions tend to be difficult (except in the most obvious,
duh scenarios). Risk-assessment as to potential misrepresentation prosecution is especially uncertain and speculative, and it is probably safe to say that the vast majority of PRs who make material misrepresentations in their PR visa applications are either caught BEFORE becoming a PR or never face allegations for having made misrepresentations in applying for PR. In particular, if not caught before landing, the odds (at least in terms of statistical percentages) of later prosecution for misrepresentation are very low, virtually remote.
And as to misrepresentation of intent, that's an especially slippery subject.
So, as a practical matter, perhaps it is largely true that nominated PRs are free to move (without fear of negative repercussions) immediately, or very soon, after they landed and became a PR.
But here's the thing about statistical percentages: they don't mean much, not much at all, when the factual situation drops the statistical anomaly in your lap. How rare it is to have a certain type of aggressive cancer does not help, let alone save the patient who gets that kind of cancer.
Tens and tens of thousands of cars speeding on the 401 without being stopped, no speeding ticket, does not help when you are one among the few dozen or so who gets nabbed in a radar net. Pay the fine and slow down.
The penalty for misrepresentation in obtaining PR is not merely a fine.
The radically different risk levels loom very large in regards to post-landing misrepresentation cases. For the most part, if they got away with it before becoming a PR, that's it, they get away with it. But if something brings the misrepresentation to the attention of CBSA/IRCC, the tables are turned, things can and often do, then, go the other way.
To be clear, there are many PRs who obtained their PR through provincial nominating programs who have subsequently faced inadmissibility proceedings, and being issued a Removal or Exclusion Order, on the grounds they made misrepresentation in the course of obtaining PR. The particular misrepresentations involved vary considerably, albeit non-disclosure of spouses appears to be more common than misrepresentation as to intent, at least in the cases reaching the IAD. Some get "
caught" because they used a consultant involved in immigration fraud who got caught, and when authorities went through that consultant's records that exposed many PRs who had employed their services (for example of this, see Mahimi v Canada, 2016 CanLII 95876,
https://canlii.ca/t/gwz11 . . . noting, though, that Mahimi benefitted from a positive H&C decision allowing them to keep PR status despite the misrepresentation as to a job offer).
In any event, even if as a practical matter the risk is low (perhaps very low) that a provincial nominee will face inadmissibility proceedings for misrepresentation, after landing, because they did not settle or stay in the nominating province long, the caution insinuated by
@akbardxb warrants noting and some attention. The absence of settling and working in the nominating province can trigger suspicions of misrepresentation, and if that leads to an investigation, it could lead to Inadmissibility and deportation depending on what is reasonably inferred based on the circumstances.
Perhaps this is aptly framed by the following (gratuitous but revealing) discussion by an IAD panel, in a breach of RO case, in Gone v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 102250,
https://canlii.ca/t/j34gm
[28] The appellants were granted the right to immigrate to Canada under the Alberta Provincial Nominee Program. The appellant testified that there was no job offer for him in Alberta, so he started a business in Ontario. The Minister’s counsel asked him why he did not start a business in Alberta, and he stated that when he spoke to people they told him he could go anywhere in Canada, despite being admitted to the country on the basis of being in Alberta nominee. The female appellant testified that there were no stipulations when they landed about where they needed to live. The female appellant testified that it was never mentioned to her and she did not understand that they had to live in Alberta. Because her family were in Toronto they wanted to go there instead, as she has nobody in Alberta. While this is a possible misrepresentation on the part of the appellants, the issue of their failure to even set foot in the province which had nominated them to come to this country is not before me, and I make no finding about the possible misrepresentation.
[29] However, I do find that this is yet another example which demonstrates the sense of entitlement demonstrated by the appellants vis-à-vis this country, and how they clearly do not see the obligations of permanent residence as reciprocal.
Obviously, if the issue was properly before this IAD panel, it would have had no reservation finding these PRs to be inadmissible on the grounds of misrepresentation, as to intent to live and work in the nominating province, and upholding an Exclusion/Removal Order against them.
