Unfair treatment to online applicants. Is there anything we can do?

[Dalboy1980]

I liked his detailed response and that was my reaction to it. Not sure why you would call it ridiculous...

A slow clap can be regarded as being well let's just say not a very positive action.....hence why ridiculous

 

[Varunaimar]

A slow clap can be regarded as being well let's just say not a very positive action.....hence why ridiculous

That was the complete opposite of what i wanted to convey. A slow clap because i was the first one to applaud and encourage the audience to do the same

 

[armoured]

I think the definition of "availing yourself of your country's protection" is quite unfair in that it includes simply using the country's passport.

Okay, you think it unfair, but here there is a real legal definition and issue; but as noted, I agree that for refugees the long processing time is a particularly serious issue. At any rate, I also note and agree that this is a REAL issue and refugees/refugees who are now PRs really should not use their home country passports to travel and certainly not return home.

This is however very much UNLIKE all of your other examples which are basically spreading fear and doubt where there should be none. Your information is wrong.

But to go back to the wording in the official documents, when you accept a nomination, you are "indicating to both IRCC and that provincial or territorial jurisdiction that you are intending to reside in that province or territory and that you will comply with other related program requirements." "program requirements" being the intent to settle in the province. ...

I do know some people who moved from their province of nomination after 2+ years and were questioned in citizenship interviews for having moved. ...

And yes, there are PNP folks who move before citizenship and don't get in trouble for it.

Let's cut to the chase: can you find a single example of someone who was refused on the basis of not showing intent after one year in the province of nomination? Or even six months, actually living in the province? Being questioned is not the same as being accused.

Remember: your original claim was that PNP types must stay in province until citizenship received. That's patently not true.

As for your point about 'rules', as you note, the rule is 'intent' - and while these things can be subjective, the bar to show someone purposefully misled (never intended to live in a place / reside in a province after actually living there for some period of time) is quite a bit higher.

Hence my test: please show me one case. Your speeding analogy is misleading here: not everyone gets caught for speeding every time, but I know lots of drivers who have got speeding tickets (or more specifically, I don't think I know a single driver who has never got a speeding ticket. Except maybe my Great Aunt who never, ever drove after getting her license.)

Divorcing before citizenship would certainly raise questions, and whether reasons for divorcing are valid and what constitutes abuse can be subjective. Again, if questioned, the burden is on the PR to prove that no marriage fraud existed. And just because some people can divorce before citizenship and not face any negative consequences does not mean that doing so is not risky.

Completely fabricated - again, the standard is that there must be evidence of misrepresentation (fraud). And you're wrong, the burden of proof here is on the government to show misrepresentation - any move to strip PR status can be appealed, and 'intent' to misrepresent at this stage is a high bar to meet for government. (This actually applies to all of these - with the possible exception of the refugee case, as using the home country passport is itself considered prima facie evidence [a form of proof] of intent to 'avail oneself of home country protection'.]

FSW EE immigrants applied on the condition of intending to reside outside of Quebec, similar to PNP folks who applied on the condition of intending to reside in their province of nomination. Enforcement of the rule to reside outside of Quebec does seem to be enforced less often than the PNP requirements to stay in province, probably because it is less common for FSW folks to want to move to Quebec, and those who do, already have good French proficiency and integrate well enough not to draw attention. Still, the rules are the rules, and if you break them, you are taking risks, if not of rejection of citizenship application and/or revocation of PR status, then of at least more scrutiny and delays in your application.

Again: show me a case where one who settled for six months elsewhere and moved to Quebec has had it challenged. One single case. Once a PR settles in Canada and shows good faith intent (of which settling elsewhere for six months is very decent evidence), there is NO limitation on ability to move within Canada in long term.

And again: your original claim was cannot do so until getting citizenship. That is a farcically bad exaggeration and interpretation with ZERO evidence - and amounts to fearmongering.

An analogy is how most people who commit crimes or infractions do not get caught. Most people have driven above speed limits at times, but most of the time, they were not caught. Others have committed petty theft and not gotten caught. But just because most people don't get caught, or you haven't gotten caught yet, does not mean you aren't breaking rules or that you will never get caught.[/QUOTE]

Already explained why this is a bad analogy. Worse, you haven't even clarified what the rules are (that you're claiming are being broken), and I've explained why intent is a much higher bar to meet and rarely used without clear evidence of that intent or a very obvious pattern showing knowledge as part of that intent. Even for the 'availment' case, the government no longer seems to automatically get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[dpenabill]

NOTE: posts claiming that IRCC is prioritizing paper applications over online applications are at best simply NOT true. Some of this, here, appears to be deliberately false and misleading. Some may be due to misunderstanding. But, actually, a small portion of incoming online applications are the ones getting priority over incoming paper applications. See below.

OVERALL: There are many well founded reasons to criticize IRCC and abundant cause to press for improvements, on many fronts, many of which have been the subject of discussion in literally hundreds of threads throughout the immigration forums at this site. That's government, always in need of improvement.

Even though commentary in a site like this probably has relatively little effect, many of us (including me) believe it is important to have venues like this where concerns and grievances can be openly discussed, where the issues, the problems, can be exposed in social sunlight, so to say. And AGAIN, there is no shortage of fodder for rebuking IRCC's many flaws and failures. As some will say, "they had it coming."

That said, despite real problems, real cause to make objections and protest, this site (like many, perhaps most or even nearly all) is woefully prone to the poison of hyperbolic caviling and, even more perniciously, profoundly toxic tirades that illuminate nothing but rather wallow in attack-mode venom, not mere grumbling but gang-bully battering, which in turn tends to attract those whose objective is the spewing of slanderous and calumnious diatribe, with no hint of constructive criticism, no semblance of a sincere or honest effort to address genuine issues in a way that would be productive or at least contribute to an informative or insightful discussion.

This is a problem because it detracts from, pollutes, and diverts sincere and honest efforts to address genuine issues in a way that would be productive and contribute to an informative or insightful discussion. Many, like me, really do believe social sunlight, robust public discourse, is a critical element, necessary to the preservation and advancement of justice, fairness, and opportunity. In contrast, BS disparagement, untethered (like this topic) to genuine issues, casts a long, deep shadow, deflecting and obscuring the real issues, crowding the marketplace of ideas with, well, excrement.

The flood of unfocused, exaggerated, and often utterly unfounded diatribes, such as that which permeates this topic, do NOT help. They offer virtually nothing more than carping.

Case in point:

it has been discussed numerous times how unfair their process is. It is like communism - you cannot question and they do not feel like we deserve an answer or any transparency. Worst System Ever.

Perhaps @glennchu has lived a thoroughly sheltered life and is not much familiar with the ways of the world, so simply knows no better, but it is far more likely this is just one more piling-on essentially-empty utterance of disdain, substantively bereft, informationally bankrupt.

That is not to deny there are many with cause to complain (and if you are among those whose application has been in process for more than two years, yes that deserves criticism). As I amply noted in my previous post, there certainly are many problems with how IRCC has handled things these past two years, and that is on top of, in aggravation of, the extent to which not only is IRCC a big bureaucracy beleaguered with all the baggage big bureaucracies typically bear, inherently hampered with inefficiencies, it has indeed historically been, well, processing-challenged. And there are dozens of new topics year in and year out, and that is just in regards to processing citizenship applications, oriented to and rife with wailing and whining about this, let alone all the pissing-and-moaning in parts of the forum where there are more compelling issues.

But (which to my view is somewhat a disappointment), there is very little about the Canadian government or its immigration system that is "like communism," not out on the highway headed for the parking lot let alone in the ballpark. And while one might quibble whether Canada's immigration system is among the top ten or top twenty best in the world, there is little doubt it is not in the lower tier let alone the "Worst System Ever."

Yeah, I know, being dramatic, to make a point. And you have made a point. Not at all a favourable reflection on you. Not a contribution to a genuine discussion of the issues. Rather . . . did I mention what has been crowding the marketplace of ideas? Yeah. That stuff. Smells bad stuff.

Demanding to be treated fairly is not unreasonable.

True enough, but that is not what this topic is about. It is about an unreasonable demand that recent online applicants, those who made applications this year, be processed before the scores and scores of 2019 and 2020 applicants who are still waiting. That, and begrudging the few (very few) applicants who have (for whatever reasons) benefitted from what appears to be superfast processing.

Note, in particular:

Lifting from ATIP from IRCC:

"Most importantly, this will also allow the Citizenship Program to concentrate on processing the aging paper inventory while building digital processing capacity and gradually transitioning to an electronic inventory. Not focusing on eliminating the paper inventory first and prioritizing processing of new e-apps would result in a large stagnant paper inventory with processing times reaching at least four years, if not longer."

Not sure why this has been so badly misinterpreted here, be that lack of reasoning skills or language ability, or willfully misleading, but this does NOT say what some here (including @mbaleine) claim it says.

I cannot explain why that document is labeled with reference to "atip" given that it is obviously NOT part of a response to an ATIP application, which has to do with obtaining information subject to the Privacy Act (it is obvious the document was obtained in response to an Access to Information or ATI request, not an ATIP request such as many here have done to obtain copies of their GCMS files). But no explanation should be necessary to recognize the extent to which this, despite being quoted out-of-context, documents the very opposite of the claim that it is "evidence of IRCC prioritizing paper over online."

It is, actually, exactly what this topic is really complaining about: IRCC is not giving the "me-first" crowd a place at the front of the line; that is, IRCC is NOT prioritizing online applications (well, except it is, but only to a small extent). IRCC is not letting the online applicants jump to the front of the line.

To be clear, there is NO prioritizing of incoming paper applications over incoming online applications. Actually, there is some prioritizing of processing incoming online applications over incoming paper applications, since the processing approach (as described in the referenced document) is to contemporaneously process a select portion of the incoming online applications while processing the OLD, "aging inventory," paper applications. Yes, concentrating on the latter. No, it is not unfair to concentrate on processing applications made first, before the online applications.

The key context which appears to be deliberately left out is that IRCC "will process the old paper file backlog while processing a small portion of the e-applications received to refine processes, train officers, and identify issues early in the process." That is, the document explains good reason for this, in effect small prioritizing of online applications ahead of incoming paper applications, going on to further say this is "to help augment capacity gradually . . . to allow the [system] to build processing expertise in this new digital environment . . ." that is, to in effect begin processing online applications now even though, for paper applications, IRCC is still working on the older inventory of paper applications.

This does not explain how or why a few, emphasis on a FEW, recent paper applications have managed to get what seems to be super-fast processing. But, given the very minute small numbers in contrast to the thousands of applications incoming to IRCC every month, there is nothing here suggesting any systematic preference for incoming paper applications over incoming online applications.

 

[dpenabill]

Let's start from the bottom, the refugees. They aren't even allowed to visit their home countries or even keep or renew their home country passports.

That is not true. Whether a refugee can visit their home country is between the refugee and the home country. Canada does not restrict the international travel of any PR or FN.

But, it's a bit like selling your car, trading it in for a different one. You don't get to drive the car you traded in anymore. Refugee's choice. Those who reavail themselves of home country protection have, in effect, traded in Canada' protection for the home country's protection. This is STANDARD for the large number of countries who provide refugees and others with protected person status under the guidelines promulgated by the UNHCR. Has virtually nothing to do with Canada in particular.

That said, I have addressed the issue of applying cessation of protected person status (which is NOT a penalty, but rather a recognition of status, which again is as prescribed by and consistent with UNHCR guidelines, the standards applied around the world) to those refugees or protected persons AFTER they have become a PR. This is a change that the Harper government implemented in 2012. This is something I have been addressing at length and in-depth, for more than seven years now, here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...tion-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/
It is a complicated subject. There are inherent injustices involved. Some more severe than others. So far as I know MP Jenny Kwan, NDP, remains the only one in Parliament much interested or active in regards to this matter. Her private member's proposed legislation has gone nowhere, but for those interested in engaging in advocacy regarding this particular subject, her office may be a good place to start.

 

[wink]

To be clear, there is NO prioritizing of incoming paper applications over incoming online applications.

I am not sure why you are refusing to acknowledge IRCC's own memo which states that they would not process more than 5000 online applications for the fiscal year.

 

[dpenabill]

This is how one looses credibility, I guess.

I am not sure why you are refusing to acknowledge IRCC's own memo which states that they would not process more than 5000 online applications for the fiscal year.

Those are being processed AHEAD of incoming paper applications; indeed, they are being processed ahead of many much older paper applications.

Try reading the memo and other information with a view to actually understand what is said.

So yeah, only that select number of online applications are getting the prioritized processing ahead of paper applications. But, to be clear, it is those online applications that are getting priority over paper applications.

From the IRCC memorandum: they "will issue final decisions on the oldest of paper applications while also incorporating 5,000 e-application final decisions based on the order in which the e-applications were received."

That is, there will be 5,000 e-applications processed sooner than where they stand in the queue based on date the applications arrive, as compared with the arrival of paper applications . . . with NO indication, NONE at all, that incoming paper applications (well, it appears there may be a select few exceptions) will be similarly processed prior to the, again, "oldest of paper applications."

Some of those whining about failing to be treated me-first are obviously deliberately obfuscating the difference between processing inventory (already made and in process) applications, versus incoming applications. Again, there is NOT the slightest hint that incoming paper applications are getting any priority, but as you reference, 5,000 incoming online applications are getting priority.

 

[wink]

My mind is just getting numb... I am giving up. But thanks for engaging in the discussion.

 

[trumprefugee]

Okay, you think it unfair, but here there is a real legal definition and issue; but as noted, I agree that for refugees the long processing time is a particularly serious issue. At any rate, I also note and agree that this is a REAL issue and refugees/refugees who are now PRs really should not use their home country passports to travel and certainly not return home.

This is however very much UNLIKE all of your other examples which are basically spreading fear and doubt where there should be none. Your information is wrong.



Let's cut to the chase: can you find a single example of someone who was refused on the basis of not showing intent after one year in the province of nomination? Or even six months, actually living in the province? Being questioned is not the same as being accused.

Remember: your original claim was that PNP types must stay in province until citizenship received. That's patently not true.

As for your point about 'rules', as you note, the rule is 'intent' - and while these things can be subjective, the bar to show someone purposefully misled (never intended to live in a place / reside in a province after actually living there for some period of time) is quite a bit higher.

Hence my test: please show me one case. Your speeding analogy is misleading here: not everyone gets caught for speeding every time, but I know lots of drivers who have got speeding tickets (or more specifically, I don't think I know a single driver who has never got a speeding ticket. Except maybe my Great Aunt who never, ever drove after getting her license.)



Completely fabricated - again, the standard is that there must be evidence of misrepresentation (fraud). And you're wrong, the burden of proof here is on the government to show misrepresentation - any move to strip PR status can be appealed, and 'intent' to misrepresent at this stage is a high bar to meet for government. (This actually applies to all of these - with the possible exception of the refugee case, as using the home country passport is itself considered prima facie evidence [a form of proof] of intent to 'avail oneself of home country protection'.]



Again: show me a case where one who settled for six months elsewhere and moved to Quebec has had it challenged. One single case. Once a PR settles in Canada and shows good faith intent (of which settling elsewhere for six months is very decent evidence), there is NO limitation on ability to move within Canada in long term.

And again: your original claim was cannot do so until getting citizenship. That is a farcically bad exaggeration and interpretation with ZERO evidence - and amounts to fearmongering.

An analogy is how most people who commit crimes or infractions do not get caught. Most people have driven above speed limits at times, but most of the time, they were not caught. Others have committed petty theft and not gotten caught. But just because most people don't get caught, or you haven't gotten caught yet, does not mean you aren't breaking rules or that you will never get caught.

Already explained why this is a bad analogy. Worse, you haven't even clarified what the rules are (that you're claiming are being broken), and I've explained why intent is a much higher bar to meet and rarely used without clear evidence of that intent or a very obvious pattern showing knowledge as part of that intent. Even for the 'availment' case, the government no longer seems to automatically get the benefit of the doubt.
[/QUOTE]


Okay I don't have time for more lengthy discussions, but what I am talking about are the rules and what we are supposed to do to abide with our obligations as PRs and not risk losing our PR status or having our citizenship applications scrutinized and delayed extra if not refused. What one can actually get away with is another matter and has to do with the risk of getting caught, as well as what excuses or extenuating circumstances one has.

I talk about needing to obey these rules until citizenship because these are PR rules, with no time limit specified, and one is no longer subject to these rules only if one is no longer a PR (by obtaining citizenship or by having PR status revoked)

 

[trumprefugee]

That is not true. Whether a refugee can visit their home country is between the refugee and the home country. Canada does not restrict the international travel of any PR or FN.

But, it's a bit like selling your car, trading it in for a different one. You don't get to drive the car you traded in anymore. Refugee's choice. Those who reavail themselves of home country protection have, in effect, traded in Canada' protection for the home country's protection. This is STANDARD for the large number of countries who provide refugees and others with protected person status under the guidelines promulgated by the UNHCR. Has virtually nothing to do with Canada in particular.

That said, I have addressed the issue of applying cessation of protected person status (which is NOT a penalty, but rather a recognition of status, which again is as prescribed by and consistent with UNHCR guidelines, the standards applied around the world) to those refugees or protected persons AFTER they have become a PR. This is a change that the Harper government implemented in 2012. This is something I have been addressing at length and in-depth, for more than seven years now, here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...tion-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/
It is a complicated subject. There are inherent injustices involved. Some more severe than others. So far as I know MP Jenny Kwan, NDP, remains the only one in Parliament much interested or active in regards to this matter. Her private member's proposed legislation has gone nowhere, but for those interested in engaging in advocacy regarding this particular subject, her office may be a good place to start.

I'm talking about the rules that PRs need to follow if they want to gain permanent status in Canada (i.e., keep PR status and get citizenship). If a refugee visits their home country or even renews their passport, they can get their PR status revoked. If they don't care about losing their PR status, then yes, they have freedom of movement. But we all are here in this forum because we want to get permanent status in Canada, so I think we can agree that we are all working on the assumption that we don't want to have our PR statuses revoked.

I don't know much about refugee treatment in other countries, but I find it quite unfair that in Canada, cessation of protected status means that PR status can also be revoked. That does not make PR status "permanent". The only way for refugees to get real permanent status in Canada is to get citizenship. I point this out as an example of why PR status in Canada isn't that amazing at all and why people are desperate to get citizenship. See the original messages I was addressed to that I quoted here
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...there-anything-we-can-do.776297/post-10202614

 

[armoured]

Okay I don't have time for more lengthy discussions, but what I am talking about are the rules and what we are supposed to do to abide with our obligations as PRs and not risk losing our PR status or having our citizenship applications scrutinized and delayed extra if not refused. What one can actually get away with is another matter and has to do with the risk of getting caught, as well as what excuses or extenuating circumstances one has.

I talk about needing to obey these rules until citizenship because these are PR rules, with no time limit specified, and one is no longer subject to these rules only if one is no longer a PR (by obtaining citizenship or by having PR status revoked)

This is still a misstatement (with the exception of the refugee/re-availment issue).

Because for every one of these cases (PNP, spousal, etc), the 'time limit' is that there must not be intent at the time one became a PR. And if there is no documentary evidence of misrepresentation of that intent (i.e. letters saying "this is a fake marriage for purposes of immigration), no other obvious external evidence to the contrary, and the PR shows at least some evidence of complying with the original intent - the most obvious of which is either residing in the intended province of settlement for (say) six months / residing with spouse (for spousal sponsorship), then "comply with these rules until citizenship" is absurd advice.

Again: find me a case, one case, any case, where the PR resided in province of settlement for six months and subsequently had their PR status challenged.

Whereas: if there is documented evidence of misrepresentation (mal intent) and/or the PR never complied with any part of the reason for immigration (eg moved immediately or never resided in intended province) - and of course IRCC learns of this - then that misrepresentation can basically never be fixed (or possibly may be 'fixed' by obtaining citizenship, don't know the legalities about whether it can be revoked aftewrads, although doubt there are many cases of that). It's the original sin that matters, not what happens eg one year after landing.

Repeat: you are spreading false information and exaggerating needlessly.

 

[dpenabill]

I'm talking about the rules that PRs need to follow if they want to gain permanent status in Canada (i.e., keep PR status and get citizenship). If a refugee visits their home country or even renews their passport, they can get their PR status revoked. If they don't care about losing their PR status, then yes, they have freedom of movement. But we all are here in this forum because we want to get permanent status in Canada, so I think we can agree that we are all working on the assumption that we don't want to have our PR statuses revoked.

I don't know much about refugee treatment in other countries, but I find it quite unfair that in Canada, cessation of protected status means that PR status can also be revoked. That does not make PR status "permanent". The only way for refugees to get real permanent status in Canada is to get citizenship. I point this out as an example of why PR status in Canada isn't that amazing at all and why people are desperate to get citizenship. See the original messages I was addressed to that I quoted here
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...there-anything-we-can-do.776297/post-10202614

As I noted, I have addressed the impact of cessation on PRs with refugee or protected person status at length in this forum. A long way from the subject of this thread. (This is all way off topic.)

I am the one who brought up the problem in this forum, back in 2015, the issue of refugees applying for citizenship being unfairly blindsided by encountering cessation proceedings, and losing status in Canada, rather than becoming citizens, when they made citizenship applications documenting their use of a home country passport to travel to their home country. Fortunately there is better dissemination of important information about reavailment now . . . the call centre help line, for example, is no longer telling PR-refugees asking about applying for citizenship that they need to obtain a currently valid passport for their citizenship application (like they were, and many, many forum participants were likewise, back then), which is an act that in itself creates a presumption of reavailment.

I have made a concerted effort, clearly way more than anyone else in this forum, to help inform those potentially affected by cessation provisions of the risks, the relevant factors, the way the process works, how to navigate the process, what to avoid doing, and more. That's what real activism generally looks like, doing something constructive and informative, engaging in a way that helps.

Throwing verbal feces about like a deranged primate with splinters in the sphincter does not help. Especially so in the context of what appears to be a topic intended to deliberately advance a false narrative like this one.

Something that needs to be made clear is that it is not that cessation of protected person status "means that PR status can also be revoked," but the determination of cessation itself automatically terminates PR status. It is indeed a severe consequence, and for many potentially an especially harsh outcome. It is indeed a situation rife with injustice.

But IRCC has little or nothing to do with this (although it apparently does refer some individuals to CBSA for investigation if there is clear evidence of reavailment presented in an application). It is the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which investigates and prosecutes cessation proceedings before the RPD. There is no notice in those proceedings, so far as I am aware, of the impact on PR status if the RPD determines the individual's protected person status has ceased, but that decision in itself automatically terminates PR status. NO H&C relief available. This is by operation of law, not any decision made by IRCC.

In many respects this goes to why I have problems with the shotgun complaints which almost always start rapid-firing in topics like this, as has happened here, with those who are clearly engaging in misinformation causing others to be misled, generating a whole lot of confusion at best. Real issues, like the impact of the provision in IRPA, added in 2012, which automatically terminates PR status if a PR-refugee's protected person status is determined to have ceased. As I noted, this is a complicated issue. It's not about any unfair processing by IRCC. It's an issue that requires a change in the law itself. And it is an issue regarding which there is widespread confusion and misunderstanding. Just peruse the recent discussions in the topic I linked:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...tion-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/
and notice how difficult it is to adequately convince people, just for example, that how it goes for one person does not indicate what the rules are or how they are usually applied, let alone how they will be for sure applied.

Loose cannon diatribes more or less attacking the Canadian immigration system as if it was a singular sentient being utterly miss the mark, at best vaguely identifying issues, at worst (and this is more common) causing confusion and misunderstanding. Take this topic for example, as I have illuminated, IRCC has actually given priority to a small percentage of online applicants, the first five thousand in the order in which they applied, these five thousand getting processed ahead of much older paper applications. The documents referenced well-explain why this fairly small number of online applicants have been, in effect, put ahead in the queue. But for whatever personal agenda some forum participants have come here to sow confusion and chaos by totally misrepresenting what IRCC has done in making this effort to facilitate the migration to a more digitally based processing system, still concentrating on processing the older paper applications, but using this small number of online applications to get that process rolling.

In any event, the problems related to the addition of Section 46(1)(c.1) to IRPA, back in 2012, the provision which prescribes that PR status terminates "on a final determination under subsection 108(2) that their refugee protection has ceased for any of the reasons described in paragraphs 108(1)(a) to (d)," is a wholly separate matter from citizenship application timeline processing problems, and as noted, is both complicated, and involves issues warranting advocacy for changes in the law, and even more, at least for now, advocacy which educates and informs those potentially affected.

And make no mistake, in regards to potential cessation, it is about making choices. It is really important for those potentially affected to understand this. Sure, some (such as it appears you might be) can stay mired in the myopia of seeing things through a what's fair to me prism, but for those who are invested in having a life in Canada, what's important is knowing how things work and navigating accordingly, and not being fooled or distracted by things like lax or sporadic or otherwise inconsistent enforcement, or relative to cessation in particular, delayed enforcement (noting that travel years ago can suddenly become grounds for loss of status). Those who choose to avail (reavail) themselves of home country protection are at risk unless and until they are a citizen; so what they need to know and understand is what actions they take, what decisions they make, will constitute choosing to avail (reavail) themselves of home country protection.


Some of us actually invest a significant effort to inform. I am not opposed to criticism at all. And I get the need to vent some. But topics like this one, spreading what really amounts to a bold-faced lie, too muddy the water, and demand, at least occasionally, some push-back. Or, as noted in reference to others, but apropos here as well, "they had it coming."

 

[trumprefugee]

This is still a misstatement (with the exception of the refugee/re-availment issue).

Because for every one of these cases (PNP, spousal, etc), the 'time limit' is that there must not be intent at the time one became a PR. And if there is no documentary evidence of misrepresentation of that intent (i.e. letters saying "this is a fake marriage for purposes of immigration), no other obvious external evidence to the contrary, and the PR shows at least some evidence of complying with the original intent - the most obvious of which is either residing in the intended province of settlement for (say) six months / residing with spouse (for spousal sponsorship), then "comply with these rules until citizenship" is absurd advice.

Again: find me a case, one case, any case, where the PR resided in province of settlement for six months and subsequently had their PR status challenged.

Whereas: if there is documented evidence of misrepresentation (mal intent) and/or the PR never complied with any part of the reason for immigration (eg moved immediately or never resided in intended province) - and of course IRCC learns of this - then that misrepresentation can basically never be fixed (or possibly may be 'fixed' by obtaining citizenship, don't know the legalities about whether it can be revoked aftewrads, although doubt there are many cases of that). It's the original sin that matters, not what happens eg one year after landing.

Repeat: you are spreading false information and exaggerating needlessly.

Regarding false information, the PNP rules are not clear or specific enough (time limit, also what needs to be done to prove the requisite intent), so we all really are guessing. Maybe for some/many people, 6 months is sufficient to show intent, but clearly for others, it is not. I don't have specific examples of people who had their PR revoked after spending 6+ months in province, but the fact that some people I know were questioned in citizenship interviews who had already passed more than 2 years in the province before moving strongly suggests that spending 2+ years in province is still not enough in and of itself. These people I know of did have valid reasons for leaving (e.g., job ended and could not find another job in province). But what if they did not have reasons deemed acceptable to the IRCC agent?

So I'm saying that the rule is that PNP folks are supposed to stay in province for as long as they are PRs. There are exceptions to or exemptions from the rule that can apply if one has reasons/excuses that are deemed by the immigration officer to be valid, such as inability to find a job in province after a thorough effort. You can't just move for just any personal preference such as "all my friends are in another province."

I'm taking a more conservative approach in talking about what needs to be done to minimize the risks of losing PR status or having citizenship application rejected. As I said before, not everyone will get into trouble for leaving the province before citizenship. That does not mean that it is all right for everyone to leave the province after 6 months or even 2 years. But this changes with getting citizenship because not only do citizens have full mobility rights, but when a PR becomes a citizen, they lose their PR status and the obligations that come with it. Like how refugee PRs no longer risk losing their Canadian status if they travel back to their home countries after citizenship.

Remember that the reason the PNP program exists is to recruit immigrants to settle permanently in the province. So the government wants PNP PRs to stay in province forever. But they can no longer enforce that when the PR is no longer a PR but a citizen with full mobility rights.

I think we can better understand the thought process of the government by reading the words of a prosecutor who describes "the process of being nominated through the PNP, and the priority processing those immigrants receive, as a privilege. In order to gain this privilege, they exchange their right, in a way, of settling anywhere in Canada."
This was in the context of an immigration fraud case (that eventually was dropped), but I think the fact that an attorney for the government clearly said on record that PNP PRs give up their right of setting anywhere in Canada is very significant and suggests that PNP PRs are not safe to move out of province until citizenship or if they are under extenuating circumstances
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-immigration-fraud-trial-zhong-1.4935495

 

[sahibo]

The simple fact is - according to the Excel tracker - 2022 paper applicants are being quickly processed while 2022 online applicants are languishing. I can't comment on applications from 2021 and before. If we have solid proof (for the current fiscal year) other than the Excel sheet, we can complain to the media.

 

[armoured]

I don't have specific examples of people who had their PR revoked after spending 6+ months in province

Not. one. single. case. Enough said.

but the fact that some people I know were questioned in citizenship interviews who had already passed more than 2 years in the province before moving strongly suggests that spending 2+ years in province is still not enough in and of itself.

Doesn't say anything more than that they were asked a question.

So I'm saying that the rule is that PNP folks are supposed to stay in province for as long as they are PRs.

There is no evidence - none - to support that.

That does not mean that it is all right for everyone to leave the province after 6 months or even 2 years.

To be clear: I have said that if there is evidence of fraud/misrepresentation, it may not be 'curable' at all. (I.e. potentially not for 'everyone'.)

I think we can better understand the thought process of the government by reading the words of a prosecutor who describes "the process of being nominated through the PNP, and the priority processing those immigrants receive, as a privilege. In order to gain this privilege, they exchange their right, in a way, of settling anywhere in Canada."

You can't draw a conclusion entirely about what was precisely meant in this oral argument, and certainly NOT about what a court (or tribunal like IAD) would conclude about whether this 'exchange' can be enforced without intent, or even whether this is fully compatible with the Charter.

My view on this is that there is no indication that the government means 'settling' to require permanence. Which goes back to intent: tried to settle, and then 'something happened' (couldn't get a job, got married, simply decided you needed to be closer to family, etc) - you're okay because you are allowed under intent to change your mind. And prima facie evidence of having given it a try is relevant evidence to intent.

This was in the context of an immigration fraud case (that eventually was dropped)
... suggests that PNP PRs are not safe to move out of province until citizenship or if they are under extenuating circumstances

So that others who read this but don't follow the link can understand the context and why I am saying you CANNOT overread a statement from that through to all cases:

The case above was prosecution of two 'facilitators' (motel owners) who provided the service and allegedly counselled immigrants to provide the address of the motel as locations where they were living. (I'm going to make a wild guess there were other consultants/facilitators involved).

This is NOT a case of going after the immigration status of the PRs - although the implication is that they could go after those PRs, for the (potentially) clearly documented fraud of misrepresenting where they had lived and settled. (It seems we won't know because the case was dropped)

This is not remotely a case of going after PRs who had settled for some time. Given that government clearly had some evidence of misrepresentation, the lack of cases based on that suggests to me that even where there is evidence, the intent issue is also a barrier to pursuit by IRCC. But I don't know that for certain, and not really central to my point because again - if there is documented evidence of fraud (beyond just not staying forever in the PNP province), that can't be simply 'cured.'