Tri-Cities said:
Her PR card expired, a renewal in process, she went to Germany for a short "trip". She did not apply for a PR TD and she did not use the US to cross borders. She booked a two-way flight to avoid possible issues - she pretended to be a visitor to Canada, she did not tell anyone that she is in fact a PR.
No one ever even mentioned the eTA.
At CBSA she showed her expired PR card and told the officer that she already applied for a new card. The officer was fine and let her go without any further questions.
Thank you for the report.
I fully concur in the observation that this is, of course, an anecdotal report and does not necessarily guarantee how it will go for someone else.
It does support, however, indications that there continue to be good odds of being allowed boarding for visa-exempt PRs not presenting a PR card. For perhaps another 121 days.
(Observation: The critical factor in the equation for any PR, without a PR card, contemplating prospective travel to Canada from abroad, is more about what the potential consequences might be in contrast to the need to travel, than about the risk of the rule being enforced. Whether one assess the risk to be substantial, low or very low, or not-so-low, still varies some from person to person, but the more important to consider variable is the potential impact, which is something each individual needs to assess for himself or herself. Contrary to some false assurances, ultimately this comes down to a personal judgment only the individual can make for himself or herself . . . which is especially true for a PR currently in Canada and considering a prospective trip abroad without a PR card.)
scylla said:
eTAs don't come into full force until September 29 - so I don't think it's surprising she wasn't asked for one and was able to fly on her visa exempt passport.
The airlines does not ask for eTA and eTA is not something a passenger can show to the airlines, and not something which can be seen by examining the passenger's passport. This will not change come September 30. Which is to say, after September 29 the airline will still not be able to see eTA . . . if the passenger presenting a visa-exempt passport is cleared to board the flight, the airline can probably infer the individual has eTA but what the airline will see is the clearance itself.
Which is to say that the eTA is
NOT screened by the airlines. eTA is screened by
CBSA's automated system. The airline submits the passenger's API (primarily name and passport number) and the system (IAPI) must give the passenger clearance before a passenger is allowed to board a flight to Canada.
From what IRCC currently publicizes, as of September 30 (barring further delays), the IAPI system will
not give a passenger clearance based on a visa-exempt passport unless the passenger has been granted eTA,
for that passport. (Moreover, technically a passenger arriving on a commercial flight is subject to being denied entry if the passenger's only authorization to enter Canada is based on a visa-exempt passport and the passenger has not obtained eTA for that specific passport.) Perhaps then, as of September 30, when a passenger who has a visa-exempt passport is not cleared for boarding, the airline might ask if the passenger obtained eTA, and if not suggest applying for eTA, which is supposed to take just minutes, after which the passenger can be screened again and presumably cleared, so long as the reason for not being cleared the first time was the absence of eTA.
The IAPI (CBSA) system is currently in use. This is not delayed until September 30. We do not know, precisely, what the output from the IAPI system looks like. It may be binary (a yes or no type response), or if clearance is denied it may include additional information, such as stating the reason for clearance being denied. It may even include responses which are conditional, for which the airlines have a script to follow in applying the condition. We really do not know.
It appears more than a few confuse preboarding screening for proper Travel Documents (the "prescribed" documents authorizing entry into Canada) and the more vague or general screening which airlines can do in addition to avoid potential liability for transporting an inadmissible individual to Canada (which is largely about costs, which for travelers with a Travel Document authorizing entry into Canada, but nonetheless inadmissible, would primarily be the cost of a return flight . . . hence many anecdotal reports have distinguished how it goes when the traveler has a return-flight ticket versus a one-way ticket). Remember, the airlines have a significant amount of discretion to refuse boarding passengers for a variety of reasons.
Some may confuse the gate check for the Travel Document screening. The screening for clearance is part of the issuance of the boarding pass process, and now the IAPI clearance is required
before a boarding pass is printed. The presentation of a passport during a gate screening is merely to verify the identity of the passenger, based on the Travel Document used to obtain the boarding pass, with the flight's passenger list.
And for airports in countries with exit controls, that is yet a separate screening process before proceeding to the gate where one boards an international flight.
In any event, a key distinction, which appears to be overlooked by more than a few, is the difference between screening to assure the passenger is carrying a proper Travel Document authorizing entry into Canada, and other screening. This requirement is strictly imposed on the airlines, and the scope of the airline's liability for transporting a passenger who does not present and carry a proper Travel Document authorizing entry into Canada is very substantial; for example, if the individual ends up being detained, which can end up being for a lengthy period of time, the airline may be liable for the full cost of that detention in addition to other costs. Whereas, in contrast, liability for a passenger who is otherwise denied entry into Canada (despite having a Travel Document authorizing entry) and who ordinarily would simply be required to return to the country of departure/origin by the next available flight, is typically little more than the cost of the return flight . . . which for a passenger with a return flight ticket, means that is essentially paid for or at least largely offset.
Reminder/clarification re authorization to enter Canada:
For clarification, it warrants remembering that authorization to enter Canada is not the same thing as actually being allowed to enter Canada. All travelers to Canada (including Canadian citizens) must request permission to actually enter Canada. This is done by simply showing up at a PoE. And everyone is subject to being screened for admissibility. Citizens and PRs are entitled to enter Canada, so once identified as such they must be given permission to enter. Foreign Nationals, however, regardless what authorization to enter Canada they have, are subject to further screening for admissibility at the PoE. For example, a visa-exempt traveler who appears to not be a legitimate
visitor, such as one who CBSA apprehends is coming to Canada to work without a permit, or one who CBSA apprehends is likely to overstay, can be denied entry. Similarly, a FN with a work or study permit can be denied entry if CBSA perceives the individual will not comply with the conditions of the permit. As for those traveling as a visitor, if the airline perceives something about the passenger which raises concern the traveler is not legitimately a visitor, and thus might be denied entry to Canada, the airline can check further to assure itself the traveler is just visiting, or at least has a return ticket (which again would offset the cost to the airline if the traveler is denied entry and must given a return flight).
