Meganes said:
Thanks for sharing this. I have a valid work visa. Does it also work? I have my flight next week and still no PR card
This query has been previously addressed in another topic, but there are some recent developments which may be pertinent.
As observations in other topics have alerted you, if you are a landed PR it would be risky to rely on the work visa for purposes of boarding a flight headed to Canada. It is
NOT supposed to work. It is technically no longer valid.
The discussion linked by
zardoz refers to further notice, from IRCC, that the pre-boarding flight rules for PRs are now being strictly enforced.
All Canadian PRs (with some exceptions, such as those who are U.S. citizens, some French citizens traveling from certain locations, among a small number of others)
must now present a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document before being given clearance to board a flight headed to Canada.
This is a collateral effect from the full implementation of eTA and the IAPI system, which just took place November 10th, which means that no matter what Travel Documents a traveler presents (with some exceptions, such as for diplomats), the required Travel Document for that individual must be cleared by CBSA's IAPI system. This is done at check-in for the flight, not at the time of boarding itself.
If you are a Canadian PR, you do not have a "valid" work visa. It was cancelled or rendered void as of the moment you landed and became a PR (at least techncially, even if the paper itself was not stamped cancelled or void). Thus, technically your passport and/or work visa should
not be cleared for boarding, as the airline should (assuming the system works as intended) get a
no-board rather than a
board response from the IAPI system. Apparently the system does not offer any explanation or alternatives, just "board" or "no-board."
Possibility of Airline Exercising Some Flexibility?
This is an unknown.
Whether the protocols allow airlines some flexibility in the event of a "no-board" IAPI response is not clear. The many notices and cautions to PRs about the implementation of strict enforcement typically caution that PRs
MAY be denied boarding if they do not present a valid PR card or PR TD, not that they necessarily will be denied boarding. This suggests some flexibility and perhaps an airline may allow boarding despite the lack of a proper TD if the traveler's documents otherwise persuade the airline that the traveler should be allowed to board the flight. Perhaps the presentation of the work visa and a CoPR and explanation about recently landing and not yet having a PR card will work.
BUT there is
NO guarantee this will work, and indeed
there is NO information from IRCC that overtly suggests this will work. So it would be risky, the risk being that the traveler is indeed DENIED boarding.
The possibility of some flexibility is also indicated in the Operational Manual ENF 15 "Obligations of Transporters" (linked below), since it states that
"The CBSA maintains an advisory role, and the decision to deny boarding is the carrier's alone." I cannot say whether this is merely to immunize CBSA from claims for the cost of flights or is intended to allow the airlines flexibility to allow boarding notwithstanding a "no board" IAPI system response.
IRCC information online has clarified IAPI system implementation.
It turns out that the IAPI system was not in use prior to November 10th, but rather it was essentially turned on at midnight November 10, 2016. (It was supposed to be implemented years ago.)
See, for example, section 7 in ENF 15 "Obligatons of transporters," a pdf of the Operational Manual which can be reached by link at IRCC website for updates to Operational Bulletins and Operational Manual at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/rss.asp
It is apparent that the system is designed to verify a particular Travel Document, including Travel Documents issued by governments other than Canada but connected to a Canadian immigration client. Thus, for example, for the FN (Foreign National) carrying a visa-exempt passport, to obtain a "board" response from the IAPI system, the system will verify that eTA has been issued
for that individual AND passport; for other FNs with a work or visitor visa, the system will verify the validity of the visa. For a PR, the system will verify the validity of the PR card or PR TD. And so on.
Odds are high the system works like it is supposed to work, and for a landed PR the presentation of passport with a work visa will not generate a "board" response from the IAPI system, as the system should recognize the work permit is no longer valid. The airlines will get no explanation for why the IAPI system responded this way, unless there is a protocol for directly contacting CBSA and making a more or less special query (would
NOT rely on this being available).
As I noted above, to my surprise (but in retrospect I should have been able to foresee this, since it leaves the burden, and any potential liability for costs of missing flights, squarely on the airlines, not on the Canadian government) the implementation of IAPI still leaves the airlines with full discretion to deny or allow passengers to board flights (there are probably other rules related to security risks, which more strictly limit the scope of an airline's discretion).
Perhaps the recently landed PR, particularly one booked on a return flight to Canada (as in clearly indicating the PR very recently just came from Canada) and one who can present documents like the CoPR and the work visa (even though technically no longer valid -- best to not pretend it is valid), and is good at explaining oneself, could persuade the airlines to allow boarding notwithstanding no PR card or PR TD. Personally I would
NOT chance it. I
do NOT suggest, let alone recommend chancing it. But there is some possibility it might work, in that at least the airlines do have, it appears, some discretion to allow boarding anyway.
Note: I realize some of this may seem inconsistent with previous cautions I have made regarding strict enforcement of the rules for PRs. It really is not inconsistent. Many, many aspects of how immigration related rules are applied in practice are subject to variations, to a range of
possibilities, and I make a concerted effort to point out the potential variations and vagaries of how things work, to alert others of oft times overlooked risks or pitfalls, or to otherwise illuminate nuances. What an individual decides to do in his or her own case is very personal, a decision best made dependent on the specific facts and circumstances in that person's situation, with due consideration for what the rules are, how the rules are usually applied, and what can vary in how the rules are applied, including especially consideration given to what risks might be involved.
