URGENT HELP PLZ!!
- Thread starter canicomeinplz
- Start date
This girl is so frank and by the book. This is why she sent her application from home land because she thought she should be applying exactly 6 months before her PR expires and because she bought the ticket and booked an apart online, she thought it is fine because she will be there shortly after applying.
Some clarifications:
A PR in breach of the PR Residency Obligation who arrives at a Canadian POE will be allowed entry into Canada and even if issued a Removal Order still retains PR status, and thus is still entitled to work in Canada, until that Removal Order becomes enforceable. The Removal Order (alternatively described as a "Departure Order") only becomes automatically enforceable if no appeal is timely filed.
If an appeal is made, the Removal Order is not enforceable unless IAD rules against the PR. In the meantime, which can often be up to a year or even longer, the PR continues to be a PR and continues to have status to work.
Having a job in Canada matters. Among the many factors taken into consideration, by the IAD in particular, is the extent to which the PR has settled in Canada, has ties in Canada. Thus all ties, including employment, are a positive factor.
The problem is that this factor, particularly as to a job obtained after the date the Removal Order is issued, does not carry much weight against a substantial breach of the PR Residency Obligation. What probably matters more are the reasons for the delay in returning to Canada, and of course how much short of the Residency Obligation the PR was at the time of returning to Canada.
The various factors are considered and balanced, in context, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, recognizing however that the burden of presenting favourable evidence and of proving either compliance or H&C reasons to otherwise justify retention of PR status, is on the PR, entirely the PR's burden.
The H&C case is complicated, multi-faceted, with few definitive factors, many more factors having variable weight depending on context and relationship to other factors.
Regarding PR card application:
The denial of a PR card application does not constitute an adjudication of PR status, and is not itself the revocation of PR status. Thus, for example, not including (with the application) documentation of H&C reasons for retaining PR status should have no impact.
PRs who apply for a new/replacement PR card who are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation will, however, usually trigger a CIC investigation into their compliance with the Residency Obligation, pursuant to which a local CIC will commence proceedings, including in particular a residency examination. This process will constitute an adjudication of PR status.
I am not certain, but it seems possible if not likely that once CIC opens the PR card application and does its initial screening of it, and observes that the PR is likely in breach of the PR Residency Obligation, a flag or alert will be entered into GCMS which will likely result in the PR being pulled aside and referred to secondary at a POE when the PR next makes an attempt to enter Canada. Outcome is predictable: a 44(1) Report and Removal Order issued then and there at the POE, commencing the proceedings to revoke PR status . . . leading back to the need to make an appeal.
One way or another, making the application for a PR card when in breach of the PR Residency Obligation dramatically increases the odds of triggering a residency examination sooner.
Overall: On the trip to Canada it is important to carry documentation to show H&C reasons, and carry this on one's person (not in checked baggage). Best chance to persuade an officer to, in effect, waive the Residency Obligation breach is in the secondary interview at the POE. That is the best time to make the best case one can that you deserve to retain PR status.
A reminder: follow the instructions.
At the risk of overstating the obvious, this situation illustrates if not highlights in bold, why the admonition to follow the instructions deserves to be stated repeatedly and with emphasis.
In other forums regarding PR and citizenship and immigration generally I have often appended the following statement:
"If in doubt, follow the intructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."
That is, doing it by the book, so-to-say, means following the instructions. And to be frank, this mistake could have been easily avoided by, in fact, doing it, as you say, by-the-book.
Among what one might call first-principles, or the most important principles, guiding individuals in their dealings with any bureaucracy in Canada, but especially CIC, is the imperative to follow the instructions. Everyone knows this. The number who, nonetheless, fail to do so is legion (myself among them . . . it is simply too easy to gloss over the instructions without really reading them, let alone following them).
It may seem condescending, but repeating the admonition to follow the instructions is not only often warranted, but it deserves emphasis again and again. It is a reminder almost all of us can use often. (I try to remind myself of this every time I deal with a Canadian bureaucracy.)
The "book," which in regards to this matter is the CIC website specifying eligibility to apply for a PR card, clearly and specifically states that a PR can apply for a PR card only if the PR is in Canada.
Additionally, the Guide similarly states, in the section Before You Apply, that to be eligible for a PR card, the PR "must be physically present in Canada."
Moreover, the Guide also includes an Appendix (Appendix A: Residency obligation) which right at the top states:
"You must meet the residency obligation to obtain a Permanent Resident Card."
It is an almost universal standard that CIC determines eligibility based on the date the application is signed and submitted, that is, to be eligible an applicant (for almost any status being applied for) must meet the eligibility requirements as of the date the application is made. And generally the individual must continue to be eligible throughout the application process.
I realize the last part of this post is stating the obvious, that to some (perhaps many or even most) it comes across as condescending. But since most of us (again, me included) so often fail to focus on following the instructions, this seemed an appropriate context for making this reminder.
Departing observation or concern:
It is not apparent what she stated, in the PR card application, was her "current residential address in Canada" (item 12), but if she did indeed state an address in Canada which is not her current address (which obviously it could not be, since she has not been residing in Canada let alone at that particular address), that would be at least leaning toward making a material misrepresentation of fact.
It is similarly unclear what was declared in response to item 19, "ADDRESS HISTORY."
Then there is item 21 "TRAVEL HISTORY," which if accurately completed will document an absence inconsistent with even having a current residential address in Canada.
Hopefully her information in these items was simply the facts. That will of course mean the summary denial of the application (based on both not being in Canada and not complying with the PR RO obligation), but at least it would not constitute making a material misrepresentation of fact which could lead to far more serious consequences.
A PR in breach of the PR Residency Obligation who arrives at a Canadian POE will be allowed entry into Canada and even if issued a Removal Order still retains PR status, and thus is still entitled to work in Canada, until that Removal Order becomes enforceable. The Removal Order (alternatively described as a "Departure Order") only becomes automatically enforceable if no appeal is timely filed.
If an appeal is made, the Removal Order is not enforceable unless IAD rules against the PR. In the meantime, which can often be up to a year or even longer, the PR continues to be a PR and continues to have status to work.
Having a job in Canada matters. Among the many factors taken into consideration, by the IAD in particular, is the extent to which the PR has settled in Canada, has ties in Canada. Thus all ties, including employment, are a positive factor.
The problem is that this factor, particularly as to a job obtained after the date the Removal Order is issued, does not carry much weight against a substantial breach of the PR Residency Obligation. What probably matters more are the reasons for the delay in returning to Canada, and of course how much short of the Residency Obligation the PR was at the time of returning to Canada.
The various factors are considered and balanced, in context, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, recognizing however that the burden of presenting favourable evidence and of proving either compliance or H&C reasons to otherwise justify retention of PR status, is on the PR, entirely the PR's burden.
The H&C case is complicated, multi-faceted, with few definitive factors, many more factors having variable weight depending on context and relationship to other factors.
Regarding PR card application:
The denial of a PR card application does not constitute an adjudication of PR status, and is not itself the revocation of PR status. Thus, for example, not including (with the application) documentation of H&C reasons for retaining PR status should have no impact.
PRs who apply for a new/replacement PR card who are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation will, however, usually trigger a CIC investigation into their compliance with the Residency Obligation, pursuant to which a local CIC will commence proceedings, including in particular a residency examination. This process will constitute an adjudication of PR status.
I am not certain, but it seems possible if not likely that once CIC opens the PR card application and does its initial screening of it, and observes that the PR is likely in breach of the PR Residency Obligation, a flag or alert will be entered into GCMS which will likely result in the PR being pulled aside and referred to secondary at a POE when the PR next makes an attempt to enter Canada. Outcome is predictable: a 44(1) Report and Removal Order issued then and there at the POE, commencing the proceedings to revoke PR status . . . leading back to the need to make an appeal.
One way or another, making the application for a PR card when in breach of the PR Residency Obligation dramatically increases the odds of triggering a residency examination sooner.
Overall: On the trip to Canada it is important to carry documentation to show H&C reasons, and carry this on one's person (not in checked baggage). Best chance to persuade an officer to, in effect, waive the Residency Obligation breach is in the secondary interview at the POE. That is the best time to make the best case one can that you deserve to retain PR status.
A reminder: follow the instructions.
At the risk of overstating the obvious, this situation illustrates if not highlights in bold, why the admonition to follow the instructions deserves to be stated repeatedly and with emphasis.
In other forums regarding PR and citizenship and immigration generally I have often appended the following statement:
"If in doubt, follow the intructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions."
Making the application from abroad was a mistake. Making the application without meeting the PR Residency Obligation was a mistake. If she had followed the instructions, this is a mistake that should not have happened.KITTI said:
That is, doing it by the book, so-to-say, means following the instructions. And to be frank, this mistake could have been easily avoided by, in fact, doing it, as you say, by-the-book.
Among what one might call first-principles, or the most important principles, guiding individuals in their dealings with any bureaucracy in Canada, but especially CIC, is the imperative to follow the instructions. Everyone knows this. The number who, nonetheless, fail to do so is legion (myself among them . . . it is simply too easy to gloss over the instructions without really reading them, let alone following them).
It may seem condescending, but repeating the admonition to follow the instructions is not only often warranted, but it deserves emphasis again and again. It is a reminder almost all of us can use often. (I try to remind myself of this every time I deal with a Canadian bureaucracy.)
The "book," which in regards to this matter is the CIC website specifying eligibility to apply for a PR card, clearly and specifically states that a PR can apply for a PR card only if the PR is in Canada.
Additionally, the Guide similarly states, in the section Before You Apply, that to be eligible for a PR card, the PR "must be physically present in Canada."
Moreover, the Guide also includes an Appendix (Appendix A: Residency obligation) which right at the top states:
"You must meet the residency obligation to obtain a Permanent Resident Card."
It is an almost universal standard that CIC determines eligibility based on the date the application is signed and submitted, that is, to be eligible an applicant (for almost any status being applied for) must meet the eligibility requirements as of the date the application is made. And generally the individual must continue to be eligible throughout the application process.
I realize the last part of this post is stating the obvious, that to some (perhaps many or even most) it comes across as condescending. But since most of us (again, me included) so often fail to focus on following the instructions, this seemed an appropriate context for making this reminder.
Departing observation or concern:
It is not apparent what she stated, in the PR card application, was her "current residential address in Canada" (item 12), but if she did indeed state an address in Canada which is not her current address (which obviously it could not be, since she has not been residing in Canada let alone at that particular address), that would be at least leaning toward making a material misrepresentation of fact.
It is similarly unclear what was declared in response to item 19, "ADDRESS HISTORY."
Then there is item 21 "TRAVEL HISTORY," which if accurately completed will document an absence inconsistent with even having a current residential address in Canada.
Hopefully her information in these items was simply the facts. That will of course mean the summary denial of the application (based on both not being in Canada and not complying with the PR RO obligation), but at least it would not constitute making a material misrepresentation of fact which could lead to far more serious consequences.
Thank you for your explanation I transferred all your responses to my friend. Concerning the application she put all the traveling dates as they appear on her passport whereas concerning the address she put the address of the apart where she was supposed to stay when traveling at the end of this week. But now she decided to postpone her trip. She is from Greece and next week she will be contacting the Canadian embassy there and explain to them the whole issue and if they advise her not to travel anymore she will drop everything.She can't risk losing her house and job back home than be revoked as PR in Canada.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your time.
when my friend put the address she did not mean to give any misleading g information because she was really going to live at that particular address plus she thought that it is obligatory to put the address in Canada for the PR to be delivered. Moreover, she stated it very clearly that her current address when filling the application was her address back home. And from my own experience it really hurts to see people frauding information and playing games with the Canadian government and surprisingly being rewarded with a PR or even citizenship, whereas others like my friend being punished for being soooo honest. By the way my friend's dream, since she was a child was to go to Canada, whereas those imposters used Canada in different means. And there are a lot them out there.dpenabill said:
Hi All,
My wife is little concerned to leave now for Canada with our non-pr child.
To share little bit of a background with you - Our child was born pre-mature and stayed in the hospital for some time. Even after being discharged from the hospital, he had regular (monthly) visits from health visitors and quarterly appointments scheduled at the hospital to monitor his development and well being. He is doing fine now but has his FINAL scheduled appoint in 6 months time. If I send my wife now to Canada she is going to miss the appointment and if she wait for 6 months she wont be in compliance with the RO.
My question is if she decides to wait for baby's final appointment with the doctor and than leave for Canada.
And If she is being questioned at the airport about not meeting the RO, explaining all the background of our baby and evidence of his regular appointments, will this help our case? Even if immigration officer report us can we win an appeal on H & C grounds?
When we landed first Canada we were a young couple and no child at that time. Than we left Canada after few weeks to come again after wrapping up all our things. My wife than had miscarriage , than next year the pre-mature birth - So overall she is very nervous as all our baby records are being maintained here and the doctors monitoring his development/progress since his birth....its only a matter of last appointment and she wants to wait until baby is examined last time (as I said our baby is fine no apparent risks but my wife wants to be 100% sure before she leaves the country).
Please note we have all medical records of our child to show IO.
What you reckon what should we do , Please advise??
My wife is little concerned to leave now for Canada with our non-pr child.
To share little bit of a background with you - Our child was born pre-mature and stayed in the hospital for some time. Even after being discharged from the hospital, he had regular (monthly) visits from health visitors and quarterly appointments scheduled at the hospital to monitor his development and well being. He is doing fine now but has his FINAL scheduled appoint in 6 months time. If I send my wife now to Canada she is going to miss the appointment and if she wait for 6 months she wont be in compliance with the RO.
My question is if she decides to wait for baby's final appointment with the doctor and than leave for Canada.
And If she is being questioned at the airport about not meeting the RO, explaining all the background of our baby and evidence of his regular appointments, will this help our case? Even if immigration officer report us can we win an appeal on H & C grounds?
When we landed first Canada we were a young couple and no child at that time. Than we left Canada after few weeks to come again after wrapping up all our things. My wife than had miscarriage , than next year the pre-mature birth - So overall she is very nervous as all our baby records are being maintained here and the doctors monitoring his development/progress since his birth....its only a matter of last appointment and she wants to wait until baby is examined last time (as I said our baby is fine no apparent risks but my wife wants to be 100% sure before she leaves the country).
Please note we have all medical records of our child to show IO.
What you reckon what should we do , Please advise??
I am no expert. I am, in particular, NOT qualified to give personal advice. I am not a senior member of this forum.canicomeinplz said:
But I can offer this:
Making the case there are H&C grounds warranting the retention of PR status, despite a breach of the PR Residency Obligation, is complicated.
But you should understand that the approach of CIC, CBSA, and the Federal Courts is that the current Residency Obligation is already very generous, very lenient, specifically designed to accommodate a wide range of contingencies which PRs may encounter. Waivers based on H&C grounds are generally limited to unusual and compelling circumstances.
And this government in particular appears to have increased its scrutiny and enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation.
The circumstances you describe will probably, indeed, help your case. Whether or not that will suffice cannot be said with any degree of certainty (but I doubt it). Other factors are important. One factor is how much in breach of the obligation the PR is. A breach based on 1098 days of absence, versus one based on 1193 days, has better odds.
My guess is that what you describe is not enough, probably not anywhere near enough. But again, how it actually goes for an individual will depend on all the circumstances in that individual's case.