Rob_TO said:
Yes so basically any reason a CIC visa officer could think to reject an app, a CBSA could deny a landing for the same reason.
I will not discuss under what grounds CIC can deny any immigration app (you make it too broad a subject to discuss) , but speaking specifically about immigrant with approved COPR who plans to land, CBSA can cancel landing ONLY if there are material changes that would bar application from being approved if discovered by CIC when application was adjudicated or if there are inadmissibility issues barring one from being admitted to Canada.
CBSA officer may not deny landing because, for example, he looks at you and doesn't like the way you look.
If he does and his decision is clearly arbitrary and you have a proof that it was arbitrary then it would not hold if challenged legally.
If the newly landed PR returns to USA to stay with their spouse, they are not in violation of any PR rules, and could logically move to Canada anytime within the next 2.9 years. So you still can't explain why you think for some classes of PR apps CIC couldn't possibly apply a "logical contradiction", yet in family class apps this exact situation exists.
If Canadian PR returns to US to Canadian Citizen spouse, they can stay in US until the day they die and they will still retain Canadian PR, provided they stay in US accompanying their Canadian Citizen spouse. So, 2/5 rule doesn't even apply to Canadian PR who accompanies Canadian Citizen abroad.
I even emphasized it in bold in my earlier reply, you obviously missed it.
Also, you keep bringing a case of family sponsorship by Canadian citizen of an alien spouse. You still didn't recognize the fact that it's a different class of admission from FSW, and there are different set of requirements applicable. I touched it in my previous posts, and will not repeat and won't discuss it further.
It's irrelevant to OP because he is not sponsored as spouse of Canadian citizen. No need to go on circles bringing it up.
If there's one thing learned from going through hundreds of cases of various kinds of PR apps, it's that CIC and CBSA do not always follow what's specifically written in their operation manuals, often go by their own interpretation of rules, and also have often made decisions completely contrary to what the rules state and flat out done in error.
Go to Immigration Law websites, many articles posted link to cases they litigate or to cases that become precedents and are looked at as a reference in future.
Of course, there are instances where CIC makes mistakes an misinterprets rules. If that wasn't case why would we even have appeals and courts?
What matters is: what statutory basis one has to execute one or another action, regardless of who one is, immigrant or CBSA officer.
Much of course depends on will and resources of either party to litigate.
But ultimately, no one can willfully break the laws with total impunity, and that includes immigrants as well as CBSA officers.
Even if they demand info that is not relevant to a particular application (which happens many times) you still need to comply with them. That is why the appeals process exists, and why many times CIC/CBSA officer's decision are overturned. However just going through appeals on it's own, even if you win in the end, is considered a loss due to the cost, time and hassle of it.
I don't think it's possible to force anyone to divulge information they are not willing to share. But, depending on what the authority to ask question is , what relevance information sought has and what effect the response would have, one could potentially be refused landing or admission for not complying with a request for specific information (for instance, if CBSA asks you whether you are the person who is mentioned in COPR and asks for your passport and you keep silent, refusing to provide a document needed to process you, then you are in effect refusing to confirm your identity, and this may make you inadmissible, because until your identity is confirmed with certainty CBSA officer doesn't know who you are and whether you are entitled to admission and etc.).
As to going to appeals etc. , I never said you should make it a purpose of your life to end up litigating a case against CBSA officer. But I said given a choice of one or another it's better to clear your case in appeals/court than to lie to CBSA officer and end up with guaranteed loss and , potentially, charges of lying to federal authorities.
It's a well established and known fact that for certain classes of PR apps you need to prove intent to move to Canada within a reasonable time. No manual out there will show what the definition of "reasonable" is as it's entirely up to the officer. If a CBSA officer decides this rule also applies to other classes of apps, and say he thinks for example 1 year is too long, then anyone could find themselves in the same situation as the case I posted.
You don't need to lie to CBSA. Just don't mention your plans to not move yet to Canada permanently. Or if asked specifically, say you will just be staying in home country long enough to settle affairs and prepare the move. None of that is lying, and nothing could possibly come back to hurt anyone even if they then decide to stay 2.9 years.
Anyone who thinks CBSA or CIC officers always go strictly by the book and could never possibly apply rules across PR classes on in any other way than what you think, is naive to the whole process or just hasn't reviewed enough actual cases.
Read carefully what I write. At times you are arguing with yourself , because you refer to things that weren't part of my response.
I said earlier I would conclude this debate with you, but added few more replies for more clarifications.
This time I end this debate with you for good.
