Visa and PR card travel entitlement

[david1697]

Rob_TO, as I have stated in my previous response "I am not sure if there is a law in the books that says immigrant can't have intention to stay 1 year outside of Canada immediately after landing."

Which means I don't know if what you state is correct or not.
So I can't really debate this subject while not being sure whether intent to temporarily leave Canada after landing provides sufficient grounds for CIC officers to cancel your COPR and reject your landing application. If such rule exists and you post it, then it will clear the matter.

As to the rest, everyone can make their own decision. I personally, if I knew for a fact that I was about to return after landing, would not tell CIC officers that I was about to permanently move.

It is much different from change of circumstances while your PR application is pending. Between moment you apply for PR and time you are applying for landing years pass. Who knows what will happen tomorrow? In two or three years millions of things can happen.
But it is hard to argue that you don't know your own intention to return after landing when in fact you have plans to immediately return and execute the same right after landing.

 

[Rob_TO]

Rob_TO, as I have stated in my previous response "I am not sure if there is a law in the books that says immigrant can't have intention to stay 1 year outside of Canada immediately after landing."

Which means I don't know if what you state is correct or not.
So I can't really debate this subject while not being sure whether intent to temporarily leave Canada after landing provides sufficient grounds for CIC officers to cancel your COPR and reject your landing application. If such rule exists and you post it, then it will clear the matter.

There is no rule that specifies "1 year", or any specific number of years. The only rule surrounding PR application is that the applicant has intent to settle in Canada after getting PR status. It is entirely up to the discretion of a visa officer if an applicant (or sponsor) meets this criteria. To a CBSA or CIC officer, intending to leave for 1 or 2 years may go beyond "temporarily".

I am basing this on actual cases seen on this site. We have for sure seen actual cases of:
1. A person trying to land with COPR telling the CBSA officer at landing they are returning immediately to home country to finish work/school for at least full year or more, and having the CBSA officer deny their PR landing due to this.
2. Several cases of PR applications in process at outland offices, asking for more proof of applicants intent to return to Canada, and some cases where applicants have been rejected for PR due to officer not being convinced they have immediate intent to settle in Canada, or when the applicant is honest and says they need to finish school or something first for another year or longer.

What you don't seem to understand is that if a PR applicant indicates in their application they have no intent to move/settle in Canada until many years later, their PR will be rejected. Perhaps you haven't read too many people's actual experiences, but if you continue to do so you will eventually see this as well.

As to the rest, everyone can make their own decision. I personally, if I knew for a fact that I was about to return after landing, would not tell CIC officers that I was about to permanently move.

Sure that is up to you. And if you told the CBSA officer you had no intent to permanently move for say several years, you could find your COPR being invalidated and being told to try again when you are ready to move.

Personally, I would opt to avoid this situation in the first place. As I said, even if the CBSA officer is overstepping their authority and shouldn't be going this, the simple facts show that they can do it, and have done it in the past. And even if you are "right", just going through the lawyer/appeals process to prove them wrong, you have already lost. Doesn't matter what laws you can find written in the CIC rule books.

It is much different from change of circumstances while your PR application is pending. Between moment you apply for PR and time you are applying for landing years pass. Who knows what will happen tomorrow? In two or three years millions of things can happen.
But it is hard to argue that you don't know your own intention to return after landing when in fact you have plans to immediately return and execute the same right after landing.

There is no need to argue it because it will never ever come up in the future. Ever. Once you have landed as PR, whatever you happened to have said to the CBSA officer doing your landing, is long gone and forgotten.
If you tell a CBSA officer you will be wrapping things up in home country for a couple weeks/months, but you actually stay 2 years, nothing will happen. But if you say you don't intend to settle until years later, something very bad could happen. Up to the applicant I guess how they want to proceed or what info to divulge in these cases.

 

[david1697]

There is no rule that specifies "1 year", or any specific number of years. The only rule surrounding PR application is that the applicant has intent to settle in Canada after getting PR status. It is entirely up to the discretion of a visa officer if an applicant (or sponsor) meets this criteria. To a CBSA or CIC officer, intending to leave for 1 or 2 years may go beyond "temporarily".

I am basing this on actual cases seen on this site. We have for sure seen actual cases of:
1. A person trying to land with COPR telling the CBSA officer at landing they are returning immediately to home country to finish work/school for at least full year or more, and having the CBSA officer deny their PR landing due to this.
2. Several cases of PR applications in process at outland offices, asking for more proof of applicants intent to return to Canada, and some cases where applicants have been rejected for PR due to officer not being convinced they have immediate intent to settle in Canada, or when the applicant is honest and says they need to finish school or something first for another year or longer.

What you don't seem to understand is that if a PR applicant indicates in their application they have no intent to move/settle in Canada until many years later, their PR will be rejected. Perhaps you haven't read too many people's actual experiences, but if you continue to do so you will eventually see this as well.

Sure that is up to you. And if you told the CBSA officer you had no intent to permanently move for say several years, you could find your COPR being invalidated and being told to try again when you are ready to move.

Personally, I would opt to avoid this situation in the first place. As I said, even if the CBSA officer is overstepping their authority and shouldn't be going this, the simple facts show that they can do it, and have done it in the past. And even if you are "right", just going through the lawyer/appeals process to prove them wrong, you have already lost. Doesn't matter what laws you can find written in the CIC rule books.

There is no need to argue it because it will never ever come up in the future. Ever. Once you have landed as PR, whatever you happened to have said to the CBSA officer doing your landing, is long gone and forgotten.
If you tell a CBSA officer you will be wrapping things up in home country for a couple weeks/months, but you actually stay 2 years, nothing will happen. But if you say you don't intend to settle until years later, something very bad could happen. Up to the applicant I guess how they want to proceed or what info to divulge in these cases.

Again, I am asking: what is the source of the information you are providing?
Where does it say that your approved PR application can be torn apart on the point of entry (during landing) IF you tell border officers that you don't intend to immediately move to Canada?
Please post this information, so there would no longer be any speculation regarding this matter.

Note, we are talking about someone with approved PR application who attempts to land in Canada and truthfully tells that he will leave Canada after landing and come back later. We are not talking about any other circumstances (of those who are already landed as PR or those who have pending PR application at out-land offices).

CBSA officer is a human being, just like yourself, and he or she can be mischievous and do whatever they wish to do, even knowing that it's illegal, just like any human being (not a programmed robot) can do. However, if they step beyond the limits of the authority vested in them by Canadian law then they will have to answer before High Court and explain why they did what they did. Just like you would have to answer if you broke the law.
Which means, they will lose the case if they indeed overstep their authority and arbitrarily do something not permitted to do under the law.

I personally would hate to spend $5000, hire an attorney and go to court arguing that someone did something unlawful to me and that I deserved to retain my PR status. That would be very stressful and undesirable thing to experience.

But if choice I had was between doing the above and then surely winning the day in High Court or risking to go on record lying to a CBSA and permanently damaging my record, including getting a ban on entry to Canada for fixed number of years, then I would chose the former rather than later.

 

[Rob_TO]

Again, I am asking: what is the source of the information you are providing?
Where does it say that your approved PR application can be torn apart on the point of entry (during landing) IF you tell border officers that you don't intend to immediately move to Canada?
Please post this information, so there would no longer be any speculation regarding this matter.

Note, we are talking about someone with approved PR application who attempts to land in Canada and truthfully tells that he will leave Canada after landing and come back later. We are not talking about any other circumstances (of those who are already landed as PR or those who have pending PR application at out-land offices).

As i've already stated several times, it's from the post of the person who actually had this happen to them and told the story of their experience. After telling CBSA officer they were leaving right away to finish school/work for 1+ years, the CBSA officer denied their landing. The person is now re-applying from scratch.

Here is the post on the subject, which should close this matter. http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/pr-denied-at-port-of-entry-t249762.0.html;msg3704869#msg3704869

A CBSA officer can deny a PR at landing, for any reason a CIC visa officer could deny a PR application. i.e. if an applicant tells the CBSA officer at landing their marriage is a fake, watch how quickly the officer rips up their COPR. They are within their legal rights and authority to deny a PR at landing, if they feel information has been presented to them that would otherwise make the applicant not eligible for PR status.

Also in these cases it makes zero sense for the applicant to then hire a lawyer to fight or appeal it. Plus since the person is not a PR during all this, they won't be able to take it to the "high court", just the regular appeals court. It makes much more sense and usually quicker to simply apply again from scratch.

But if choice I had was between doing the above and then surely winning the day in High Court or risking to go on record lying to a CBSA and permanently damaging my record, including getting a ban on entry to Canada for fixed number of years, then I would chose the former rather than later.

Again, there would be zero/nada/nothing/ziltch/no implications. You can tell the CBSA officer anything you want, but the next day change your mind. i.e. if asked specifically just say you are wrapping up loose ends back home then returning back to move permanently, and could take a month or so. Then go ahead and spend 2 years and 11.9 months out of the country before returning. There would be nothing to go on record and nothing to worry about. You're seriously being paranoid here.

 

[david1697]

As i've already stated several times, it's from the post of the person who actually had this happen to them and told the story of their experience. After telling CBSA officer they were leaving right away to finish school/work for 1+ years, the CBSA officer denied their landing. The person is now re-applying from scratch.

Here is the post on the subject, which should close this matter. http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/pr-denied-at-port-of-entry-t249762.0.html;msg3704869#msg3704869

A CBSA officer can deny a PR at landing, for any reason a CIC visa officer could deny a PR application. i.e. if an applicant tells the CBSA officer at landing their marriage is a fake, watch how quickly the officer rips up their COPR. They are within their legal rights and authority to deny a PR at landing, if they feel information has been presented to them that would otherwise make the applicant not eligible for PR status.

Also in these cases it makes zero sense for the applicant to then hire a lawyer to fight or appeal it. Plus since the person is not a PR during all this, they won't be able to take it to the "high court", just the regular appeals court. It makes much more sense and usually quicker to simply apply again from scratch.

Again, there would be zero/nada/nothing/ziltch/no implications. You can tell the CBSA officer anything you want, but the next day change your mind. i.e. if asked specifically just say you are wrapping up loose ends back home then returning back to move permanently, and could take a month or so. Then go ahead and spend 2 years and 11.9 months out of the country before returning. There would be nothing to go on record and nothing to worry about. You're seriously being paranoid here.

Rob,

1. Where is the Canadian law/manual/act that states the CIC officer at the border has authority to deny landing because FSW immigrant wants to leave Canada after landing and return at some later time?

If immigrant fails RO in future, surely, another CIC officer CAN report and cause loss of PR, and can do so within the frame of the existing law, but where is a law/regulation that says just because FSW immigrant intends to leave after landing their Landing can be cancelled?
Until you find and post that law/manual/statute you can't establish that there is a legal ground to deny landing to any FSW immigrant who has COPR in hand (and does not pose security/criminal threat to Canada and doesn't fall under one of the serious inadmissibility rules).

2. The link you posted is written by someone who sounds confused and it's not really clear (even after others ask her repeatedly) WHY was her husband denied landing. She claims that others told her the officer had power trip, then at some other point she claims it's because she didn't accompany him , and at still other point she says she doesn't know why her husband was denied landing. Her description of the background of the story is very confusing and unclear (I may have misunderstood it, but it sounded to me like she is a Canadian Citizen who sponsored a foreigner in US who was working in US under H1Visa and she stayed in US under H4 and then F-1 visa to pursue Masters' degree and etc.).
It's all very confusing and not clear what is the relevance of the story to the claim that her husband was denied landing.
What if he is a suspected terrorist and was denied for security reason? She doesn't clarify anything and when asked point blank why he was denied landing she goes into all sorts of speculating or gives inconsistent/implausible answers.

In any event, it's a hearsay, not a law and may not even have any relevance to OP since OP is FSW beneficiary.

Do you have a law/regulation/manual that states Canadian CIC has a power/authority to deny landing to perfectly qualified FSW immigrant with COPR in hand, just because immigrant admits they will leave Canada for a period of one year after landing?

Note that the link you posted is about marriage/spousal sponsorship (Canadian Citizen sponsoring foreign national/family member in US under H visa while living abroad), it's not about FSW applicant/beneficiary. Some posters (keesio and others, page 3) mention that as a Canadian citizen/family sponsor you must prove that you will move to Canada once PR is approved. If true, how is this relevant to OP of this thread who is immigrating under FSW?

Again, there would be zero/nada/nothing/ziltch/no implications. You can tell the CBSA officer anything you want.....

The above is dangerously misleading advise.

First of all, anything you say to officer can be typed as comments to FOSS and will stay there permanently. It's possible that officer will type nothing, but you are making an irrationally risky bet in hopes that "anything you say..." will stay out of it.

Second, it's lying to Canadian officers at border that gets people in hot waters more than anything else. Take the residents who fail RO, for instance. Do you think they get charged for fraud and criminal liability for living out of Canada over 3 years? No. The worst CIC Officer can do is report and have immigrant who failed RO come to hearing, and if immigrant loses the hearing (or doesn't appeal) they never get charged with any crime, they are only told that they no longer have PR status and that they must leave the country right away. But it is people who tell lies to officers who later pay a heavy price and get charged with crime/fraud.

Good luck on telling CBSA officer "anything you want" with "zero/nada/nothing/ziltch/no implications". :

 

[Rob_TO]

Note that the link you posted is about marriage/spousal sponsorship (Canadian Citizen sponsoring foreign national/family member in US under H visa while living abroad), it's not about FSW applicant/beneficiary. Some posters (keesio and others, page 3) mention that as a Canadian citizen/family sponsor you must prove that you will move to Canada once PR is approved. If true, how is this relevant to OP of this thread who is immigrating under FSW?

You need to read this specific post again, perhaps more carefully this time: http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/pr-denied-at-port-of-entry-t249762.0.html;msg3704869#msg3704869
It is for all classes of PR, not just family class.

I have no idea why you are pretending that it's perfectly ok in any PR application in any category, to not require an intent to establish residency in Canada. Go ahead and try telling any applicant in any category to indicate in their application they are not intending to settle in Canada for several years still, and see how quickly their application gets rejected. It's incredibly dangerous advise to tell people intent to settle is not important.

What if he is a suspected terrorist and was denied for security reason?

Did you actually read the posts?? It was mentioned several times the CBSA officer told them to re-apply when they were done with school and actually ready to move to Canada. Obviously would not say this if he was a suspected terrorist. The fact you even brought this up shows you perhaps don't understand this procedure very well.

The above is dangerously misleading advise.

First of all, anything you say to officer can be typed as comments to FOSS and will stay there permanently. It's possible that officer will type nothing, but you are making an irrationally risky bet in hopes that "anything you say..." will stay out of it.

I am talking specifically about your PR landing interview, and discussing intent to settle or go back to home country. Absolutely nothing to do with other cases like PRs being questions on RO.

Go look through all CIC cases in the history of every case ever heard, you will not find one where someone got in trouble for mentioning one thing about intent to move permanently to Canada, then doing something different. Not one. It's 100% certain, if you tell a CBSA officer you will go back to home country for just a few months, then end up staying 2.9 years, nothing will possibly happen. Else if you feel differently, I await you bringing a case to light that shows an actual example of this specific situation.

It's much more dangerous to admit to a CBSA officer you have no intent whatsoever to move for an extended time, vs just being as vague as you can on the topic if asked.

 

[david1697]

You need to read this specific post again, perhaps more carefully this time: http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/pr-denied-at-port-of-entry-t249762.0.html;msg3704869#msg3704869
It is for all classes of PR, not just family class.

I have no idea why you are pretending that it's perfectly ok in any PR application in any category, to not require an intent to establish residency in Canada. Go ahead and try telling any applicant in any category to indicate in their application they are not intending to settle in Canada for several years still, and see how quickly their application gets rejected. It's incredibly dangerous advise to tell people intent to settle is not important.

Did you actually read the posts?? It was mentioned several times the CBSA officer told them to re-apply when they were done with school and actually ready to move to Canada. Obviously would not say this if he was a suspected terrorist. The fact you even brought this up shows you perhaps don't understand this procedure very well.

I am talking specifically about your PR landing interview, and discussing intent to settle or go back to home country. Absolutely nothing to do with other cases like PRs being questions on RO.

Go look through all CIC cases in the history of every case ever heard, you will not find one where someone got in trouble for mentioning one thing about intent to move permanently to Canada, then doing something different. Not one. It's 100% certain, if you tell a CBSA officer you will go back to home country for just a few months, then end up staying 2.9 years, nothing will possibly happen. Else if you feel differently, I await you bringing a case to light that shows an actual example of this specific situation.

It's much more dangerous to admit to a CBSA officer you have no intent whatsoever to move for an extended time, vs just being as vague as you can on the topic if asked.

I don't know if you are intentionally confusing matters, kind of trolling me, or are you seriously failing to read my responses.

Did OP (who is admittedly future FSW immigrant) suggest that he has no intention to ever move to Canada?
More specifically, can intention to permanently move at some later point (let's say within 1 year after landing) be equated to intention to NEVER move to Canada?
How can you not make distinction between those two things?

If one had categorically no intention to move to Canada, why one would even bother to land in Canada?
Obviously, at least at the time when one does landing, one must have intention to permanently relocate to Canada (though the timing may not be immediately after landing, it could be at anytime after landing and if occurring within 3 years of landing such move would also allow one to preserve PR status).


But back to what I stated above: how does intention to return to Canada a year after landing is equated to intention to never move to Canada?
Please explain.

If not, then what is relevance of "not intending to move to Canada, ever" to "intending to leave after lading and return one year later"?

And, I specifically mentioned and asked you not to confuse infinitely varying alternatives/circumstances from one which is relevant to OP here.

All PR categories are NOT the same, and neither are requirements. FSW based PR has drastically different conditions to qualify than say PR who is being sponsored as a spouse of Canadian Citizen.

Someone who has COPR (Confirmation of PR) and is about to land is NOT the same as someone who is applying for PR or is in the middle of processing out-land and gets request for an additional information.

You are mixing rules and cases not relevant to OP question and then you say that since those other cases are affected by irrelevant to OP rules, then somehow OP will or must be affected as well. Why do you think so? What makes you think that your assumptions are correct?

The post you linked to is about Canadian Citizen who went to US to pursue Masters' degree on F-1 visa and was still in middle of doing her master's degree (while staying in US) when her husband showed up at Canadian border with H1 Visa from US and said he wanted to land in Canada now (with his family sponsor/spouse not accompanying him but staying on F-1 visa in US).
H1 is a dual intention non-immigrant visa, and it could also have crossed CBSA officers' mind that whoever had temporary valid H visa in US (which allows dual intention in US) may have been landing in Canada as a second option, just in case their H1 expires with no prospect of staying in US thereafter. And his spouse, staying in US on F-1 visa and continuing her Masters' degree while the other showed up at the border alone by himself, obviously wouldn't help to alleviate the doubts of the officer (if such was a case).
I don't know anything about Canadian citizen - spousal/family - sponsored PR applications, much less about cases where sponsoring spouse has a long term plan to stay in US and finish masters' studies while her husband shows at the Canadian border to land as PR, but from what I read I understand that the case you linked to is something completely different from what OP here is asking about and the rules applicable in case you refer to do not apply to someone who is in need of advise on this particular thread.

 

[Rob_TO]

Did OP (who is admittedly future FSW immigrant) suggest that he has no intention to ever move to Canada?
More specifically, can intention to permanently move at some later point (let's say within 1 year after landing) be equated to intention to NEVER move to Canada?
How can you not make distinction between those two things?

Where did I ever mention "never" moving to Canada?

The issue I stated multiple times is an intent to move to Canada with a reasonable time. The 3 year rule is only good once you have become a PR. Before that during the application process, visa officers want to be satisfied you have intention to move to Canada in a reasonable time after getting COPR. There have been many cases on this site of peoples family class apps getting rejected due to telling the visa officer there is no intent to move until a year or longer later (but still less than 3 years).
As well a friend of mine going through a non-family class app (either CEC or FSW) was asked a lot of questions by his visa office, one of which was to show steps taken to settle in Canada once his PR was approved.

You are also completely misunderstanding what happened in the case I linked to. The reason the CBSA denied his PR landing is because neither him nor his spouse had immediate plans to move to Canada. Not that they would "never" move to Canada, the CBSA officer was fully aware their schooling was temporary and would be done in a couple years. He even told them to re-apply closer to that time. There was no "3 year rule" used. What constitutes an acceptable time to move to Canada after getting COPR, is at discretion of any visa officer.

Since this seems to be going nowhere I'll post my last summary on the matter. Intention to move to Canada in a reasonable time after getting COPR is important. We have seen 1 case here of a CBSA officer denying a landing due to this specific reason, and it could happen again. Would the CBSA officer care if the COPR holder was family class, FSW or some other class in the same situation? Perhaps or perhaps not. All I know is I would advise any PR holder in any class, to be very careful if they have no intention to permanently move to Canada in a reasonable time after landing. You don't want to give a CBSA officer any reason to deny your landing based on that CBSA officer's interpretation of the rules, which are not always correct and are even worse if the CBSA officer is simply a jerk or doesn't like you. Even if they are wrong, once they have denied you it causes massive inconvenience and hassle. So my best advice is to be as vague or non-committal as possible if asked about relocation plans, and would NEVER tell them flat out I intend to not move to Canada for several years after landing, no matter what class or PR app I was under.

Again I link to this summary of how CBSA operates regarding PR landings and intent to move: ww.immigration.ca/en/immigration-wiki2/43-canada-immigration/157-the-landing-process.html
Immigrants will be questioned to confirm their intention to establish permanent residence in Canada.
"Intention" is completely up to interpretation by a visa officer. Some may interpret it their own way, whether you agree with it or not.

You can use others PR's landing experiences with CBSA and learn from them, or you can pretend the same thing will never happen to you and ignore it. Choice is really up to each person.

 

[david1697]

Where did I ever mention "never" moving to Canada?

Please read your own post Rob.

I have already addressed all of the points you raised. I will not go on circles now.

With this I conclude my participation on the debate of this subject with you.

To OP: BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU DO AND ESPECIALLY WHAT YOU SAY TO CBSA.
Despite what poster above said, everything you say to CBSA can be used against you at any time (including in distant future), and you are the one who can be charged for lying to CBSA for providing false information, not the poster above or anyone else who posts their opinion here.

Good luck.

 

[Rob_TO]

Please read your own post Rob.

I did. You seem to have not read or understood them properly.

 

[david1697]

I did. You seem to have not read or understood them properly.

Please read again. Thank you.

 

[Rob_TO]

Please read again. Thank you.

I did. Please just post my sentence where I posted about "never" moving to Canada. I was consistent in saying the CBSA officer was judging based on intentions to move within a reasonable time. Not never.

Anyways the fact you can't post what you think I said, shows you are mistaken.

 

[david1697]

Quote from: Rob_TO on December 27, 2014, 02:09:55 pm:

I have no idea why you are pretending that it's perfectly ok in any PR application in any category, to not require an intent to establish residency in Canada.

Above are your words.

You seem to fail to recognize the distinction between "to not require an intent to establish residency" and "to not require an intent to move immediately and permanently upon landing in Canada".

You also seem to not recognize the logical contradiction that would arise when, on one hand, you are allowed to stay 3 out of 5 years out of Canada retaining PR ,and on the other must establish your intent to immediately and categorically move to Canada as soon as you land and at no time thereafter.

You also seem to be confused about status of the immigrant who already has COPR and plans to formally land within a time period allocated per stamped Visa versus someone who plans to apply or is in process of applying to CIC out of land.

Finally, you seem to fail to recognize the difference between qualifying for FSW versus for Family based immigration, particularly the Canadian Citizen sponsored spousal immigration and distinctly different residency obligations.

Within a different context different concerns and requirements arise, but you still don't acknowledge it, you keep bringing the same arguments that I have already addressed and invariably end by advising OP to mislead or be as vague as possible with CBSA (basically the same thing, advising to mislead CBSA) about true state of his affairs.

 

[Rob_TO]

Quote from: Rob_TO on December 27, 2014, 02:09:55 pm:

Above are your words.

You need to read the very next sentence for context: "not intending to settle in Canada for several years still"
I have always linked a timeframe to the intent rule, not simply "never" to ever settle.

You also seem to not recognize the logical contradiction that would arise when, on one hand, you are allowed to stay 3 out of 5 years out of Canada retaining PR ,and on the other must establish your intent to immediately and categorically move to Canada as soon as you land and at no time thereafter.

Then how can you explain the "logical contradiction" of family class apps that most definitely require the applicant to show they will move to Canada within a reasonable time (much less than 3 years) after being approved for PR.... when after getting PR they are free to stay outside Canada for 3 years, or can stay outside forever as long as they live with their Canadian spouse??

And as I said i've personally seen a non-family class case where steps take to establish move to Canada, were asked of the applicant.

You also seem to be confused about status of the immigrant who already has COPR and plans to formally land within a time period allocated per stamped Visa versus someone who plans to apply or is in process of applying to CIC out of land.

Like the case posted to, was a person with COPR who would have permanently moved in less than 3 years time, but CBSA officer decided that wasn't soon enough.

3 year rule is not for PR applicants. Its for situations where a PR lands in Canada, then due to any number of situations needs to leave.

An applicant admitting they have no intention to move to Canada for 2.9 years after landing, is asking for trouble in their application, in family class and other types of apps. But if you simply don't accept this that is up to you.

 

[david1697]

You need to read the very next sentence for context: "not intending to settle in Canada for several years still"
I have always linked a timeframe to the intent rule, not simply "never" to ever settle.

Then how can you explain the "logical contradiction" of family class apps that most definitely require the applicant to show they will move to Canada within a reasonable time (much less than 3 years) after being approved for PR.... when after getting PR they are free to stay outside Canada for 3 years, or can stay outside forever as long as they live with their Canadian spouse??

And as I said i've personally seen a non-family class case where steps take to establish move to Canada, were asked of the applicant.

Like the case posted to, was a person with COPR who would have permanently moved in less than 3 years time, but CBSA officer decided that wasn't soon enough.

3 year rule is not for PR applicants. Its for situations where a PR lands in Canada, then due to any number of situations needs to leave.

An applicant admitting they have no intention to move to Canada for 2.9 years after landing, is asking for trouble in their application, in family class and other types of apps. But if you simply don't accept this that is up to you.

Someone who holds approved COPR (CONFIRMATION of PR) is not an "applicant" for PR.
He/She is already confirmed by CIC to be a Permanent Resident, with fixed period of time (VISA) given to materialize their status.
The job of admitting officer (CBSA) to make sure that at the moment person is being admitted for Landing no material changes exist that would bar approval of the application (if married, didn't get divorced, if FSW didn't have children born or marry, and etc.), and individual is not subject to bar under inadmissibility rules (didn't get convicted for a crime or become a suspect in major crime after approval of PR and immediately prior to application for landing at the border and etc.).

Family class sponsorship is a whole different ball game. I don't know all particulars as it applies to Canadian immigration, but among other things you must continuously reside with your spouse if you married recently or don't have children. Additionally, (or so it appears to me, as to a layman , just applying a common sense) ,it is probably not the most plausible thing to show up with intent to land in Canada as PR, while your Canadian Citizen spouse who sponsored you stays in US as F-1 (long term non-imm. visa) to continue their study for indefinite period of time
Aside from 3/5 year rule,which is completely irrelevant and inapplicable to spouse of Canadian Citizen who accompanies Canadian Citizen abroad, there are obvious questions about sponsored spouse who shows up with COPR to land while his wife intends to stay in US for unknown length of time.
If I was CBSA officer I would also inquire rather intensively what the person in question was up to.

In any event, the case you linked to has nothing to do with the particulars of OP of this thread who is asking about his options once he gets approved COPR as FSW, and how he needs to wrap up things within a year ,not "several years", in his country of origin before moving to Canada.

As I repeatedly noted,the OP's is a distinctly different case with distinctly different set of rules applied to it from the one you linked to.

Sigh.....