Canada Immigration and Visa Discussion Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Canada Immigration Topics > Preserving Permanent Residence Status
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - PR renewal procedure
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

PR renewal procedure

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
lakabakya View Drop Down
New Member
New Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lakabakya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: PR renewal procedure
    Posted: 04 Apr 2016 at 1:12pm
  I am applying for renewal of my PR card, but the problem is that the required documents such as the primary and secondary ID, mostly of my documents are already expires like my passport, my BC learner driver license and i also lost my Record of Landing (IMM 1000) and Confirmation of Permanent Residence (IMM 5292 or IMM 5688), anybody can help me with this? thank you so much
Back to Top
mike101 View Drop Down
New Member
New Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mike101 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 10:12pm
Thanks.

For your information and that of others, I called Canadian Immigration today, and they stated that if I had a word document in similar format and said see attachment, they would also accept that.

But thanks for pointing it out to me.

Mike
Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 8:45pm
Originally posted by mike101 mike101 wrote:

Hi, did you ever get an answer to this issue around travel history and extra pages. Can you just fill out your own additional pages or do you need to print out their;s. I know it's been 3 years, but I am having the same issue, and no one can tell me.


The answer is specifically spelled out in the guide for making the PR card application. See:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5445ETOC.asp#5445E5

See step 2 of the guide.

The answer is actually in bold, hard to overlook. It states:

"If you need more space for any section, print out an additional page containing the appropriate section, complete it and submit it along with your application."

For further emphasis: . . . print out an additional page containing the appropriate section, complete it and submit it along with your application.

When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
mike101 View Drop Down
New Member
New Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 Feb 2016
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mike101 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 1:17am
Hi, did you ever get an answer to this issue around travel history and extra pages. Can you just fill out your own additional pages or do you need to print out their;s. I know it's been 3 years, but I am having the same issue, and no one can tell me.

Thanks in advance,

Michael.
Mike
Back to Top
woz View Drop Down
New Member
New Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2013
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote woz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Feb 2013 at 11:28pm
Originally posted by akella akella wrote:

Originally posted by akella akella wrote:

Originally posted by jogruni jogruni wrote:


But if it is still the same as last year, you do not require any supporting documents. Just the completed application form and whatever is required in the checklist!

Now they ask for two years of CRA notices of assessment as residency proof, and don't remember what they say about translations.

Just did my regular check of CIC business and noticed that application guide for PR renewal has some minor changes. Now they are not asking for CRA notices of assessment for 2 years out of 5 specifically, but have it a bit open ended (probably because they moved one notice to acceptable IDs):

  1. 3. Two (2) secondary identity documents

    A copy of two of the following:

    • your Record of Landing (IMM 1000) or Confirmation of Permanent Residence (IMM 5292 or IMM 5688)
      or
    • your valid provincial driver’s license or valid provincial photo-identity card
      or
    • your valid University/College photo student card
      or
    • your most recently issued Income Tax assessment issued by the Canada Revenue Agency
  2. 4. Additional documents of proof of residence in Canada in the past five (5) years

    Include the following with your application:

    • Photocopies of all pages of all passports you held in the past five (5) years (if your stamps are not in English or French, please have them translated, see section on Translation of documents), and

    A copy of one of the following:

    • Other Income Tax assessments issued by Canada Revenue Agency within the past five (5) years, or
    • transcripts from a recognized post-secondary institution in Canada verifying attendance within the past five (5) years or
    • for all school-aged children, written records verifying attendance within the past five (5) years.


So how many years of tax assessments have to be submitted then? If they want an assessment for each of the last 5 years why not say that? The way it is worded is very vague and confusing.
Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Dec 2012 at 4:08pm

Quote jogruni:
Quote As we all know valid PR card and legal PR status are two different things, so one key point seems to be tha fact that the CIC letter indicates the there is a requirement of an assessment for PR status at the moment, when the PR card is handed over. Apparently there there is no such provision is the act, so that was error #1 from CIC local office. And apparently the only and biggest error CIC has made.

This seems to be the crux of the decision.

Quote jogruni:
Quote . . . if the applicant met that on the day of application, but failed on the day o pick up, I would actually consider it correct that CIC did not hand out the card. If the individual had been approaching a POE at in the same situation the PR would also have failed the requirements and could have facing a removal order. Maybe not a denial of entry, . . . .

This too frames the issue: the Act and regulations do not make issuance of the PR card contingent on admissibility at the time of delivery, but on meeting the qualifications as of the date of applying.

What I think the Justice is saying is that at the point the PR came to pick-up the card, CIC can examine the PR and the PR's documents to confirm the PR qualified, and can only deny the PR the card if the result of that examination is negative.

If the result of the examination is not that the applicant failed to qualify, but rather is that in the meantime the applicant is in breach of the residency obligation, then the CIC officer can take appropriate steps to enforce the PR residency obligation. The officer doing the examination cannot both issue a 44(1) report and issue a Removal Order, and perhaps CIC does not have local office practices which make the issuance of a 44(1) report on the spot an option, but rather require the officer to do what is called a counter referral . . . which initiates an "investigation" . . .

The timeline for the investigation is interesting: 15 months minimum apparently.


Quote jogruni:
Quote how the applicant will be able to maintain PR status, if he was already below the 730 days when attempting the pickup. If he is now outside Canada again, even when getting the valid PR card sent to Islamabad, It will be difficult to return to Canada, even with valid PR card, he stll needs to be in compliance with the provisions of the law on each return. With this little margin quite a challenge in the future.

If he receives the card, he can return. If not in compliance with the PR residency obligation, they must allow entry, but can (and for this PR, if not in compliance, almost certainly will) issue the 44(1) report followed by a Removal Order. He can raise H&C grounds.


Quote jogruni:
Quote The applicant could claim, that he was not able to return, because of the lack of a valid PR card.

I do not think so. The applicant was always entitled to entry. If boarding a flight was the problem, the applicant could have applied for a Travel Document.


Quote jogruni:
Quote There might be some more legal battles coming up in this case.

I do think the Fed Court left a lot of room for this to go in different directions depending on the documents that the PR presents. Yeah, I do not think this case is over.

Sometimes, though, I get the impression that in a case like this, CIC tends to back off. Their feathers have been clipped. It is just one PR. Obviously a PR with resources.

Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
jogruni View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Location: BC
Status: Offline
Points: 393
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jogruni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Dec 2012 at 2:24pm
Originally posted by dpenabill dpenabill wrote:

...
CIC essentially denied delivering the PR card to the PR, in this case, not because there was an assessment that the PR was not qualified to receive the PR card as of the date of application, but because the CIC officer in the local office determined that the PR was not in compliance with the residency obligation on the date the PR came to the local office to pick up the card. That was wrong, the Fed Court ruled.

I am not quite sure. As we all know, the residency status is maintained, when on each and every day you have been physically present for a minimum of 730 day (full or partial) in the 5 year period of the actual day. So from my understanding, if the applicant met that on the day of application, but failed on the day o pick up, I would actually consider it correct that CIC did not hand out the card. If the individual had been approaching a POE at in the same situation the PR would also have failed the requirements and could have facing a removal order. Maybe not a denial of entry, assuming the applicant was physically present, when sending the application and processing was not more than 365 days, so he has a right to enter even in not in compliance with PR status requirements.

As we all know valid PR card and legal PR status are two different things, so one key point seems to be tha fact that the CIC letter indicates the there is a requirement of an assessment for PR status at the moment, when the PR card is handed over. Apparently there there is no such provision is the act, so that was error #1 from CIC local office. And apparently the only and biggest error CIC has made.

But still it leaves a lot of questions, how the applicant will be able to maintain PR status, if he was already below the 730 days when attempting the pickup. If he is now outside Canada again, even when getting the valid PR card sent to Islamabad, It will be difficult to return to Canada, even with valid PR card, he stll needs to be in compliance with the provisions of the law on each return. With this little margin quite a challenge in the future.

Then the question is how does the time count between the refused pick-up and the final hand out of the card. The applicant could claim, that he was not able to return, because of the lack of a valid PR card. There might be some more legal battles coming up in this case.

But still looking at all the aspects it seems a very well thought and detailed explanation in this ruling. And over all IMHO a fair and good decision.
Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Dec 2012 at 6:59am
A Federal Court decision outlines and discusses, in detail, the requirements for a PR card and the procedures attendant the issuance of the PR card. See this case for details.

It is a rather remarkabe Federal Court decision actually, discussing in great detail, the PR card application process, and addresses when CIC is required to actually deliver the PR card.

It is remarkable on many levels.

One level, to my view, is how aggressive the PR's legal counsel was. Or appeared to be. It is sometimes difficult to discern what was really happening in the background of a case, but the awarding of five thousand dollars in fees and costs to the PR tends to send a message.

In any event, if anyone is looking for an aggressive lawyer in immigration matters in the Toronto area, it might be worth looking at this case and taking note of the barrister and solicitor (one and the same) representing the PR in this case.

On the other hand, CIC exposed its arrogance more than a little. And, perhaps, a bit of naiveté. That tends to be an entertaining combination, arrogance and naiveté, a bit like watching a show-off crash and burn.

In the meantime, the decision is complicated and detailed, and in some aspects a little obtuse. I may need to read it a couple times to sort out its more definitive aspects.

That said, I get the sense that the court in effect distinguished decision making governing the issuance and delivery of PR cards to Permanent Residents from residency examinations and investigations based on time periods other than the one based on the date the application for the new card was actually submitted to CIC.

CIC essentially denied delivering the PR card to the PR, in this case, not because there was an assessment that the PR was not qualified to receive the PR card as of the date of application, but because the CIC officer in the local office determined that the PR was not in compliance with the residency obligation on the date the PR came to the local office to pick up the card. That was wrong, the Fed Court ruled.

Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
kingstonian View Drop Down
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kingstonian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 12:58pm
thanks dpenabill ,you have always been there for everyone.

Back to Top
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 12:17pm
I have not kept up with how the process works or what requirements apply to minors/children/dependents.

Maybe PMM will have an answer.
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down