Travel Document Refusal

You seem well on your way.

I would not worry too much about the examination at a POE. They get it. Almost all examiners will be understanding if not sympathetic (unfortunately, yes you can encounter the exception). You are still a PR (for now). You do not pose a security or criminal risk. Yes, good idea to have copy of much of your documentation when seeking actual entry at the POE (be sure to have it in your hands, not checked baggage). Inadmissibility based on breach of residency obligation does not (so far as I have ever seen or heard) result in a reason for detention and it is not grounds to deny entry into Canada (only if the time to appeal has passed, or the appeal has been decided against the individual, that is, only if the status of the individual is no longer that of a PR, only once PR is adjudicated as lost).

As I said before, once you get to a POE, expect a secondary-referral and examination. It might not happen but it probably will. It could go very smoothly and quickly, easy as pie. Worst case scenario is an agressive, pushy examiner having a bad day. Just be calm, cooperative, and polite. Answer the questions truthfully, without evasion, simply and without elaboration. No need to explain anything unless they specifically ask for an explanation, and even then keep it simple. And be patient. There really should be nothing to fear about the POE examine if you have proper identification and otherwise answer the questions truthfully.

In particular, no need to have affidavits for the POE examination. Indeed, if you start throwing what looks like a prepared trial brief of points and authorities at the officer that could raise more questions than anyone wants.

No need to overthink things now just because you may have underestimated what you needed to do for the original PR TD application. (It would not surprise me if the error really was more that of the visa officer who made the decision, or at least a combination of perhaps not beefing up the application sufficiently in conjunction with a less-than proper assessment by the officer.)

Do not make confessions like "I failed to provide enough information to show compliance to the requirements of the residency obligation." If they ask about the TD application, answer the question, explain to the extent they are asking for an explanation, but no need to elaborate or explain more than what they specifically ask.

Mostly stick to simple facts.

In any affidavits you submit in the appeal, avoid generalizations, avoid conclusory statements, and avoid what essentially amounts to an assertion or argument.

Example:

9. That I have never made any missrepresentation of information to any Canadian authority including the denied PRTD application

This is largely a conclusory assertion, more like legal argument. If it has any impact at all it is more likely to be huh? hmmmm, this dude is thinking about what constitutes misrepresentation . . .

No good reason to go there.

For purposes of the appeal in particular, and in contrast, statements about the health of the father-in-law are straight-forward information which would be relevant to a H&C argument. Statement about condition of spouse's grandmother as a reason for living in Taiwan is a straight-forward explanation. And so on.

Facts. Simple. Straight-forward. And as best you can, stick to relevant facts.

Sticking to the relevant facts can be difficult, since for many it is not as if they are well versed in how CBSA and CIC approach such situations, what matters to CIC; but by now you get the gist of what the issues and concerns are, and can probably do a good job sorting what is relevant and what is not.

There are two general mistakes people often make: one is to not give enough information (perhaps your mistake in the original TD application), and the other is to give too much. Don't let fear of repeating a not-enough mistake push you overboard into throwing everything into the fray. Relevancy matters. In particular, the last thing anyone wants to do, beyond failing to give enough information, is to throw so much information into the fray that the good stuff is buried, lost in the shuffle.

Finally, in affidavits generally it is best to avoid overreaching conclusions. Focus on particular facts, very specific facts, those which an observer actually, personally knows. For your friends, for example, their affidavits should state what they would respond to a question without prompting from you and what they know personally, not what they know because you told them so. I realize this tends toward less than what will be conclusive on an issue like cohabitating, but the basic facts attested to by a reliable witness carry far more weight than what might be seen as self-serving broad conclusions.    

Never, never compose the content of an affidavit anything at all like how I write. My manner of composition is a very bad example.

Thanks for the update.

If you keep the forum informed as to how the appeal goes, that should be of help to others in the future.

Good luck.