Re-entering Canada without PR card

I believe we are mostly in agreement, any difference being largely a matter of emphasis and scope.

The distinction I was making is a practical not technical one. PRs with no Residency Obligation issues need not be apprehensive, either way, either in approaching a POE or in applying for a TD (if they happen to find themselves abroad without a currently valid PR in possession). In contrast, the more there is a prospect of a RO issue, the greater the risks of a problem either way.

But yes, indeed, it seems that appearing at a POE versus applying for a TD from abroad is easier, but practically the real distinction is whether or not, and to what extent, there is a potential issue about compliance with the RO. No hint of an issue, no problem either way. A potential RO issue, then yes, indeed, better to be at the POE than applying for a TD. A likely issue, even more so, definitely better to be at the POE than applying for a TD.


And, yes, technically it is correct, at a POE not only is it correct that a PR does not have to prove compliance with the Residency Obligation to obtain entry into Canada, the PR can even decline to answer questions about compliance with the Residency Obligation . . . at least decline to answer any questions beyond the scope of the amount of time the PR was abroad on that particular occasion (which is, anyway, a standard question almost always asked very early in the contact with the BSO; similarly, usually the question "where do you live" has been asked and answered early in the encounter as well).

The practical implications of this have been discussed in this forum at length. The short and dirty of it, though, is that the PR well in compliance with the RO is not at all likely to face residency compliance questioning anyway, while the more there is a potential issue with RO compliance, the more likely the PR is to be questioned, and, usually, the better off the PR is in being cooperative as opposed to standing on the right to enter without being questioned further. (The latter is in many ways a shallow right anyway, since there are so many reasons which will justify a continued examination at a POE; as I have said previously, even returning citizens can find themselves hung up in an examination at the border for hours if the BSOs believe they have cause to do so. It should be recognized that rarely, very rarely, is this arbitrary or capricious; BSOs are far too serious and busy to bother engaging in harassing anyone beyond making the inquiries they feel complelled to do in order to properly do their jobs, to do due diligence.)

In contrast, right, technically the PR abroad without a PR card in possession and applying for a Travel Document must establish status and compliance with the Residency Obligation.

Practically, however, for a PR well in compliance with the RO the PR's declarations will suffice unless there is some reason why the overseas visa office is suspicious (recognizing, though, that in some cases, such as where all a PRs identity documents have been stolen and that is the reason why a TD must be applied for, there will be a heightened level of scrutiny to be certain of identity and relevant history).

Practically, for the PR who is indeed living permanently in Canada and who has traveled abroad briefly and who, for whatever reason, happens to be abroad without a currently valid PR card in possession, the inconvenience of applying for and obtaining a TD does not warrant any change in travel plans, particularly not if at a significant additional expense, to re-route their trip to go through the U.S. in order to approach Canada via a land crossing and thereby avoid applying for a TD.

Moreover:

And another major advantage IMHO is what you explain in IIIb. When there is a question about complianve with RO, there is a huge difference: At POE you might get a removal order, yes. But you are entiteled to enter Canada and can deal with that from inside Canada and manintain your work... At an embassy abroad, trying to obtain the TD, you are stranded and cannot come back until you sorted out the problems.

Not really. (BTW, this quote appears to be referring to something I said, but if so it is a paraphrase which has changed the meaning, glossing over the distinction between a PR living in Canada and traveling abroad, versus a PR who has been living abroad, or at least abroad for an extended time.)

A PR who has been living in Canada and who was abroad only briefly should not fear being stranded abroad if a TD is denied. A PR is entitled to an alternative TD allowing returning to Canada so long as . . . I forget the precise parameters, but I think that so long as the PR was in Canada within the previous year, the PR is entitled to a TD facilitating a return to Canada pending an appeal of the regular TD denial. Bottom-line, with rare exception (in one of the threads here I posted a link to a case that was, indeed, an exception, where the overseas visa office's denial of the TD was grossly unfounded and unreasonable), any PR who has been living in Canada and is not cutting the RO at all close, and who has not been outside Canada for an extended time recently, including especially during the most recent trip, should have nothing at all to fear about applying for a TD . . . and, again, even if it was denied, they are entitled to another TD that allows returning to Canada pending the appeal (recognizing that just like the PR who is appealing a removal order issued at the POE, the time in Canada then will not count toward compliance with the RO unless and until prevailing on the appeal). In other words, except for a PR who has been abroad for more than a year (again, not certain this is the parameter), there is virtually no difference between being issued a removal order at the POE versus being denied a TD at an overseas visa office.

Redundantly, but worth some emphasis, under the same set of circumstances there is also, it should be noted, probably, a greater risk of TD denial than there is of the issuance of a removal order; the overseas visa office decision-making apparently being more strict in calculating presence and less forgiving relative to H & C grounds. This goes back to what I said initially, that yes, indeed, if there is a "potential RO issue, then [it is] better to be at the POE than applying for a TD. A likely issue, even more so, definitely better to be at the POE than applying for a TD." Yes. Emphatically. But, again, I think it is worth much emphasis: it is not as if BSOs or CIC officers at overseas visa offices are in the business of making life difficult for legitimate PRs who genuinely live in Canada. Not at all.

A new practical problem regarding traveling through the US to Canada with no valid PR card: lately, at least United Airlines has started to ask for proof of residency in Canada, if your ticketed journey ends in the USA. Technically, you need to provide evidence that you plan to leave the USA again within the period allowed by your visa or visa waiver, the most common evidence being an airline ticket out of the country. If you establish that you reside in Canada and intend to cross by land or sea border, that also will satisfy the airline (and US immigration) that you indeed plan to leave the USA again.

However, if your PR card is missing/expired, this might get sticky. The airline might deny transportation or you might get in trouble with US immigration. To avoid any problem, I recommend to buy a fully refundable one-way ticket from your final destination in the USA to any place in Canada, for a date after you drive back into Canada - and carry a printout of that ticket with you. Once you are back home, simply cancel the airline ticket for a full refund.

Please chime in with your experience with other air carriers or with US immigration.

 

jogruni wrote: I cannot say, if every Airline is asking for that. In my case Lufthansa only checks the ESTA status (being allowed to enter the US). There is not really a "requirement" to have a return ticket, as long as you can make US immigration officer believe, that you will leave the US again.

"Nationals of the 36 countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program may use VWP if:

[...]

If arriving by air or sea, they are traveling on an approved carrier (See the approved carriers list) and have a return trip ticket to any foreign destination"

The above is quoted from the US State Departments web site on the visa waiver program, here is the link:   http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html

In other words, there is such a requirement and any airline could refuse transport in the absence of such a ticket or other accepted evidence of onward journey - namely a Canadian PR card. And as mentioned: United's enforcement of this requirement is relatively new.

In any case, the refundable ticket to Canada is cheap insurance against this kind of trouble!

As far as I know, PR card which is the Permanent Residence card is the one that certifies that you are living inside a country waiting to be an official citizen. While visa have certain time of stay depending on what kind of visa that you are holding.