Ex-refugee, getting stopped for questioning at airport

[canvis2006]

Well the issue with refugees was that in the past many faked refugee claims to obtain PR and citizenship. Claimed they would be tortured or killed if sent back. But Once they obtained cdn passports , these same fakers they travelled to their countries of origins visiting their homes and relatives. CIC learned and started checking at borders. Too much abuse by some/many caused issue for everyone now. I’m glad cic maintains it to catch the fakers. Its a pain for the genuine refugees to be checked at secondary.
i myself have faced secondary and extra checks due to name/religion, origin etc, even when immigrated based on skill/education. The system works even if slowly. Not much we can do but waste their time haha

 

[Dreamlad]

Well the issue with refugees was that in the past many faked refugee claims to obtain PR and citizenship. Claimed they would be tortured or killed if sent back. But Once they obtained cdn passports , these same fakers they travelled to their countries of origins visiting their homes and relatives. CIC learned and started checking at borders. Too much abuse by some/many caused issue for everyone now. I’m glad cic maintains it to catch the fakers. Its a pain for the genuine refugees to be checked at secondary.
i myself have faced secondary and extra checks due to name/religion, origin etc, even when immigrated based on skill/education. The system works even if slowly. Not much we can do but waste their time haha

The same thing happens in the US.

 

[dpenabill]

Well the issue with refugees was that in the past many faked refugee claims to obtain PR and citizenship. Claimed they would be tortured or killed if sent back. But Once they obtained cdn passports , these same fakers they travelled to their countries of origins visiting their homes and relatives. CIC learned and started checking at borders. Too much abuse by some/many caused issue for everyone now. I’m glad cic maintains it to catch the fakers. Its a pain for the genuine refugees to be checked at secondary.
i myself have faced secondary and extra checks due to name/religion, origin etc, even when immigrated based on skill/education. The system works even if slowly. Not much we can do but waste their time haha

It warrants being aware that the nature and scope of this "issue" has been grossly overstated often and abused largely by those with an anti-refugee immigration agenda.

That is not to deny the extent to which there are unfounded refugee claims and more than a few outright false ones. Yeah, it appears there is no shortage of efforts to game the Canadian immigration system or even engage in outright fraud. I cannot say, and would not try to say, whether there is more fraud in the refugee class of immigration than, say, in the economic class (where for example there is no shortage of people applying for and obtaining PR status, not altogether being honest, some outright dishonest, about their intention to settle and live in Canada permanently), or suggest which should be addressed more aggressively, or which should invite post-citizenship inquiry to investigate whether there was misrepresentation in the process of obtaining status in Canada.

As most of the responsive posts here have referenced, the underlying alert or flag in the system triggering the referral to Secondary, the post-citizenship elevated scrutiny at a Port-of-Entry, is far more likely either something that remains an alert on the person's file due to a pre-citizenship issue, or incidental (such as concurrence of similar name and DoB with a flagged person), or derives from particular circumstances in the individual case triggering security concerns.

It is easy, in contrast, to dismiss claims that a former refugee's travel to the refugee's home country, after becoming a Canadian citizen, indicates fraud. Enough so it is probably safe to say that it is unlikely that post-citizenship elevated scrutiny at a Port-of-Entry is about screening such individuals to investigate potential fraud in their refugee claims.

To be clear, even having the status of a Canadian PR can make it significantly less dangerous for many PRs to return to their home country . . . they have the status to leave and return to their safe refuge in Canada if and when they apprehend those posing the danger become a present threat. Despite the lower risk once they become a Canadian PR, because of changes in the law imposed during the Harper era, the UNHCR reavailment and cessation standards are still applicable, so traveling to the home country can trigger cessation proceedings, NOT because there is suspected fraud in their becoming a PR but because reavailment means they no longer need protected person status, so their status as a protected person is subject to cessation, meaning they lose their status in Canada . . . not because they did anything wrong but because they no longer need such status in Canada.

Of course there is cessation of their protected person status when they become a Canadian citizen. That's perhaps the most definite and clear of the UNHCR cessation provisions. If a refugee becomes a Canadian citizen, they are availing themselves of the protection provided by the government of Canada. Under international law, as well as Canadian law, they can then freely travel just like any other Canadian citizen, including travel to their previous home country, traveling with the diplomatic protection of Canada.

Whether or not it is then safe for the former refugee to return to the home country will depend on the individual and which country it is, the particular risks potentially encountered in the home country, and in particular whether the home country will recognize the individual's Canadian citizenship. Note, after all, travel to some countries is dangerous for anyone, some far more than others.

The main point is that once a former refugee has become a Canadian citizen, there is no reason to suspect fraud occurred based on that individual's travel to their former home country. And to be aware that assertions otherwise mostly (not always, but usually) derive from an anti-refugee immigration agenda.

 

[ybjianada]

Whenever I fly back to Canada, with a Canadian passport, I get called to secondary because those e-kiosks at airport are giving me the "X" declaration printout.

I have been a citizen for almost a year.

It's not a big deal, but spending extra 20 minutes after flying for hours is not fun.

First time, I let it go. 2nd, an officer asked my UCI and wanted to update the system. 3rd, they said it takes time. Now I don't know what to do.

I also didn't receive any congratulations letters, and my name was not on the list of electors.

A side discussion perhaps. How do we know if our name is on the list of list of electors? When applying for citizenship, I indicated yes to the question (17 b) to allow IRCC to forward my name to the National Register of Electors if my citizenship is granted. I became a citizen on September 15, 2022. Would my name be on the list now?

 

[CoorsHeavy]

The website itself says: "It is important to note that a CTN will not help with any other type of travel delay, including but not limited to: issues related to specific immigration or admissibility-related matters; ..."

I don't think this will help someone who has an issue being called into secondary immigration on arrival.

Something better than nothing !! Do you have any other alternative besides this ?

 

[armoured]

Something better than nothing !! Do you have any other alternative besides this ?

See my post in this thread.

Now, I've no objection to someone trying what you suggested. But since the text in the link you provided seems to say that it will not help, I'm not sure it is better than nothing.

 

[trumprefugee]

A side discussion perhaps. How do we know if our name is on the list of list of electors? When applying for citizenship, I indicated yes to the question (17 b) to allow IRCC to forward my name to the National Register of Electors if my citizenship is granted. I became a citizen on September 15, 2022. Would my name be on the list now?

You can check here:
https://ereg.elections.ca/CWelcome.aspx

I got my citizenship the day before you, on September 14, and just checked again and I am not on the list. But it sounds like it takes at least a couple months to get on the list:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/eligibility-to-vote-in-sep-20-election.741521/post-9628283

 

[armoured]

I'd add, you can request assistance from your MP;s office. I can't say this will work or be more effective than calling yourself, but can't hurt to try.

I've an inquiry regarding a different 'flag' on a family member's file - different type of flag but equally - in my view - just a remnant from something now irrelevant. MP's office is at least trying.

So as noted a while ago inquired through my MP's office, with whom I'd had previous correspondence about a different matter. I explained the situation - short form, that my spouse was always getting called into secondary and it was clear this was from a no-longer relevant matter, a 'flag' that we were told would be there forever (or until citizenship obtained).

We recently got a response through the mp's office from CBSA, that - paraphrasing - the flag that caused the referrals has been removed. It really was almsot as brief as this though.

Then there was some other blah blah that secondary processing might seem an inconvneience but it's important, etc., safety security blah blah. The upshot to this second part (in my view) was just that it might happen again in future at any time for any reason but they did what they could.

Now, obviiously i also don't know if this actually did work or will work. We'll see. But I'm hopeful that it will.

I keep saying: don't expect miracles from MPs but sometimes they do get results.

 

[mtlandrf]

I am still being directed to the secondary at the border. They are not even asking where I have been at this point (I have not gone back to the country I sought asylum from, or anywhere close, and that country does share intel with Canadian authorities). The officer told me they did everything they could at the border, advised me to contact CBSA online or even if that does not work out I contact the MP. It is frustrating. I have not visited the U.S. yet and I am worried if I will face any issues because my name is on the list from the Canadian side.

 

[greeningbloc]

It warrants being aware that the nature and scope of this "issue" has been grossly overstated often and abused largely by those with an anti-refugee immigration agenda.

That is not to deny the extent to which there are unfounded refugee claims and more than a few outright false ones. Yeah, it appears there is no shortage of efforts to game the Canadian immigration system or even engage in outright fraud. I cannot say, and would not try to say, whether there is more fraud in the refugee class of immigration than, say, in the economic class (where for example there is no shortage of people applying for and obtaining PR status, not altogether being honest, some outright dishonest, about their intention to settle and live in Canada permanently), or suggest which should be addressed more aggressively, or which should invite post-citizenship inquiry to investigate whether there was misrepresentation in the process of obtaining status in Canada.

As most of the responsive posts here have referenced, the underlying alert or flag in the system triggering the referral to Secondary, the post-citizenship elevated scrutiny at a Port-of-Entry, is far more likely either something that remains an alert on the person's file due to a pre-citizenship issue, or incidental (such as concurrence of similar name and DoB with a flagged person), or derives from particular circumstances in the individual case triggering security concerns.

It is easy, in contrast, to dismiss claims that a former refugee's travel to the refugee's home country, after becoming a Canadian citizen, indicates fraud. Enough so it is probably safe to say that it is unlikely that post-citizenship elevated scrutiny at a Port-of-Entry is about screening such individuals to investigate potential fraud in their refugee claims.

To be clear, even having the status of a Canadian PR can make it significantly less dangerous for many PRs to return to their home country . . . they have the status to leave and return to their safe refuge in Canada if and when they apprehend those posing the danger become a present threat. Despite the lower risk once they become a Canadian PR, because of changes in the law imposed during the Harper era, the UNHCR reavailment and cessation standards are still applicable, so traveling to the home country can trigger cessation proceedings, NOT because there is suspected fraud in their becoming a PR but because reavailment means they no longer need protected person status, so their status as a protected person is subject to cessation, meaning they lose their status in Canada . . . not because they did anything wrong but because they no longer need such status in Canada.

Of course there is cessation of their protected person status when they become a Canadian citizen. That's perhaps the most definite and clear of the UNHCR cessation provisions. If a refugee becomes a Canadian citizen, they are availing themselves of the protection provided by the government of Canada. Under international law, as well as Canadian law, they can then freely travel just like any other Canadian citizen, including travel to their previous home country, traveling with the diplomatic protection of Canada.

Whether or not it is then safe for the former refugee to return to the home country will depend on the individual and which country it is, the particular risks potentially encountered in the home country, and in particular whether the home country will recognize the individual's Canadian citizenship. Note, after all, travel to some countries is dangerous for anyone, some far more than others.

The main point is that once a former refugee has become a Canadian citizen, there is no reason to suspect fraud occurred based on that individual's travel to their former home country. And to be aware that assertions otherwise mostly (not always, but usually) derive from an anti-refugee immigration agenda.

Question on your comment : No immigration status(PR and Citizenship specifically) requires you to intend to permanently reside in Canada. While, I agree immigration programs are designed with the idea that beneficiary would live forever. But at the end of the day, it is left to individual to decide what best for him. Hence, no question of honest/dishonest in intent. Do you agree?

 

[armoured]

I am still being directed to the secondary at the border. They are not even asking where I have been at this point (I have not gone back to the country I sought asylum from, or anywhere close, and that country does share intel with Canadian authorities). The officer told me they did everything they could at the border, advised me to contact CBSA online or even if that does not work out I contact the MP. It is frustrating. I have not visited the U.S. yet and I am worried if I will face any issues because my name is on the list from the Canadian side.

The officers at the border are NOT going to or going to be able to fix this. You are left with the options bolded: contact CBSA or your MP.

As I outlined in our case, my spouse's request to our MP was handled politely with a positive response that flag has been removed (although not a guarantee of no issues). She has since travelled and returned to Canada with no issues, no secondary.

So you've been given suggestions: try that.

 

[greeningbloc]

Whenever I fly back to Canada, with a Canadian passport, I get called to secondary because those e-kiosks at airport are giving me the "X" declaration printout.

I have been a citizen for almost a year.

It's not a big deal, but spending extra 20 minutes after flying for hours is not fun.

First time, I let it go. 2nd, an officer asked my UCI and wanted to update the system. 3rd, they said it takes time. Now I don't know what to do.

I also didn't receive any congratulations letters, and my name was not on the list of electors.

Did that used to happen to you even prior to citizenship? I mean, Were you called for secondary while traveling as a PR?

 

[dpenabill]

Question on your comment : No immigration status(PR and Citizenship specifically) requires you to intend to permanently reside in Canada. While, I agree immigration programs are designed with the idea that beneficiary would live forever. But at the end of the day, it is left to individual to decide what best for him. Hence, no question of honest/dishonest in intent. Do you agree?

To be eligible for a PR visa, and to be eligible to complete the landing process to become a PR, a Foreign National must intend to settle permanently in Canada. (Discussed at length in the PR Obligations part of the forum, with citation and links to applicable IRPA and IRPR provisions prescribing this.)

It is readily apparent that CBSA border officials conducting the landing procedure do not strictly enforce this requirement. More than a few new PRs are obviously doing what is called a "soft landing" (and so are obviously not intending to settle in Canada permanently at that time) when they take that final step to become a PR, and there is almost no hint CBSA immigration officials have any problem with this (with some rare exceptions processing those obtaining a PR visa as provincial nominees).

Moreover, there is minimal indication that IRCC screens this "intent" element much in processing PR visa applications, with some exceptions. The most common, salient exception is in processing family class sponsorship of spouses. This is explicit in applications sponsored by Canadian citizens living abroad, in which the sponsor and sponsored spouse must affirmatively declare a positive plan to move to Canada to stay in order to qualify. It has also shown up in isolated cases where the spouse is a former PR who has lost PR due to a failure to comply with the Residency Obligation, and is being sponsored for PR by their spouse; in the PR Obligations part of the forum I cited and linked an actual case (officially published) in which the application was denied on the grounds the sponsored spouse did not have the intent to settle permanently in Canada -- so the take-away from this is that even though a PR who remains abroad, typically for work purposes, has a safety net if their spouse is a Canadian (either a PR or citizen) who can sponsor them to regain PR status, they should not go through the sponsoring process unless and until the PR working abroad is ready to come to Canada to stay.

NONE of which dictates what any Canadian must intend once they are a Canadian. So, once the landing procedure is completed, and a person becomes a Canadian with Permanent Resident status, there are no limitations on where they intend to live or work. For PRs, of course, who do not have the international mobility rights guaranteed a Canadian citizen, where they actually live and work can affect their status, and a failure to comply with the RO can lead to the loss of PR status.

All of which is important context.

So, the query itself: ". . . at the end of the day, it is left to individual to decide what best for him. Hence, no question of honest/dishonest in intent."​

There is a huge difference between what can be grounds for a decision affecting an individual's status versus what can influence the scope of investigation conducted by a total-stranger-bureaucrat who is processing an application.

-- Grounds (reasons) for a decision must be according to the particular law and rules applicable to that procedure. For example, a Citizenship Officer cannot deny an application for citizenship because the officer has concluded the applicant does not intend to reside in Canada (under current law, subject to change).​

-- Reasons to conduct a more comprehensive and extensive investigation of an applicant are NOT limited in this way. For example, even though the Citizenship Officer cannot identify any particular dishonesty by the applicant, just the officer's perception of dishonesty on the part of the applicant (which can include perceptions of dishonest intent), AT ANY STAGE in the immigration process (going back to applications for PR or refugee status for example, or in the course of any Port-of-Entry examinations when arriving in Canada), can lead to elevated scrutiny, non-routine investigatory processing, and potentially overt suspicion and skepticism in the officer's assessment of the facts.​

So, I am not clear what you mean by "no question of honest/dishonest in intent," but how things go can be affected by how officials perceive an immigrant's intentions, even if that does not constitute grounds for making a negative decision . . . for many, just the delay and inconvenience of more severe forms of non-routine processing is something best avoided . . . and for some, there is a risk that elevated scrutiny and a more probing investigation will lead to finding grounds for a negative decision.

Meanwhile: qualified applicants for citizenship who have been honest in their dealing with CBSA and IRCC, truthful and not evasive in the information they provide, have no reason to worry . . . regardless where they are living after applying for citizenship.

Those who have been playing games, well, it depends.

Which is why most of us politely respond to personal questions asked by border officials rather than a snarly "what's it to ya pal?" Yeah, perceptions about our demeanor can influence how things go.

 

[mtlandrf]

Did that used to happen to you even prior to citizenship? I mean, Were you called for secondary while traveling as a PR?

Yes. And they double and triple checked where I have been