CBSA Interview - Worst case Outcome: Deportation Order or Removal Order?

[axelfoley]

Arrived in Canada by air with an expired PR card as a visa exempt foreign passport holder. Extreme poor compliance with RO. Had counter interview at immigration section. Gave an outline of my H&C reasons. No Removal Order issued. After a few hours met the Minister's Delegate who gave me his email and asked me to keep him informed where I was staying in Canada. Gave my current address for the next two weeks, but advised that I plan to move to another city and rent an apartment there. Said I would be called back to the airport for a meeting soon. So now inside Canada without currently being reported.

My question is: when I go back to the airport for an interview with CBSA about the reasons for my breach of the residency obligation, if I do not present compelling enough reasons to explain my breach of the PR RO, what is the *worst case* sanction on that day? Obviously, I don't plan to lie or misrepresent the situation so the failure of the interview on my side would be because my H&C grounds are insufficient in the eyes of the Minister's Delegate in order to retain PR status.

Can the Minister's Delegate order after the interview an immediate Deportation Order and ask me to leave the country the same day, without an appeal? Or is the worst case scenario that I am issued with a Removal Order with 30 days to appeal? Any experience appreciated! Just want to be prepared for the worst!

 

[dpenabill]

Arrived in Canada by air with an expired PR card as a visa exempt foreign passport holder. Extreme poor compliance with RO. Had counter interview at immigration section. Gave an outline of my H&C reasons. No Removal Order issued. After a few hours met the Minister's Delegate who gave me his email and asked me to keep him informed where I was staying in Canada. Gave my current address for the next two weeks, but advised that I plan to move to another city and rent an apartment there. Said I would be called back to the airport for a meeting soon. So now inside Canada without currently being reported.

My question is: when I go back to the airport for an interview with CBSA about the reasons for my breach of the residency obligation, if I do not present compelling enough reasons to explain my breach of the PR RO, what is the *worst case* sanction on that day? Obviously, I don't plan to lie or misrepresent the situation so the failure of the interview on my side would be because my H&C grounds are insufficient in the eyes of the Minister's Delegate in order to retain PR status.

Can the Minister's Delegate order after the interview an immediate Deportation Order and ask me to leave the country the same day, without an appeal? Or is the worst case scenario that I am issued with a Removal Order with 30 days to appeal? Any experience appreciated! Just want to be prepared for the worst!

If you were referred to the Minister's Delegate that would usually mean you were issued a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility. That usually precedes the interaction with the Minister's Delegate. That means your time in Canada now does not count toward compliance with the PR RO. I do not know how long you can be kept in limbo this way. I think, but have not revisited the procedure recently enough to be sure, that there is some kind of time limit on how long you could be the subject of a 44(1) Report without a decision being made on it.

You would not be subject to immediate deportation. You are entitled to appeal the Departure or Removal Order (at this stage these are basically different names for the same thing) and it is NOT enforceable until the time for making an appeal has passed, or if an appeal is timely made it is NOT enforceable until there is a negative decision or withdrawal of the appeal. "Not enforceable" means you continue to be a PR and can continue to stay in Canada as a PR. If it becomes enforceable (time for appeal passes and you have not appealed, or you lose the appeal), PR status is lost. You will be advised you have a certain amount of time to leave Canada.

Be sure to follow-up and keep them informed as they requested. There is a chance they will mostly track you to see whether you are cooperative and whether you are settling down permanently in Canada. That is to say, while this could easily go badly, it is also possible they let you stay and see how it goes. If months go by, and you have kept them informed of your current address, do some more homework to figure the impact of the 44(1) Report without being issued a Departure or Removal Order.

Otherwise, go over your H&C case and see if you can do a better job making a more persuasive case. If you are planning to stay and settle in Canada, make some more concrete plans in that direction and be prepared to explain or even document those if you are in fact called in for an interview. Your future plans are relevant.

Seems to me the good news is you still have a chance to persuade them you really want to settle in Canada but just got delayed due to this and that. The PoE officials tend to be the more flexible and lenient decision makers in the process, so the Minister's Delegate is perhaps your best chance to make a convincing H&C case. If they really believe you are settling down permanently in Canada, there is a greater chance they will not bounce just because of the PR RO technicality. I cannot guess how good your H&C case is, but again, if they call you back, this will be your best shot.

Note, however, the report may also be referred to the local office and you could be investigated (for breach of PR RO) and called in for an interview there. Your best odds are in being cooperative and trying to be persuasive that you deserve the chance to keep PR status.

 

[axelfoley]

Superb advice, thank you! You are truly wise.

I was not (yet) given any report at the airport but told that I should attend a meeting in the near future to have a full discussion. I am pretty sure I am the "subject" of a report, as you say. I think they needed more time to look at some of the documents I gave them and also perhaps give me a chance to prepare my case a bit better. It was getting very late (after midnight) and they could see I was very tired after a few hours. I think maybe they were also tired and wanted to wrap up for the day. Thank you for confirming instant Deportation is not a likely sanction in the case of a "failed" interview.

I truly appreciate your sensible and pragmatic approach to the resolving the issue to my benefit. I am inclined to adopt the approach that you presented (which interestingly is the diametric opposite from that of the immigration consultant I have met locally).

As per your suggestion, in the mean time, I am working hard to detail my H&C case. Also to demonstrate the impact on my life of the loss of PR status. It would have a negative impact on me, perhaps disproportionate. Additionally, I will detail why I was not able to move to Canada earlier due to some factors out of my control (supporting my elderly widowed mother who had numerous health issues in the past several years).

 

[dpenabill]

I was not (yet) given any report at the airport but told that I should attend a meeting in the near future to have a full discussion. I am pretty sure I am the "subject" of a report, as you say. I think they needed more time to look at some of the documents I gave them and also perhaps give me a chance to prepare my case a bit better. It was getting very late (after midnight) and they could see I was very tired after a few hours. I think maybe they were also tired and wanted to wrap up for the day. Thank you for confirming instant Deportation is not a likely sanction in the case of a "failed" interview.

I truly appreciate your sensible and pragmatic approach to the resolving the issue to my benefit. I am inclined to adopt the approach that you presented (which interestingly is the diametric opposite from that of the immigration consultant I have met locally).

As per your suggestion, in the mean time, I am working hard to detail my H&C case. Also to demonstrate the impact on my life of the loss of PR status. It would have a negative impact on me, perhaps disproportionate. Additionally, I will detail why I was not able to move to Canada earlier due to some factors out of my control (supporting my elderly widowed mother who had numerous health issues in the past several years).

Reminder: I am NO expert. I hesitate to contradict an authorized professional in the field. There is a lot I do not know about how the system works in practice that a legitimate professional will know, given direct experience with IRCC on behalf of clients. The nuances and contingencies and variables in how things go are vast . . . way more so than many posts in a forum like this acknowledge let alone reveal.

I tend to trust lawyers more than consultants (a consultant should be a formally recognized authorized representative, and if the individual "consultant" is not an authorized representative but takes money for immigration consulting, that person is not to be trusted at all since it is outright unlawful for them to be providing immigration advice for compensation).

If you were not issued a 44(1) Report that is good news . . . albeit tempered some by the circumstances as you describe them (meaning that indeed, the consequences may be merely delayed due to the timing).

I am curious how you know the person you were referred to was a "Minister's Delegate?" In the few reports I have seen regarding these interviews/transactions, the Minister's Delegate is typically merely a supervisor, or at least someone superior to the examining officer, and is not introduced or referred to as a "Minister's Delegate." And, even if the person was a designated "Minister's Delegate" that does not mean the interview was done in a context pursuant to which the individual was acting as a Minister's Delegate . . . the Minister's Delegate status (which multiple officers at a large airport PoE might have on any given shift) does not necessarily come into play unless the officer is in effect holding a hearing on the 44(1) Report. Which is why I said that an interview with the Minister's Delegate typically means there was a 44(1) Report issued.

In contrast, sometimes the officer conducting the initial examination is (for this or that reason) not the one making a decision, but in a difficult case will refer the case to a superior. That superior may or may not have Minister's Delegate status, but even if that officer does, that does not mean the officer is acting in the capacity of the Minister's Delegate but might be acting as an immigration officer deciding whether or not to issue a 44(1) Report or . . . they have various options.

The other part of your report which is curious: is your statement that you waited "hours" for the interview with the officer you describe as the Minister's Delegate. That would be a very long time to keep someone who has PR status. That would be quite if not highly unusual. Once you are identified as a PR, the scope of examination beyond that should be fairly limited (and the PR can actually insist it be limited . . . but usually it is better to be cooperative and attempt to be persuasive rather than confrontational). In particular, there is no authority to detain a PR for a breach of the PR RO no matter how much in breach. (There can be other reasons for holding a PR, mostly related to customs and criminal or security issues, but a breach of the PR RO, no matter how obvious or blatant, should not result in being kept long at the PoE.)

In the past (quite awhile ago now however) I have had some difficult interactions at the PoE (all such instances my fault where it involved entering Canada, as I pushed the envelope more than often, all before I even thought to apply for PR), and while it seemed like hours, the longest really was maybe an hour or so -- the one exception, a particularly ugly experience, was going the other way at the U.S. border, one that is painful just to recall, and was not my fault at all; but the Americans can be so utterly unreasonable you have to bite your lip and keep your calm and abide and abide and just cooperate and answer questions, until they have gotten whatever got under their skin out of their system.

 

[axelfoley]

Thanks for your reply. Trust me, you are more sensible in terms of your approach than some "consultants" whether formally recognized or not.

At the airport, there was a line in the immigration section that took me 2 hours to get through. Then because I had such a complex travel history it took the counter officer some time to review it and asked me to "take a seat". I was entirely cooperative and gave maybe more information than I needed to with hindsight. But I thought I want to be friendly, credible and likable rather than evasive and therefore lack credibility. I felt I was more likely to have a better chance of leniency if I was honest and forthcoming with the situation about the past and also my intentions for the future. At the counter, I was asked several questions about my intentions in Canada. I felt that was positive aspect, as it felt like they were open to giving me a "second chance".

At the end of the day, I was briefly introduced to a senior officer (supervisor?) who I asked "are you the Minister's Delegate?" and he said yes. I was not interviewed by him, just introduced and told I could enter but that I would be called back at some date in the future to present my case. He gave me his contact details and said I should inform him if I changed address.