Faster removals for simple inadmissibility cases

Summary#

This is a proposed change published in the Canada Gazette on November 18, 2023. The Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations would let the Canada Border Services Agency (through a Minister’s Delegate) handle three straightforward inadmissibility cases at the border instead of referring them to the Immigration Division for a hearing. The goal is faster removal decisions and fewer inland hearings.

What it does#

• Moves decision-making power from the Immigration Division (ID) to the Minister’s Delegate (MD) for three specific situations:
  • Misrepresenting visa-exempt status when applying for an electronic travel authorization (eTA).
  • Failing to appear for a required medical examination.
  • Failing to appear for examination at a designated port of entry.
• Clarifies the type of removal order that applies when a person who has claimed refugee protection is found eligible: a departure order (rather than an exclusion order) in the listed cases.
• Does not change the underlying inadmissibility grounds themselves. It only changes who issues the removal order and where the decision can be made.
• The change is proposed (Part I of the Gazette). Comments were invited for 30 days after publication.

Who's affected#

• Foreign nationals who are found inadmissible for one of the three situations above — for example, people who applied for an eTA while not actually visa-exempt, people who refuse a required medical, or travellers who avoid being examined at a port of entry.
• Travellers who use the air eTA system and people required to get immigration medicals (such as some long-stay visitors, workers in certain jobs, or refugee claimants).
• The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) — because the official who reviews reports and issues removal orders changes for these cases.
• The proposal says it does not affect Indigenous groups, and it has no expected impact on businesses.

Why it matters#

• Decisions could be made more quickly at the border. That means fewer people would have to enter Canada for an inland hearing before being removed.
• Faster processing at ports of entry could reduce the number of people held in immigration detention and cut some enforcement costs. The government estimated per-case cost avoidance of about $9,598 for misrepresentation by eTA and $76,708 for failing to appear at a port of entry (figures are expressed as “one case per year over a 10-year period” in the regulatory analysis).
• People affected still have legal options: judicial review at the Federal Court, and in some cases an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division if they hold a permanent resident visa. The proposal does not remove those avenues.
• The change is narrow. It applies only to three specific, relatively simple types of inadmissibility and does not alter the facts that make someone inadmissible. If the source is unclear on a detail, that uncertainty is noted in the original regulatory text.