Faster Removals for Three Inadmissibility Types

Summary#

The final rule titled Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations lets certain officials make removal decisions at the border in three specific, simpler types of inadmissibility cases. It came into force on May 22, 2024, and aims to speed up removals and reduce referrals to courtroom-style admissibility hearings.

What it does#

• Transfers the authority to issue removal orders from the Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to the Minister’s Delegate (MD) (officials who work for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)) for three narrow situations:
  • misrepresenting visa-exempt status on an electronic travel authorization (eTA) application;
  • failing to submit to a required immigration medical examination; and
  • failing to appear for examination at a designated port of entry.
• Clarifies that if a person has a refugee protection claim that is found eligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division, the applicable removal order for the medical-exam and port-of-entry non‑compliance cases will be a departure order (which generally allows departure within 30 days and does not require authorization to return).
• Confirms these changes come into force on the day the regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II (effective May 22, 2024).

Who's affected#

• Travellers who apply for an eTA, especially those whose eTA applications contain false information about visa-exempt status.
• People asked to complete an immigration medical exam who do not do so.
• People who try to avoid being examined at a designated port of entry.
• The CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, because they will change how some inadmissibility cases are handled at the border.
• Anyone with a refugee claim: the rule preserves existing protections for eligible refugee claimants in certain cases.
• If it is unclear who is affected in a specific case (for example, people who enter between ports of entry), those cases will continue to go to the ID.

Why it matters#

• It aims to make border enforcement faster and cheaper by allowing border officials to issue and enforce removal orders on the spot in straightforward cases instead of sending people inland for an admissibility hearing.
• That can reduce the number of people brought into Canada for hearings, and may lower the chance of detention and the time people spend in immigration proceedings.
• The government estimated cost avoidance for one-case-per-year examples at about $9,598 for an eTA misrepresentation case and about $76,708 for a port-of-entry non-appearance case over a 10‑year period. These are illustrative figures, not guarantees of total savings.
• The change does not alter the substance of inadmissibility rules (who is inadmissible) or the right to seek judicial review at the Federal Court; it only changes which official issues the removal order in the specified situations.
• Some stakeholders raised concerns during consultation about complexity and fairness in certain misrepresentation or medical cases. The government decided to proceed while keeping the scope limited to the three specific scenarios.