Minister’s Delegate to Issue Removal Orders

Summary#

This is a proposed change to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that would let a decision-maker from the Canada Border Services Agency (a “Minister’s Delegate”) issue removal orders in three relatively simple inadmissibility cases instead of sending them to the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board for a hearing. The change is a proposal (not yet law) published on November 18, 2023, and the public had 30 days to comment after publication.

What it does#

• Moves responsibility for deciding and ordering removal in three specific, simpler cases from the Immigration Division (ID) to the Minister’s Delegate (MD):
  • Misrepresenting visa-exempt status on an electronic travel authorization (eTA) application.
  • Failing to appear for a required medical examination.
  • Failing to appear for examination at a designated port of entry.
• Keeps the underlying rules about who is inadmissible the same. This change only changes which official makes the decision.
• Says that if someone has applied for refugee protection and their claim is still eligible, the applicable removal order in these cases would be a departure order (a person must leave within 30 days), rather than an exclusion order.
• Notes the proposed regulations would come into force on the day they are published in Canada Gazette, Part II (if and when they become final).

Who's affected#

• People most directly affected are foreign nationals found inadmissible for one of the three specific reasons listed above.
• The change affects how the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) staff, and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) handle these files day to day.
• Travellers and people who work or volunteer in health or child care, or who must have medical screening as part of their entry process, might notice the practical effects.
• The source says statistics for some of these cases (especially eTA misrepresentation) are not readily available, so the scale of impact is unclear.

Why it matters#

• Speed: Cases of simple misrepresentation or failure to appear would be decided faster at the border, rather than after a full admissibility hearing inland. That means removal orders can be issued more quickly.
• Detention and costs: Faster decisions at ports of entry could reduce how often people are brought into Canada for hearings and reduce the chance they are detained. The government estimated cost avoidance for one case per year over 10 years at $9,598 for an eTA misrepresentation case and $76,708 for a failure-to-appear at a port of entry case.
• Border integrity: The government argues quicker handling at the point of entry protects the border and prevents people from entering Canada only to be returned later after a hearing.
• Rights and review: The proposal does not remove legal recourse. The notice explains people can still seek judicial review at the Federal Court, and some visa-holders retain an appeal right to the Immigration Appeal Division.