Inadmissibility Due to Non-Compliance with the Act

Individuals can be inadmissible to Canada for numerous reasons, including criminality, misrepresentation, medical issues, and non-compliance with Canadian immigration legislation.  This latter reason, non-compliance with the Canadian immigration legislation, can seem extremely vague.  Fortunately, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Manual contains a list of the different frequently used reasons for declaring someone inadmissible for non-compliance with the Act.

They are:

  • Entering Canada to remain on a permanent basis without first obtaining a permanent resident visa.
  • Entering Canada to remain on a temporary basis without first obtaining a temporary resident visa.
  • Entering Canada to study without first obtaining a study permit.
  • Entering Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit.
  • Not answering questions truthfully or producing required relevant documents.
  • Not submitting to a medical examination.
  • Not holding a medical certificate that is based on the last medical examination.
  • Not holding the required documents to enter Canada.
  • Not establishing that the person will live Canada by the end of the authorized period.
  • Where a person is subject to an enforced removal, returning to Canada without authorization.
  • Working without authorization.
  • Studying without authorization.
  • Not leaving Canada at the end of the authorized period.
  • Not reporting to a port of entry examination without delay.
  • Being a permanent resident and not complying with the residency requirement.

Given all this, you might wonder how it is that more people aren’t declared inadmissible to Canada.  The reason is that immigration officers have the discretionary power to decide whether or not to write what is known as an A44(1) inadmissibility report.  In cases where Citizenship and Immigration Canada or the Canada Border Services Agency does not intend to formally remove someone from Canada, officers can advise an individual to simply return at a later date with additional information, or, in the case of individuals who are trying to enter Canada, simply ask them to voluntarily withdraw their attempt to enter Canada, and try again later.

The relevant factors in determining whether to formally render someone inadmissible to Canada are:

  • Is the person concerned a permanent resident or a foreign national?
  • Is the person already the subject of a removal order?
  • Is the person already the subject of a separate inadmissibility report incorporating allegations
    that will likely result in a removal order?
  • Is the officer satisfied that the person is, or soon will be, leaving Canada? And in such a case,
    is the imposition of a future requirement to obtain consent to return warranted?
  • Is there a record of the person having previously contravened immigration legislation?
  • Was the non-compliance unintentional or excusable for a valid reason?
  • Has the person now been fully counselled on the topic of their inadmissibility? And is the
    officer satisfied that the person now understands what is required in future to overcome their
    inadmissibility?
  • Is there any reason to believe that, after having previously been counselled on the topic of
    their inadmissibility, the person simply chose to ignore that counselling?
  • Has the person been cooperative?
  • Is there any evidence of misrepresentation?
  • Has the person applied for restoration of status, and does the person appear to be eligible?
  • Has a temporary resident permit been authorized?
  • How long has the person been in Canada?
  • Has the person been a permanent resident of Canada since childhood?
  • Was the permanent resident an adult at the time of admission to Canada?
  • How long has the permanent resident resided in Canada after the date of admission?
  • Are family members in Canada emotionally or financially dependent on the permanent
    resident? Are all extended family members in Canada?
  • Are there any special circumstances in the likely country of removal, such as civil war or a
    major natural disaster?
  • Is the permanent resident financially self-supporting or employed? Does the person possess a
    marketable trade or skill?
  • Has the permanent resident made efforts to establish themselves in Canada
  • Is there any evidence of community involvement? Has the permanent resident received social
    assistance?
  • Has the permanent resident been cooperative and forthcoming with information?
  • Has a warning letter been previously issued?
  • Does the permanent resident accept responsibility for their actions?
  • Is the permanent resident remorseful, or has the person supplied any necessary
    documentation requested by an officer?

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *